sorry, loose language. You don’t need to burn nsr, just nubits. For nsr, burning is a substitute for dividends. Dividends work just as well. For nubits you absolutely need burning.
To be clear you need to issue new nsr to the custodian. The custodian then sells the nsr for nubits. And burns the nubits.
If you do this, nsr become backing for nubits. In central bank language, this is called an open market operation.
As long as you issue nubits in conservative quantities and burn liberally when the price of nsr falls, a peg could be sustained indefinitely.
Yes, I planned to write about the parking system later, but since you ask I’ll just cover it here.
In my view, interest rates should be universal across nubits. The parking system destabilizes nubits, serves no useful purpose, and should be abolished.
Parking creates a form of asset-liability mismatch, known as maturity mismatch or term mismatch. Term mismatch plays an important role in the collapse of fixed exchange rate regimes, e.g. the Asian Financial Crisis.
The value of assets in the nubits system are predictable in the short-term, but highly unpredictable over a longer time horizon. The debt structure of Nubits should match its asset structure.
Nubits should only issue short-term debt. The option of purchasing long-term debt by parking nubits should be taken off the table.
Since negative interest rates encourage Nubits holders to sell their Nubits for USD at parity now, they effectively allow shareholders to exercise a call option on short-term debt commitments. Prudent exercise of this call option would prevent the system from ever becoming overleveraged. The parking system allows Nubits holders to evade the call option. If a significant fraction of Nubits are parked, nushares holders could lose control of the debt to equity ratio in the system. In the face of an adverse price shock, this may lead to insolvency and a collapse of the peg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset%E2%80%93liability_mismatch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_option
I don’t think issuance of an inflation-adjusted currency makes sense. In order for the Nubits system to be profitable for shareholders, we need a high velocity of txns in Nubits that can be milked for txn fee income. In short, we want to attract spenders to Nubits not savers. Ideally, savers should invest in nushares as part of a diversified portfolio.
It makes much more business sense to issue a currency with a relatively high inflation rate like the Chinese Yuan. Inflation means seignorage revenue for shareholders. This is the other possible source of income besides txn fees.
How do you see this solution improving on the current NBT-for-NSR burning proposal offered by Jordan, where burn rates are voted on by shareholders? Isn’t the final outcome essentially the same (increased NSR, decreased NBT), except with Jordan’s proposal the solution is built directly into the protocol (as opposed to trusting a custodian to burn the required amount of NBT)?
I disagree. When I deposit my money with 1-3% interest, I can’t use it at my will until I take it back.
This is meaningless, what I want is a good money which is of constant buy power and ready for spend at any time. Who gives “ Federal Reserve” the power to dilute my money? I get my salary because my hard work in the past, my work was worthy of a certain buying power, if I just hoard my money, its value should neither increase nor decrease. I do nothing, so nothing should happen to my money, why should I get punished when I do nothing?
By universal do you mean fixed? If so, then this creates the Impossible Trilemma that prevents a currency from simultaneously achieving a peg to a second currency (in this case the USD), free capital flow, and fixed interest rates (monetary policy). The Nu network must have the ability to dynamically adjust parking rates in response to changing external conditions. Far from serving no useful purpose, parking is essential for Nubits’ survival.
I mean that you never want people to commit to keep money just sitting in nubits. It is costly to back nubits and the space should be reserved for users that are actively doing txns and generating txn fee revenue. Parking incentivizes people to do the exact opposite of what shareholders would like them to.
The reason this seems counterintuitive is because it is atypical. Normally a business investment may take years to generate a return, so the business knows it will have money 5 years from now, but is much less certain of its revenue next year. The business is willing to pay a premium to borrow for five years without having to worry about the creditor calling in the money.
Nubits is the opposite case. The system’s ability to repay USD tomorrow is relatively certain, but extremely unpredictable one year down the road. A comparable example is a business that wants an option to call in a bond before it matures. Say that your investment prospects have declined relative to prior expectations, but you promised to borrow for term of five years paying interest each year. You would like to be able to repay the bond early rather than just sit on cash and pay interest. You can do this if the bond has a call option allowing for early repayment.
Negative interest rates operate like a call option as well. You can say, hey nubits depositor I’m not sure if I will still be able to repay you next year, so I’d prefer to pay you back now. The nubits depositor could refuse. However, if we have negative interest rates we can say, either I pay you back $1 now or $0.90 next year, your choice. Essentially you can compel people to take leverage out of the system and prevent unsustainable accumulation of debt.
To sustain a peg in all possible market conditions you need interest rates to vary freely. Freicoin implements negative interest rates at a uniform rate. This is not the same thing at all.
Negative interest rates are only applied in extreme boom scenarios when nubits are too popular. This would almost certainly be a transient scenario. Think bubble collapse leading to flight from the other cryptos. We cannot accommodate all that money coming in at once without assuming excessive risk when it tries to leave.
Negative interest rates are used to pop the bubble before it becomes a threat.
