Get NuBits' liquidity flowing

teek 2016-06-09 16:01:44 UTC #26

me too, completely pointless.

Dhume 2016-06-09 16:10:01 UTC #27

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 2016-06-09 18:29:14 UTC #28

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
Wait

Park Rate Voting

teek 2016-06-09 20:21:24 UTC #29

your plan is to just hard fork the liabilities away?

nmei 2016-06-09 20:23:52 UTC #30

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.

teek 2016-06-09 20:27:23 UTC #31

This is why i think it’s not a great plan… [Withdrawn] Make Firing and Replacing Incompetent Liquidity Providers Our Top Priority

nmei 2016-06-09 20:29:40 UTC #32

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.

teek 2016-06-09 20:36:43 UTC #33

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

nmei 2016-06-09 20:41:07 UTC #34

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.

teek 2016-06-09 20:44:23 UTC #35

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.

nmei 2016-06-09 20:50:04 UTC #36

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.

teek 2016-06-09 20:53:18 UTC #37

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

nmei 2016-06-09 21:12:41 UTC #38

You’re going to have to explain/show this to me…

You discuss equity swap…but what about keep the stream flowing.

teek 2016-06-09 21:15:14 UTC #39

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?

nmei 2016-06-09 21:15:59 UTC #40

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.

teek 2016-06-09 21:22:05 UTC #41

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.

teek 2016-06-09 21:24:20 UTC #42

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)

crypto_coiner 2016-06-10 03:16:10 UTC #43

absolutely

mhps 2016-06-10 14:41:01 UTC #44

A big fraction of world economy in builds on a currency pegged to the USD that floats up and down by 10+% (peak-peak) since 2010. I am talking about CNY/USD. The peg is continuously adjust (everyday) according to economic and market conditions. It is still a peg as People’s Bank of China sets the rate and manages the peg. Traders and import export merchants and users in general know about the floating charactor of the peg and deal with it. The key is that the floating charactor of the peg is known. On the other hand CDN/USD could have smaller fluctuation but the Canadian Dollar is not a pegged currency.

Confucius 2016-06-10 15:05:16 UTC #45

We need to make solvency a higher priority than liquidity. If we’re losing on every transaction and every market swing, we don’t have a liquidity problem, we have a solvency problem, and liquidity only accelerates the problem.