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.
Are we under the assumption that our customers understand the inherent risks of our product? The majority of our customers have the expectation the peg can/will fail under pressured circumstances?
Where is the feedback loop from our customers coming from? Bitcointalk?
Itās 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 letās 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.
@tomjoad, you are a very ridiculous person, I pointed out Nuās weakness since as early as 2014, and the fact has proved my query about Nuās mechanism.
If pointing out the weakness of Nu, minting on v4.0 protocol and telling the truth of B&Cās 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&Cās business will be disturbed by crash of NBT.
And Iāll 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. Iām surprised you havenāt yet given your strong beliefs.
BTW, Nu is not the āfather peershareā while other peershares are āson peersharesā. 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 wonāt listen criticize and apologize.
Look @Sabreiib, we do appreciate your insight when itās logical, but you need to cut out the constant negativity and especially the insults you make against shareholders. With all the insults you make, Iām surprised itās taken this long for somebody to tell you off. Itās 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 @tomjoadās suggestion of over two-thirds coverage on all outstanding NuBits. Anything less seems too low after what weāve 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 @tomjoadās 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 Iād be comfortable with that. The 30% thing is just because I think itās attainable in a reasonable time frame. I am not sure Iām comfortable with a >0.5% increase in reserves per week, which is one of the determining factors of implementation in my opinion.