Get NuBits' liquidity flowing

[zoro]

In a nutshell what we can do?
Provide much of liquidity in a nearly stable BTC period
and suspend liquidity in a high volatile BTC period?

[Cybnate]

We can sell NuShares either by auction or on exchange. Several shareholders seem to prefer auctions. On exchange is simpler and possibly faster

We need to increase the sales of NSR for sure. Just wrote a draft, happy to add the auction into it. Will need an auctioneer though and Jordan is not willing.

[Draft] Proposal to regain confidence in peg by increasing NSR sells

Here is a first draft of a motion that is intended to compete with Jordan's motion and the current status-quo. I'm sure there are some items which needs discussion as I just wrote this down quickly lacking proper time. I won't be able to reply in next 20h or so, but will read your comments. If this proposal is deemed a viable alternative for either Jordan's proposal or "doing nothing" I will submit it for voting in next 24h. https://daology.org/u/cybnate/proposals/f1cb1de6279335fb296382b30e2e6…

[crypto_coiner]

Nubits has done quite a nice job, but can’t beat USD liquidity, and it shouldnt try because it will die trying it… trying to keep tight spreads is like saying USNBT can have more liquidity than USD and…sorry to say but I doubt that.

USNBT only can survive if it gives a decentralized liquidity at a reasonable rate.

Tether out there or uphold out there work with 100% liquid reserves, but they’re centralized, the can froze users funds.

So the only reason to use USNBT instead of USD or its alternatives in centralized methods is because this NICHE Market is willing to pay some more spread, but what they get is a DECENTRALIZED STABLE CURRENCY.

This makes sense to me.
I would have no issue in redefining our notion of the peg

[mhps]

I think it is better to discuss it here than in a flame thread:

original post

[Withdrawn] Make Firing and Replacing Incompetent Liquidity Providers Our Top Priority

#Plan

• Figure out appropriate Park Rates and vote for them. Very important! We need them to function. Discuss!
• Create and publish unified attractive advertisement of Park Rates. If required, pass a motion making FLOT pay for the work with remaining Bitcoin funds assuming they haven’t been spent, or pass a grant if sufficient. It may not need to be that fancy, but I’d rather it be worked on by everyone before publishing.
• Set <=1% spread because Park Rates won’t make sense for customers to utilise otherwise.
• Sell NuShares via auction and on exchange. @FLOTNSR
• Push liquidity to NuLagoon Tube.
• Dilute NuShares and sell more.

We have to show that Nu means business.

[Withdrawn] Make Firing and Replacing Incompetent Liquidity Providers Our Top Priority

• Set <=1% spread because Park Rates won’t make sense for customers to utilise otherwise.

I admit I did not understand this before I get feedback from my bitcointalk advertizement of parking

As far as I understand that website, I’d need to BUY these whatevercoins using e.g. my BTC, then after a while I’d have a few more whatevercoins in my whatevercoin wallet. How is this BTC related or “lending BTC”? The return is denominated not in BTC but in whatevercoins, I need to use their client, their wallet and sell my BTC to get some…

and @Sentinelrv posted his experience. I don’t think the communty and FLOT in general realized this because we all just parked our own nubits.

[Withdrawn] Make Firing and Replacing Incompetent Liquidity Providers Our Top Priority

• Push liquidity to NuLagoon Tube.

Why this if spread on exchanges are set to <1% SAF ?

[Withdrawn] Make Firing and Replacing Incompetent Liquidity Providers Our Top Priority

• Dilute NuShares and sell more.

I have to know the details. Jordan’s idea of extracting value from NSR as if there is no tomorrow may scare most investors away permanently. We have been discussing gradually closing the spread using existing T4 and NSR sales. Since there seems to be an agreement that on-off tight peg is still very effective, we can for example

1. use limited fund to deploy from 5% to <=1% SAF, for example at 1%, 2.5%, 5% simultaneously or sequentially from high to low
2. observe how fast it is broken,
3. commit most of our T1 fund to where the selling stops
4. replenish T1 with existing T4 and NSR sales, the amount is limited, approximately equal to that lost in the first 2 steps
5. do step 1 again after some interval or trigger
6. until the spread is not broken again.

