TL:DR T4 is already taken and dividends are a T5 mechanism.
So Iām flexible with terminology, but you have to understand the monumental task Iām running into here, the very one that you yourself have gotten aggravated by. I am attempting to make language from several different motions, some of which have not passed yet, standardized. The circulating NBT motion that I just put up uses āT4ā to refer to a pool of funds that will be drawn upon for NSR buybacks. The intention of this motion is not only to provide diversification for Nuās reserves, but to provide a fund that we can use to distribute dividends. The PPC reserve should not be sold for NSR without some good cause.
Tier 5 consists of a classical economic mechanism: interest rates. However, interest rates are only half the puzzle. Dividend distributions complete the economic loop, giving T5 the power to stimulate holding NBT during economic depression and shedding liability during economic expansion, the two functions Nu must do to survive.
If Nu held a reserve of BKS, I would consider it a T4 reserve, but there are issues there that we need to think about. Another conversation for another time.
I donāt think this is necessary. I know, I know, itās logically complete. However, the NBT peg makes the NBT:NSR cycle asymmetric. JLās concept is that when the peg starts weighing down we implement park rates to keep it up while we sell NSR. T4 is basically drained at that point. Then, when we get back on our feet again, we refill T4 from NBT sales.
We need a much better mechanism of NBT sales (even if seeded auctions yada yada). We should have someone with a bunch of T3 sell side willing to sell NBT for $1.01 any time.
I agree that BTC going down for an extended period of time is just as dangerous as PPC going down, and neither can be predicted with any reliability.