Obviously this isn’t an easy task and many times it becomes heated and people disagree. I’m neck deep in b&c development, Nu development, personal projects and day to day life so it’s hard to keep up with everything. So I really appreciate all of the people putting forth the effort from pool developers, pool providers, gateways, FLOT, and anyone else working to defend the peg.
There’s surley still a lot of work that needs to be done but we have a lot of really great people involved.
Defenders of the Peg: you guys rock! 
I can’t wait to see Nubits trading above 1M per day…
Were you here January 2015? I think we hit $4 million in trading volume, but that was back when we had all shareholder funds on exchanges and only two liquidity provider custodians.
I could only be happy about 1 M trading volume if it were at fiat pairs (USD preferred for US-NBT) or at a big offset.
Anything else would just drain money from Nu.
That was true back in early 2015 as well and I wonder how much money was not lost in the exchange defaults, but in the trading.
Nu needs to expand the use of parametric order books to ALPv2 and MLP in the first row, offering little trading volume at a tight spread followed by Nu funded bots, which serve higher volume at a way bigger spread (speaking of dual side exchanges here).
You can always trade 1 US-NBT for 1 USD (and even the equivalent in BTC), but you might need some patience (and wait until the ALPv2 side gets replenished if it’s low when you want to trade).
It’s not trade volume that Nu should be striving for, but adoption.
Liquidity is the basis for adoption.
Liquidity allows people to use Nu products in payment processes or to keep US-NBT for having a USD stable cryptocurrency.
Trade volume doesn’t have a purpose on its own.
Liquidity costs money. The more money at a tighter spread, the more expensive.
From the thread that introduced the parametric order book scheme:
https://discuss.nubits.com/uploads/default/432/ff418d3d4d1f23c0.png
Nu needs to make use of that idea very consequently instead of offering tens of thousands of USD value at tight spreads.
also , we make some profit
Who is “we” - shareholders, liquidity providers or traders, who hedge BTC volatility with NBT?
Depending on your answer I can agree more or less 
Thanks for the detailed info and opinion posted above.
I’d also like to know who “we” seems to be…
"we " as LP providers