Isn’t this a better path ?

[Sabreiib]

Nubits has done quite a nice job, but can’t beat USD liquidity, and it shouldnt try because it will die trying it… trying to keep tight spreads is like saying USNBT can have more liquidity than USD and…sorry to say but I doubt that.

Very strange, who tells Nu will beat USD’s liquidity? Is there any single of nushareholder planned to to it?

[jooize]

I feel regret over not acting quicker with a large transaction to refill buy-side liquidity as now appears to me having had a better chance of avoiding this situation (hindsight of course, and not obviously the case). I began waiting for NuLagoon Tube to adjust its spread (which didn’t take long, thank you!), then other ideas were presented that I felt compelled to consider, and struggle in making a decision from this point.

The Bitcoins FLOT holds belong to NuBit holders. Only legitimate reason to withhold them may be to better serve more NuBit holders, but that is not mandated. FLOT is supposed to provide Tier 4 funds when liquidity balance in the network is below 40% on either side.

Selling NuShares have all along been the consensus plan for peg support. That shouldn’t come as a surprise.

I think at this point limiting or using all Tier 4 funds for liquidity will not produce much different results.

I will act by what I understand is expected according to NuLaw, the way a DAO should function.

If shareholders wish to end NuShare sales in order to spare the power structure until a new plan is constructed, they need to pass such a motion.

Actions by consensus is a big part of what makes Nu valuable, albeit not monetarily profitable right now.

I have created and signed a transaction for 25.74036791 BTC to NuLagoon Tube.

[cryptog]

FLOT is supposed to provide Tier 4 funds when liquidity balance in the network is below 40% on either side.

Would you have the motion that points to this?

Everything is stated below:

• Tier 4 Fund Management Discussion
• [Passed] NSR sale and NBT burn

… NuLaw was not kept by FLOT…
Will sign your tx.

So the question is why FLOT did not keep the rules?
2 possible reasons:

• the motion were written 6 months and 1 year ago. It is difficult to remember everything.
  Some kind of examiners or compliance officers are needed

• the decrease of the buy side happened too fast. Basically the rise of bitcoin was too sharp. We could not raise the parking rates fast enough. We could not sell nsrs fast enough. We need a mechanism that can raise rates very quickly as well as a mechanism that can unlock funding from nsr sales very quickly.
  Perhaps a continuous nsr/nbt conversion mechanism as advocated by @Nagalim is the solution

This combination of 2 things made FLOT try to cope with the sudden loss of buy side liquidity by basically discouraging the sell of nubits by raising the spread.

Edit: added info

[jooize]

Tier 4 Fund Management Discussion

Rules for use of BTC or other tier 4 buy side funds:FLOT will be bound by the same rules established by shareholder motion to conduct share buybacks in cooperation with @NSRBuyback. BTC will be used to purchase currency when a specific currency’s buy side funds falls below 40% of total liquidity in tiers 1, 2 and 3 for that currency.

Tier 4 Fund Management Discussion

The preceding should be interpreted as guidelines, and FLOT may exercise discretion.

Tier 4 Fund Management Discussion

Hi @jooize Here are the details for the Motion Vote on f99ddf406a32d39be7d614c13dc1ce63c96e4003: f99ddf406a32d39be7d614c13dc1ce63c96e4003 Blocks: 5077 (50.770000%) Share Days: 1344682675 (29.219474%)

Not sure what to make of the 29% SDD.

[cryptog]

29% SDD.

Which motion are u talking about?
You imply that the motiom did not pass in reality?

Edit: add

[jooize]

The one I quoted above that quote, f99ddf406a32d39be7d614c13dc1ce63c96e4003.

You imply that the motiom did not pass in reality?

