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.
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This is why i think it’s not a great plan… [Withdrawn] Make Firing and Replacing Incompetent Liquidity Providers Our Top Priority
It isn’t involuntary - it is up for a motion vote. I have a lot at stake actually.
And it doesn’t eliminate liability, but yes it reduces it.
It is ultimately a way to raise funds for Nu. We have been discussing raising the TX fee for a long time.
I actually hope it would be dynamic - up for vote like parking rates. So if we see it isn’t working we could put it to 0% if we wanted.
a dynamic fee i agree is fine, but not additional inflation, on top of inflation.
if we need a dynamic fee for some mechanical reason (such as block capacity) etc. totally OK.
hidden inflation like this is the same as breaking the peg.
the underlying is already inflating like crazy… If you read that last web bot report apparently Nu’s liabilities will be worth a few oz’s of gold / a few bitcoins soon 
I disagree. On an exchange - if you never withdraw - you will never see this.
Nu is not out of the reserve mode yet. Nu needs a way of making revenue. It is a cost for service.
And I believe Nu needs to burn some NBT to reduce the amount in circulation.
This is why people look in on and Nu and call it a scam.
Just because it’s easy doesn’t mean its right… We are already pegged to an inflationary asset. Our liabilities shrink with time, this is by design. You want to add extra inflation for no other reason than we need money, and it’s easy. Correct me if i’m wrong?
Nu needs revenue i agree. This is not legitimate revenue.
I also agree NBT needs to be burned.
If Nu always held BTC or $$$ and never had to compensate for NBT - this would be true. But Nu provides a liquidity service.
As always - if you don’t like something. Saying its wrong is fine, but please propose an alternate.
I believe I’ve demonstrated I’m willing to change.
it is true now…
It costs shareholders less to defend the peg today than it did yesterday…
I have started a discussion on one piece of the solution here: Protocol Level Burning of NBT in Exchange for NSR at Dynamic Rate Similar to Park Rates / Voting
You’re going to have to explain/show this to me…
You discuss equity swap…but what about keep the stream flowing.
unfortunately as i said it is only a piece of the solution…
i personally think it’s a big piece though…
which part did you want explained?
This one:
I know you say basic economics because the $ is worth less. But given experiences as an LP - it is a loosing game without being compensated by Nu.
The underlying asset we are pegged to is inflationary. Every day it is worth less. Therefore our liabilities every day cost us a little less.
The idea is that we are supposed to be backing NBT with NSR which is supposed to appreciate in the good times and fall in times of need. Still til now, i don’t even see any NSR sold in this crisis.
These are supposed to be opposing forces.
The compensation is for providing a service, i am not sure how that ties into this? No one is going to take on risk for free…
(LP’s are not supposed to make money off of trades)