[Draft] motion to increase the percentage of reserves

[masterOfDisaster]

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.

[Nagalim]

100% of 700k * 0.5% velocity = $35,000. I highly doubt the NSR market can support $35k per week.

[zoro]

I am very pleased to read all of you guys. In this space no one and no opinion is worthless.
Lets be careful with our expressions and lets continue…

[Cybnate]

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%).

[tomjoad]

I highly doubt the NSR market can support $35k per week.

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.

[Chronos]

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.

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.

[masterOfDisaster]

There’s meat at @Sabreiib’s criticism!
But I don’t like the tone either.

@Sabreiib, you’ll find more listeners to your contributions, which are helpful.more oft than not, if your tone doesn’t ruin it.

…I have a similar problem, but in my case it’s text walls and no personal attacks that shy people away

[masterOfDisaster]

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

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…

So far, NBT holders have paid mostly, and Tier 6 (new NSR) hasn’t been used much in this crisis.

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.