Scalpers never have chance to sell BKC above the official price, never, unless something wrong with the official selling procedure(software bug, custodian fault etc)
It is crucial for B&C to maintain healthy status, eg, B&C’s revenue can pay off all the BKC on the market within 6 months, therefore, any BKC holder can confirm that he will be regret on selling BKC cheaper than official price because 6 months later the BKC selling price will be official. B&C will not directly buy BKC on the market, it just stop issue new BKC and let the sell wall from scalpers become thinner and thinner.
If B&C is a small company, with less revenue(tx fee on B&C platform and other payment fee), the BKC quantity must be small, that’s natural. I cannot imagine there are so many fools to buy large quantity BKC from the small B&C company with a little income.
So the BKC quantity is corresponding to B&C’s business scale, this is the free market’s equilibrium. However, the B&C and BKC sale can grow slowly syncronously and eventually both of them become huge.
Sure they do. If B&C sells BKC for 1 NBT, then someone sells that BKC for $1.01 ‘worth’ of PPC, but the PPC market was off from the ‘actual’ PPC/BTC price by 1%, then the BTC market also has 1% fluctuation. So then, the person is actually selling their BKC for $1.03 worth of PPC if you use the right price feeds.
I’d like y’all to imagine what would happen if we lower the BKC price every week. It would generate more legitimate sales because the people that buy the BKC actually intend on using them on-exchange. So the circulating BKC supply would be very low (meaning B&C didn’t take out a lot of loans) and we would be a much more efficient and streamlined service. The NBT reserves can be filled via BKS sale, which we’ve already set precedent for doing.
Price noise is inevitable, there is possibility for some one sell BKC @1.03 on PPC or alt coin market, but these are always neglectable, small error, because if the trade volume @1.03 is big, arbitrager will come and eliminate it. Again, economics is organic not a accurate Swiss watch machine, nor human brain works in the same way with computer. Brain is a fuzzy organic, hope IT experts understand it.
We 'll try to do experiment to prove Hayek’s theory so we adjust the BKC according to inflation or deflation rate. We cannot think things from this view point that encourage people spend BKC by decreasing BKC price. That’s typical central bank style. Customers not fools, they will not buy any BKC until they have to use it because BKC is losing value. No body can oblige them to buy BKC at first!
Inflated money is encouraged to be spent, like FIAT.
Deflated money is encouraged to hoard, like gold, Bitcoin
Hayek’s good theory is neither inflated nor deflated, so it neither encouraged to spend nor store, it neutral. In the war between FIAT and Bitcoin, we are the 3rd power, don’t belong to any of them.
In the world ruled by central banks, after bitcoin’s gold standard with block chain tech rebelled in 2009, another theory will also rebel in 2016.
Hope you understand this rule, this is the most important thing in Hayek’s theory. Since you don’t agree with his theory, don’t hope his fans have same opinion with you.
I do not see personally much value comparing 1usd now with 1usd say in 1992 or 1950.
Sure the value of the USD has decreased because of deflation, compared to 1 once of gold.
But it does not matter much.
What matters is what the USD can do now in the real economy.
So 1 usd can buy a micro controller that is way more powerful than what 1 usd could buy in 1992 or 1950.
So in that sense, I argue than 1 usd is way more valuable than 1 usd in 1992 or 1950 because the economy, Humanity made a lot of progress in between.
We need to get rid of the comparison with gold.
The standard consumer or user does not care about gold.
I do not care about gold personally.
He or she care of what FIAT can buy or do now in the real economy.
Again, I would urge shareholders to focus on business not ideologies.
I tend to agree with you. But when enough people are behind an ideology you might as well provide them with the means to follow it as long as it is profitable. The question is whether there is enough demand for an inflation adjusted coin in order to make money out of it for Nu at some stage. Without knowing the market it is hard to answer this question. Leaves a trial and error.
In fact, BKC can be a trial of anti-inflation, if this kind of money is welcomed and popular, Nubits can follow it overnight, if not, that fail doesn’t impact NBT at all.
Therefore, I am very puzzled on some NBTers don’t like BKC test.
Me too, because all it’d take is a price adjustment for BKC sold by BCE to eliminate inflation (or deflation, but I doubt we find that anytime as long as fiat rules).
It often happens that threads act like a living thing
Splitting would help keeping the overview.
At least it’s related to development - not Nu, but BCE and rather development on a level of how things could be operated, sold, marketed.
Still I agree, splitting might do the discussion a favour.
I also tend to agree with you that BKC is an interesting cryptocurrency to test that experiment because its supply and correlation to BKS seem to be more “flexible” than the NSR << >> NBT relation.
BTW, maybe the “ideal formula” to sustain an anti-inflation digital currency could be a combination of the ideas already mentioned above: fee manipulation + LP spread (buy/sell wall) + coin burn (supply manipulation)…
That’s just a little bit tough to figure out cause nobody did it before in order to tell us how we walk the short path…
@cryptog, according to Hayek’s theory, the anti inflation quality will provide advantage over our competitor. I care business as much as you do.
/
“Neither a general increase nor a general decrease of prices appears to be possible in normal circumstances so long as several issuers of different currencies are allowed freely to compete without the interference of government. There will always be one or more issuers who find it to their advantage to regulate the supply of their currency so as to keep its value constant in step with the aggregate price of a bundle of widely used commodities. This would soon force any less provident issuers of competing currencies to put a stop to a slide in the value of their currency in either direction if they did not wish to lose the issue business altogether or to find the value of their currency falling to zero.
/
It sounds not good for Nubits if BKC has sufficient liquidity. But NBT can become antiinflated overnight.
I don’t know, quite some people belive BKC pegging will not be successful at all. They think the loose pegging is bad. In my suggestion, we use anti-inflation to address the not-so-good BKC pegging.
It seems that Jordan argue for strict peg with 1% spread, if any of you disagree, keep you fund safe untill B&C launch and provide loose peg to BKC with Nubot.
Fortunately, B&C promises nothing to BKC’s peg officially, so there is a big room for us to try it unofficially, whichever is proven right in future, strict or loose peg, still belongs to our community.
That’s why it’s just called ‘trading for profit’ not pegging. If i buy btc low then sell it high am I ‘pegging’ or just being a smart trader? Clearly, that isn’t pegging. Pegging is about the official aspect. It’s about consensus and following through on a promise.
