[Draft] Buy 1000 NuBits each day

[Phoenix]

I have proposed to place a buy wall at $0.10 and slowly move that up as reserves are accumulated. I am not withdrawing that motion and I still think it is has a good chance of passing. There is another approach we can take to supporting the NuBit price, that may be more popular. Rather than provide liquidity at a pegged price, we let the NBT price float for now, but each day we purchase 1000 NuBits or more. So long as the purchases continue, time will be on our side. It is mathematically certain we will return the NuBit price to $1.00 if we purchase 1000 NuBits each day because we will eventually consume the entire money supply, if necessary. Such a program would be funded by NSR sales. The sales would not be excessive. With NuBits currently selling for 0.30, we would only need to raise $300 USD each day to fund it. Speculators would be attracted to NuBits because, at the present time, they are becoming increasingly scarce, with a money supply set to be cut in half over the course of the next year. So for now, we would pivot to offering a free floating crypto whose scarcity is promised to increase (the rate of decline would be more than 50% in the first year), until the $1.00 target price is met.

This proposal and my other one to place a buy wall at $0.10 are mutually exclusive. However, I am advancing both simultaneously for shareholder consideration because I am confident either motion passing would be much better than nothing happening.

Note that this plan is also dependent on the passage of the motion to temporarily cap the NBT money supply, which currently is getting only about 40% support.

What does everyone think? I intend to advance this as a motion after some discussion.

[Chronos]

What does everyone think? I think this is a funny sentence:

It is mathematically certain we will return the NuBit price to $1.00 if we purchase 1000 NuBits each day because we will eventually consume the entire money supply, if necessary.

Such logic could be used for fantastic proofs. It is also mathematically certain we can raise the price of bitcoin to a million dollars per unit, using a slightly modified system!

[Phoenix]

Such logic could be used for fantastic proofs. It is also mathematically certain we can raise the price of bitcoin to a million dollars per unit, using a slightly modified system!

The important question is whether it would work in our context. What do you think @Chronos? I believe our share price is low because of a lack of commitment to maintaining the value of NuBits. If we can commit to a reasonable plan such as this, I think we are likely to see demand for NBT and NSR rise. That rise in demand and confidence should make the plan comfortably sustainable.

[Chronos]

Thanks for asking my opinion. I think this is too ambitious, and that after a few weeks (or days?) there would be nobody buying $1000 worth of NSR per day, at any price, no matter how much NSR were printed.

I could be wrong. It’s really hard to predict crypto markets, haha!

[woodstockmerkle]

It worked for Mt. Gox – see [The Willy Report] (https://willyreport.wordpress.com/2014/05/25/the-willy-report-proof-of-massive-fraudulent-trading-activity-at-mt-gox-and-how-it-has-affected-the-price-of-bitcoin/ ) … well, it all worked well until it didn’t.

Attainment back to $1.00 is plausible, but I don’t see it as mathematically guaranteed. It depends how much funding can be raised from NSR sales. Investor’s appetite for risk, as well as the depth of their cryptowallet, is finite.

I don’t think that some dilution is the end of the world for Nu. Start-ups often go thru several rounds of funding, and along the way pick up more investors. In other words, one way for Nu to get more exposure, visibility, and brainpower, is to have more shareholders, as well as having some shareholders rotate out (such as the weak hands)

The network effect can be powerful, and the attention Nu is getting due to the recent challenges may in fact be a benefit in the long term.

What is not acceptable, however, is a plan or pathway that results in unbounded dilution. In other words, I’d rather wait for us to formulate a concrete plan that has value beyond transaction fees, and begin to take action on it, then hastily restore the peg only to lose it again, and along with it any more faith the crypto community has in us.

[Dhume]

I see more merit in the 0.10 cent peg plan and raising the peg when reserves exceed 100%. The main issue is how are we going to raise funds? Can’t imagine many people are waiting in line to jump in and buy NSR.

