Consistent with a shareholder directive to not create any additional NuBits until the peg was restored, the peg was restored from July to September without the use of park rates. NSR sales have clearly emerged as the much more effective tool, although it may not be the cheapest. While I don’t advocate the removal of park rates, it is a fact they haven’t been very important to the network recently, so Nu is already mostly aligned with what you are suggesting here.
This is basically what we do in liquidity operations. We use quite a bit of automation (such as NuBot). We strive to add automation, of course. This has to be done iteratively and it has to be funded.
It is important to point out we restored and initially maintained the peg in 2016 with absolutely zero tier 1 to 4 reserves. All we used was NSR. However, a high reserve does add extra peg security (so long as the reserve isn’t lost, which is a concern). A high reserve also permits liquidity operations a much higher margin for error. We are biulding a 48% tier 1 to tier 4 reserve, which when combined with park rates and NSR sales, is quite high.
The fee for sending NuBits was increased in 2016 five fold, from $0.01 to $0.05. Shareholders have passed a motion to implement a more complex and profitable fee system that can be based on the quantity of funds being sent, as opposed to the size in bytes of the transaction message. All that is needed to implement is the funding to develop it.
I think the rise in fee from 0.01 to 0.05 does this.
Indeed, @jooize and I are having a variety of conversations with exchanges on how to promote trading.
There was a prohibition on new NuBits at the time the peg was abandoned. Only issuing new NuBits when the reserve is met doesn’t make sense, because the best way to acquire the reserve is to sell NuBits.