The alternative to transient negative interest rates is to either
a) issue more nubits than the system can sustain, allowing the bubble to inflate, and risking a break in the peg when the excess inflows try to leave the system.
b) let nubits appreciate and break the peg right away
Surely the discussed burn mechanism has the same overall effect as a negative park rate?
Similar to @Ben, I am not an economist but I am reading this discourse with interest and trying to understand.
It seems that there are many users here who properly know these potential situations so can effectively ‘feel’ what would happen if any parameter was tweaked.
I’m not quite there yet, but hope to arrive sometime. In the meantime, please excuse occasional misunderstandings or dumb questions.
Benjamin, i strongly disagree with you. If we say “we pay 0.9$ next year or next several year”, our reputation ruined!
The key of Nu’s success, is the willingness of people holding it, if I leave 10000 NBT to my son as heritage, and he can buy as many goods as I can today when he retires, the good money dream comes true.
[quote]“Jobs was furious. “I’m sick of dealing with these stupid companies like Motorola,” he told Tony Fadell and others at one of the iPod product review meetings. “Let’s do it ourselves.” He had noticed something odd about the cell phones on the market: They all stank, just like portable music players used to. “We would sit around talking about how much we hated our phones,” he recalled. “They were way too complicated. They had features nobody could figure out, including the address book. It was just Byzantine.” George Riley, an outside lawyer for Apple, remembers sitting at meetings to go over legal issues, and Jobs would get bored, grab Riley’s mobile phone, and start pointing out all the ways it was “brain-dead.” So Jobs and his team became excited about the prospect of building a phone that they would want to use. “That’s the best motivator of all,” Jobs later said.”
From: Walter Isaacson. “Steve Jobs”。 iBooks.
FIAT is bad money because FED is stealing us by inflation, FED is thief, they dilute us when we do nothing with a ridiculous excuse: to incentive the economics, look, economics had been ruined in 2008 by their absurd theory.
WTF shall we follow the bad FIAT? And BTC, is not money at all for its volatility for its STUPID supply.
ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD SUCK! IT’S TIME FOR US TO INVENT A REAL GOOD MONEY!
The actual interest rate you pay back over a year is an average of interest rates over the entire year. I doubt that interest rates would ever remain negative over a prolonged period, so you would probably never need to pay back only $0.90 in practice. Perhaps I should simulate this to better explain what I mean.
Remember that the absence of negative interest rates puts the entire system at risk. We should not make promises we may not be able to keep. I’d rather be given a choice of being paid back $1 now or $0.90 next year than have someone promise me a $1 next year and then go on to lose my entire investment.
No. Burning nubits when the price is already above $1 will cause the price to rise even further, abandoning the commitment to maintain a peg.
You can’t promise to maintain a peg at all times and also promise to always keep interest rates greater than 0.
This is called the impossible trinity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_trinity
The impossible trinity says the following. You can only ever achieve 2 out of the following three goals:
maintain a peg
maintain some control over the interest rate
maintain free markets
If you promise to do all three, then you will inevitably have to break your promise. It’s the economics equivalent of selling a perpetual motion machine.
If you want to sustain a peg, you have to commit to using whatever interest rates are necessary to achieve this goal.
That’s true, however, I’d like to point out that there is extremely low likelihood of NBT price ever rising above $1. Potential buyers would expect the next custodial grant to push price back to $1, so nearly everyone would refuse to buy at a premium. Meanwhile, NBT holders would sell at any premium, in anticipation of the next custodial grant. Thus, the “prophecy” of upside stability of the peg is self-fulfilling.
Of course, the same cannot be said for prices below $1, because increasing NBT value is not as simple as issuing a new custodial grant.
[quote]The impossible trinity says the following. You can only ever achieve 2 out of the following three goals:
maintain a peg
maintain some control over the interest rate
maintain free markets
Benjamin, I’ve carefully read the “impossible trinity”, this theory is good, and I wonder why would you assume Nu has to maintain some control over interest rate?
Nu, as a DAC, has no sovereign monetary policy at all! Nu is completely and 100% dependend on free market, it is the free market determine interest level and NBT circulation.
I think you’ve misunderstood Nu: if free market wanna Nu die, we die, if free market wanna us issue trillions of NBT, we follow. Nu, and other cryptos, just combine a whole ecosystem, which has been well demonstrated by Hayek in 1976.
The impossible trinity just demonstrates how evil the sovereign policy is and how these countries are opposed to free market! That’s why Friedrich Hayek said a country’s monetary monopoly is against free market theory.
Have you read Hayek’s “The denationalization of Money”? I suggest you careful read it if you haven’t. Why denationalization? denationlization= de sovereign policy, you see Hayek already had the answer in 1970s, and his powerful theory, can easily let most crypto hating economists shut up. Hayek’s enemy, Keynes theory has been bankrupted, it is time to counterattack Keynes’ shitty inflation theory!