[cryptog]

Rather than provide liquidity at a pegged price, we let the NBT price float for now, but each day we purchase 1000 NuBits or more.

I d prefer this plan over starting the peg from 0.1 USD.

2 reasons:

1. 0.1 USD confuses the marketing message: It is easier to understand that we have failed the peg and that now the peg is floating rather than that we start over from 0.1 USD
2. Selling each day would make NSR much more liquid, and would introduce a NSR/NBT market. It opens opportunities for speculators.

Of course the drawback is that we would need heavy dilution, that I am ok with.

I don’t think that some dilution is the end of the world for Nu. Start-ups often go thru several rounds of funding, and along the way pick up more investors. In other words, one way for Nu to get more exposure, visibility, and brainpower, is to have more shareholders, as well as having some shareholders rotate out (such as the weak hands)

The network effect can be powerful, and the attention Nu is getting due to the recent challenges may in fact be a benefit in the long term.

Recently, I noticed a lot of people relatively have been talking about NuBits. The failure of the peg has brought exposure and attention: a very nice marketing effect, similar to bitcoin’s MtGox failure or Silk Road’s arrests.

What is not acceptable, however, is a plan or pathway that results in unbounded dilution. In other words, I’d rather wait for us to formulate a concrete plan that has value beyond transaction fees, and begin to take action on it, then hastily restore the peg only to lose it again, and along with it any more faith the crypto community has in us.

I second that. I would accept dilution only if we have a solid plan and a solid roadmap. I am not ok with only supporting a peg that we offer for free to hedgers.

[Sentinelrv]

I second that. I would accept dilution only if we have a solid plan and a solid roadmap. I am not ok with only supporting a peg that we offer for free to hedgers.

@cryptog, what do you think of this?

Potential Revenue Model: Liquidity as a Service

What if we were to just call it what it is, our first experiment in pegging which shareholders failed in maintaining. People are trying to create recovery plans to reinstate the peg, all of them costing significant NuShare dilution. @Phoenix (most likely Jordan) said the following... The peg has already been lost, so since the effectiveness of sales are going to be dramatically reduced, shareholders are probably about to embark on a path of unlimited amounts of NuShare dilution in order to s…

If approved, Nu would start providing liquidity as a service to B&C Exchange. Nu would charge for that service however, so B&C would end up paying Nu a certain percentage out of their profits from BlockCredit sales. That regular payment would cover Nu’s liquidity expenses. Liquidity as a service is the only revenue model that I can think of to keep Nu afloat until transaction fees became enough to cover liquidity expenses. This is supposing that we already fixed the peg, converted it into another product, or abandoned it and rebooted US-NBT from scratch.

[cryptog]

If approved, Nu would start providing liquidity as a service to B&C Exchange. Nu would charge for that service however, so B&C would end up paying Nu a certain percentage out of their profits from BlockCredit sales. That regular payment would cover Nu’s liquidity expenses. Liquidity as a service is the only revenue model that I can think of to keep Nu afloat until transaction fees became enough to cover liquidity expenses. This is supposing that we already fixed the peg, converted it into another product, or abandoned it and rebooted US-NBT from scratch.

I am not in favor of waiting to fix the peg until B&C Exchange is released.

I mean both projects are linked and but still they are different.

So I think we should try to recover the peg now.

We can discuss how B&C Exchange and Nu can collaborate when:

• NuBit peg has recovered
• B&C Exchange is released

[crypto_coiner]

I d prefer this plan over starting the peg from 0.1 USD.

likewise

[cryptog]

I think I am ready to give it a try, first for a week or so, once it is put for voting.
We have no choice than to try to raise money with nsr sales in any case.
This strategy does not specify any liquidity provision operations per se: in other words, it only aims at buying back from nbt holders that want to sell, their nubits for 1usd.
In other words, we are aiming at honoring our peg, which is very important to regain confidence.
Assuming that we are successful, we have good chance to get back a nbt close to 1.
In other words, it could open up the possibility for a new way to peg: not by liquidity operations but by natural market forces.