Who tells you 30% is enough, why not 25%? Why not 50%?
Sometimes I believe this community is insane.
When Nu began to work on NBT/BTC pair rather than NBT/USD pair demonstrated by white paper in 2014, I was astonished. BTC pair brings higher risk, while higher risk means higher cost if you wanna eleminate it. This risk is even higher than the exchange fault and government intervene, you need to be succesful at first and then attract government otherwise you die silently!
When Nu believe they can spend BTC proceed as wish, I was really surprised. That’s typical ponzi.
3)When Nu said they can get help from NSR when NBT pegging in danger, I was puzzled. When iphone sales drops, the shareprice of AAPL plumbs, so is the relation of NBT/NSR. If NBT pegging fail, NSR is rubbish, and you plan to rely on it. This NBT/NSR shift should be done when NBT pegging very well, and do it stealthily. But what did you do when NBT pegging good? The opposite direction! the share buy back, you could not be more wrong!
When Jordan said DAO is not a company, I completely understand that seldom of this community has proper common sense of financial management.
You declare you are inventing a newest machine but not comply old newton laws/ thermaldynamics rules.
More people start to think about taking profit and getting into stable value stores? The buy side cannot be much thinner. We get ready to take in cheap nubits in panic sell / bank run. But mostly we just sit out the storm.
We need to accept that the peg only works as long as its effective reserve (including fund and insurance) lasts. So before 100% reserve is attained, we have to accept that the peg is not 100% available. A peg that is not 100% available is still useful as long as the customer know under what condition it will be available.
It’s common sense. But we should make it clear when/under what condition the peg will not be there. The reserve information is already available in buyback calculation so it is audited every week in public.
the buyback calculator is open source and can be run at any time.
We B&C investors are big creditors of Nu, because Jordan bought around 200K NBT, and our B&C dev fund(NBT) is in danger due to the possible failure.
Be careful with your words, I warn you, I can let B&C 4.0 protocol vote decreases to below 40% within 24 hours. I can also make NBT feel difficult on B&C exchange, if Nu can survive to the release of B&C if B&C can be released at all.
You will also find difficult to be voted as a reputed signer if I vote you downwards.
What are the costs of an increased ratio, aside from greater volatility risks in the assets we hold? There is very little marginal cost to increasing the ratio; we are not storing gold bars in a vault that require expensive physical storage.
I would propose a 67% reserve ratio for the next few years, meaning we have over two-thirds coverage on all outstanding NuBits. The reserve should be diversified into the top 5 cryptocurrency assets at any given time to ensure we are protected in the event one collapses in value or has a security issue. The reserve would not be filled to 67% through offering parking rates, but rather gradually approached as we sell more NBT or other assets. As a simple example, if we have 500,000 US-NBT outstanding and $100,000 in reserve, we only have a 20% reserve. If we eventually sold $500,000 worth of CN-NBT and an additional $75,000 worth of US-NBT, we would then have a $675,000 reserve for $1,000,000 worth of liabilities, a 67.5% ratio. The 0.5% excess funds would be used for buybacks on NuShares.
I intend on supporting your motion @masterofDisaster provided the reserve ratio is robust enough, thank you for introducing it.
At the risk of going off-topic, this is an interesting discussion point for shareholders. @Sabreiib is openly threatening to stall progress on B&C Exchange as a hostile shareholder. Presumably, this would damage the value of his BKS holdings, which is against his self-interest.
Game theory would suggest that he will eventually either support B&C Exchange (thereby increasing the value of his BKS investment) or sell his BKS (thereby losing the ability to damage the network). The only other option is that he is creating false threats to scare the market downwards so he can acquire more BKS. Either way, this is a positive design feature of Peershares, even though I doubt any one shareholder will acquire enough BKS to permanently stall the network for their own amusement.
Yea but let’s get along here. We could use your input. You are not an idiot, please commit your intelligence to the project. Everything prior to this has been provocative and interruptive in a good way.
Look @Sabreiib, we do appreciate your insight when it’s logical, but you need to cut out the constant negativity and especially the insults you make against shareholders. With all the insults you make, I’m surprised it’s taken this long for somebody to tell you off. It’s both annoying and disrespectful. It is possible to make your points without resorting to name calling.
Now can we please get back on topic. @Nagalim, I feel a lot more comfortable with @tomjoad’s suggestion of over two-thirds coverage on all outstanding NuBits. Anything less seems too low after what we’ve recently gone through. What do you think?