That’s what it might mean, yes. I don’t know the rules of Share Days Destroyed (SDD) for motions, or how to check what its highest point was using NuExplorer.

Never mind. It passed!

1. Go to http://blockexplorer.nu
2. Choose “Motions” in the menu.
3. Press the button “Successful Motions”.
4. Search for f99ddf406a32d39be7d614c13dc1ce63c96e4003.

[cryptog]

According to these 2 motions we need to replenish the buy side 1), raise rates 2) and sell nsrs 3)z

1. replenishing is being done by sending reserves btcs to liquidity pools.

2. raising rates is being done

3. where are we?

[cryptog]

Isn t there a motion that says we disregard sdd for motion passing?

[jooize]

3. where are we?

• Advertisement of Park Rates.
• NuShare sales need an executor. I’ve volunteered but need guidance.

There are some other suggestions posted that I haven’t had time to evaluate.

Isn t there a motion that says we disregard sdd for motion passing?

This seems relevant, but I don’t know exactly what it does.

[Passed] Motion proposal to give all votes the same weight

In the current protocol some votes are weighted by the share days destroyed by the minter. That means a vote cast by an old output will have more weight than a recent output. And a vote cast by an output with a lot of shares will also have more weight than a smaller output. There are 2 problems: Shareholders who (intentionally or not) do not mint for a while will have a bigger impact on the vote when they start minting again. This can cause sudden changes in the result of some votes (notabl…

[cryptog]

This seems relevant, but I don’t know exactly what it does.

This is relevant:

[Passed] Motion proposal to give all votes the same weight

After protocol V06 they will only require 50% of the vote counts.

We are running 2.0.3 version. So I understand that we disregard sdd for votes passing now.
I believe that when the motion of jordan lee passed 1y ago, we were running a version higher than v.0.6.
So I think that motion was passed even if sdd was lower than 50% at that time.

[Dhume]

Let me ask you this, if people are unwilling to buy and park Nubits when we have a 0.95 cent peg (weakened peg). Do you really think they will buy and park Nubits when there is no peg left and Nubits go into free float mode? Same goes for NSR, when Nubits are in free float we’re essentially bankrupt which is far harder to salvage then just a weakened peg. Putting up all that we have at a 1% spread will mean our funds run out within the day and Nubit go into free float of this I’m sure.

We can wither the halving but we’ll have to be conservative and smart about how we do it. Don’t get me wrong I think @JordanLee’s liquidity engine can work but only with a way higher market cap and a de-facto believe in our product that speculators will be willing to buy any Nubits below 99/98 cents, that’s is not the current situation and I don’t believe the theory will work at this time. I’m typing up an alternative plan right now.

[jooize]

I think a $0.95 peg is pointless. I consider it dishonest marketing image protection. Once customers actually read up on what is going on, they’ll have more respect for Nu if we’re not trying to hide our liquidity crisis.

I encourage everyone to convince me otherwise.

A $0.95 peg works against the interest of those who wish to park. I guess one could argue that it discourages current customers from exiting, and higher Park Rates could adjust for the 5 cents per NuBit.

Looking forward to reading your ideas.

[teek]

me too, completely pointless.

[Dhume]

If you had to choose what would you choose a 0.95 peg or no peg at all? Putting all funds at 1% will mean they run out before nightfall. I really cannot fathom the logic of how having no peg is desirable to a 0.95 peg.

[nmei]

I counter with this:

[Withdrawn] Make Firing and Replacing Incompetent Liquidity Providers Our Top Priority

@creon you are brilliant. The only thing I would change is 0.25 guaranteed annual interest rate on protocol level so parking does not seem like a punishment.

We need to implement a way to reduce NBT liabilities - as in reduce NBT. This needs to be first priority.

1. Stop park rates
2. Stop diluting NSR
3. Pay hard BTC to make a hard fork
4. Wait

[teek]

your plan is to just hard fork the liabilities away?