@tomjoad, you are a very ridiculous person, I pointed out Nu’s weakness since as early as 2014, and the fact has proved my query about Nu’s mechanism.
If pointing out the weakness of Nu, minting on v4.0 protocol and telling the truth of B&C’s NBT fund in danger are all threatening activities. I have nothing to say.
And for 60% BKS shareholders, to pick a stable currency is a important work, they should deny NBT if NBT has severe problem because B&C’s business will be disturbed by crash of NBT.
And I’ll vote to fire the person like you with ZERO accounting knowledge.
As all BlockShareholders are eligible to do, I would encourage you to submit a motion for voting. I’m surprised you haven’t yet given your strong beliefs.
BTW, Nu is not the “father peershare” while other peershares are “son peershares”. They should be and can be operated independently,
You guys have lost 700,000 NBT in 1.5 years, and no one is responsible for that loss? In real world, somebody has to go while in crypto world you even won’t listen criticize and apologize.
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?
@Sabreiib we take pride in being open and free of censorship here in this forum. You are free to articulate any vision you have for NuBits or B&C Exchange here, no matter how controversial or unpopular. This is a workspace for us. We discuss plans and negotiate courses of action that will improve the value of NuBits and B&C Exchange. Part of the improvement process is to identify and define problems so that we can find solutions.
However, personal attacks such as what I have quoted here are unacceptable. Aimless attacks and constant negative dribble are not welcome here. We have worked hard to create a respectful and constructive workspace. I second @tomjoad’s suggestion that you should propose a motion or two to move things in the direction you feel is best.
If you want it to be 60% after over 2 years I’d be comfortable with that. The 30% thing is just because I think it’s attainable in a reasonable time frame. I am not sure I’m comfortable with a >0.5% increase in reserves per week, which is one of the determining factors of implementation in my opinion.
We need to remember that risk and cost comes with the holding the reserve - otherwise I’d be in favour of 100% reserve until the network is stronger.
30% short term and 60% mid term sounds good.
And we can’t set aside 100% of every NuBits sold. We have to aim lower to start with and increase when a minimum acceptable reserve level has been achieved (e.g. 15%).
I don’t think it can either. How about we place a higher reserve ratio goal, but require it be hit only through increased NBT sales? We should expect a fresh wave of NBT sales whenever BTC enters its next bear cycle. If we hold onto the proceeds from those sales, our reserve ratio will slowly increase up to whatever target we set.
You might find the above writing harsh, but I consider it to be rational. Think of it this way:
The NBT peg is weak
In this circumstance, two parties can pay. Often, it’s some of each:
NBT holders (through poor liquidity and big spread)
NSR holders (through share dilution to raise funds)
So far, NBT holders have paid mostly, and Tier 6 (new NSR) hasn’t been used much in this crisis. @JordanLee has point this out a couple times recently.
But @Sabreiib is indirectly a NBT holder! He is a big shareholder in BKS, which owns NBT.
So of course @Sabreiib prefers NSR holders to pay, instead of NBT holders.
But interestingly, NSR holders have all the power, since they vote on any NSR dilution, and NBT holders have no vote in the matter. So these “threats” are a way to counter that imbalance of power a little bit.
I think people should listen to @Sabreiib, even if his words are uncomfortable. But of course I disagree with the personal attacks.
I wouldn’t want to rely solely on BTC bear cycles, although it’s one of our best short to mid term hopes.
How about we sell NSR the next time NSR have a higher rate - just to increase the reserves?
As opposed to trying to make rates higher by buying back NSR or plummeting the NSR rate by urgently needed sales…
The NSR sale will go on. We follow the “Standard and Core” motion. If NBT can hold their NBT, they will eventually be able to trade them at a tight spread again.
Especially if you consider the plan to increase the reserve.
Dumping 100 million NSR on the market in a short time would do no good.
