This makes sense to me.
I would have no issue in redefining our notion of the peg
This makes sense to me.
I think it is better to discuss it here than in a flame thread:
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.
Why this if spread on exchanges are set to <1% SAF ?
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
- use limited fund to deploy from 5% to <=1% SAF, for example at 1%, 2.5%, 5% simultaneously or sequentially from high to low
- observe how fast it is broken,
- commit most of our T1 fund to where the selling stops
- replenish T1 with existing T4 and NSR sales, the amount is limited, approximately equal to that lost in the first 2 steps
- do step 1 again after some interval or trigger
- until the spread is not broken again.
Isn’t this a better path ?
Very strange, who tells Nu will beat USD’s liquidity? Is there any single of nushareholder planned to to it?
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.
Would you have the motion that points to this?
Everything is stated below:
… 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
Not sure what to make of the 29% SDD.
Which motion are u talking about?
You imply that the motiom did not pass in reality?
The one I quoted above that quote, f99ddf406a32d39be7d614c13dc1ce63c96e4003.
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!
- Go to http://blockexplorer.nu
- Choose “Motions” in the menu.
- Press the button “Successful Motions”.
- Search for
According to these 2 motions we need to replenish the buy side 1), raise rates 2) and sell nsrs 3)z
replenishing is being done by sending reserves btcs to liquidity pools.
raising rates is being done
where are we?
Isn t there a motion that says we disregard sdd for motion passing?
There are some other suggestions posted that I haven’t had time to evaluate.
This seems relevant, but I don’t know exactly what it does.
This is relevant:
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.
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.
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.
me too, completely pointless.
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.
I counter with this:
We need to implement a way to reduce NBT liabilities - as in reduce NBT. This needs to be first priority.
- Stop park rates
- Stop diluting NSR
- Pay hard BTC to make a hard fork
your plan is to just hard fork the liabilities away?
No. Nu still has liabilities. Every NBT in someone’s hand besides Nu is a liability. These don’t go away with a hard fork.
Hard fork enables Nu to have a greater - better definable - income stream.
It will cost people to use and hold Nu. Myself included.
This is why i think it’s not a great plan… [Withdrawn] Make Firing and Replacing Incompetent Liquidity Providers Our Top Priority