As early as Sep. 2014, I advocated for anti-inflation feature.
IMO, the USNBT,YUANNBT should not exist at all, all FIAT are toxic, any attempt to achieve that impossible trinity will fail, don’t flatter FED any more(although Nu fans WANT to beat FED, actually they flatter it.)
When you do an experiment, usually the target is to prove some theory, what’s the theory backing Nu? Gold standard? No, that’s Bitcoin’s backing theory, FIAT’s monetary theory? Well, you will be hated by central bank haters.
The only way out to is Hayek’s theory, a Nobel Prize winner’s predict. However, if NBT inflated with USD, NBT is Hayek’s enemy not friend.
I sold almost all my crypto to buy BKS to support this team, and hope my Hayek experiment can be carried out in future. I am not alone, Hayek is behind me.
You have my full support for an anti-inflation NBT!
P.s. I’m also a huge admiror of Austrian School and its “Jedi Masters” (Hayek, von Mises, Rothbard, etc).
Implementing that feature would boom over the press instantly giving Nu visibility as the 1st “real stable” cryptocurrency beyond what it is today - a “nominal stable” cryptocurrency.
Maybe we should try that option/experiment first, even before trying to create EU-NBT, X-NBT and other fiat based coin.
The challenge here would be: how do we do it in an user-friendly way and as decentralized as possible?
BTW check this interesting calculator based on CPI data to how USD is as “stable” as a stone:
edit: for those CNY fans, remember: China’s source of macroeconomic numbers are supposed to be less transparent and easier to manipulate than those from US, Eurozone, Japan and UK. And if China is manipulating that much, soon we (all world economy) are gonna be VERY screwed!
Are all those in support of anti-inflation in support of a supply-pegged nbt unit that has variable price but follows the btc supply? So there would never be more than 21 million of these released and the release schedule would follow btc miner rewards on like a weekly basis or whatever. The initial distribution would be a fund raiser (ipo) then just fix to whatever btc does with its supply.
There is fundamental disagreement between strict pegging NBT and anti-inflation fans, so I’ve already given up the hope that they will make NBT anti-inflated. This is not tiny disagreement at all, this is huge religion conflict.
However, since they have no any plan of BKC’s pegging, just a “stamp” sold on 1$, why not try BKC to become the first Hayek coin? Will we obstruct them by providing liquidity to BKC?
For those don’t understand why central bank haters hate FIAT(including NBT )so much, here is the reason:
Briefly, the importance of the Hayek theory of the business cycle is that it puts the blame for the boom-bust cycle squarely on the shoulders of the government and its controlled banking system, and, for the first time since the classical economists of the 19th century, completely absolves the free-enterprise economy from the blame. When the government and its central bank encourages the expansion of bank credit, it not only causes price inflation, but it also causes increasing malinvestments, specifically unsound investments in capital goods and underproduction of consumer goods.
Hence, the government-induced inflationary boom not only injures consumers by raising prices and the cost of living but also distorts production and creates unsound investments. The government is then faced repeatedly with two basic choices: either stop its monetary and bank-credit inflation, which then will necessarily be followed by a recession, which serves to liquidate the unsound investments and return to a genuinely free-market structure of investment and production — or continue inflating until a runaway inflation totally destroys the currency and brings about social and economic chaos.
Offering a new inflation-resistant NBT product would appeal to Hayek enthusiasts. However, I have not seen the issue of currency reserves addressed. If we increased our shareholder-supported peg every year (e.g., to 1.02 USD/NBT after 2% USD inflation), we would require higher USD reserves each year. These reserves could outpace inflation if they were conservatively invested in real-world equity and bond markets (similar to a pension fund), but would require significant financial expertise to manage. I am not aware of any decentralized mechanism to accomplish this. The best we could do would be a variation on NuSafe, where custodians are elected to hold USD reserves and conservatively invest in assets that grow quicker than inflation.
I totally cannot understand these words. Since Nu is partial reserve, what’s the difference between you sell NBT at 1$ and 1.02$ on earth?
The BTC proceed from selling NBT varies every every minutes, even Nu apply 100% reserve in BTC, if BTC price doubles overnight, we have 200% reserve,isn’t it? If BTC price halve today, we have 50% reserve, right?
Compared with BTC price volatility, USD inflation rate every year(less than reward requirement by LPC per month! ) is nothing at all for Nu’s mechanism.
An anti-inflation crypto supply is exact same as NBT’s, except that we put the sell/buy all at 1.19-1.2$ in 2020. Flexible supply is the hardcore of Hayek’s theory, unlike gold standard.
It also differs from FIAT because this kind of crypto pegging to buy power not FIAT face value.
Shareholders can easily vote a proper inflation rate within one week, economics is not machine, there is definately blurry room in it.
@Financisto very good website inflation calculator, BTW, China government is BIG BROTHER, till today still some planned economy, the ideology deadly enemy to Hayek!
Adding anti-infaltion feature can also put pressure to our competitor, such as Tether, usually FED control the CPI higher than deposite interest rate, so that Tether may not declare they are 100% reserve if they follow, or if they don’t follow, hated by central banks. Or they may take reserve out to do something profitable, that’s not 100% reserve because they cannot pay off all tether in any time, on any amount. Neither exchange platform will give them money to compensate inflation.
Anyway, I’ll try BKC liquidity and prepare the motion of selling BKC in an antiinflation way, anyone can help me & join me is very appreciated! I even have an idea that because Hayek died in 1992, and 1$ at that time equals to $1.71 today, according to http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
To memorize this master and remind/educate people that after his death the “solid” USD has devalued a lot! The BKC price is the best ads. We peg BKC to 1$ value in 1992!
I have no capacity as a developer, only some ideas. Ideas are not development but obviously what to develop is the more important that the development.
What ideas do we have? We should prioritize the importance of the ideas.
We have got to get the money velocity up. A NU ecosystem has to be developed. The general economy is an impossible target. The first target market that comes to mind a crypto-currency developers. There are now thousands of coins, tens of thousands of developers. We not get paid in nu? But, I don’t think the value of paying developers in Nu is strong enough. An Employer/Contract Payment Management System, something to add value on top of the utility of NuBits.
We have the utility, we have to begin to scale value.
You can adjust the sell price per BKC to have it maintain its value compared to USD.
Remark: because BKC is announced to be sold at $1, it’s the USD inflation that needs to be tracked.
Customers of BCE don’t need to complain, if the tx fees get adjusted downward when BKC receives the inflation adjustment.
Say once a year the sell price (e.g. bkc_rate_new = 1.02 * bkc_rate_old) AND tx fee (tx_fee_new = tx_fee_old / 1.02) get adjusted by the percentage of the inflation rate, everything stays the same BCE wise (for BCE customers), but BKC has 0 inflation compared to the outside world.
There are of course reasons to continually adjust the tx fee. I don’t expect it to be static over the course of a year.
Effectively it’s merely a declaration of intent to remove inflation from BKC and to adjust the sell price maybe once a year.
The correction of the tx fee together with the adjustment of the BKC sell price would have no effect on the continuous tx fee adjustments.
It would be a neat marketing stunt!
And while deflation in currencies can have drawbacks such as hoarding instead of lending, this is no issue for BCE, because BKC get consumed by transactions.
Those who buy BKC for using BCE don’t care how high the tx fee is in BKC - they calculate in USD anyway.
Those who buy BKC today to keep them are happy, because at the end of the year they have lost nothing to inflation!
It doesn’t even require liquidity operations to make this attractive, all it takes is some patience for the “BKC hoarders” - BKC get destroyed. If they need to sell their BKC they will eventually be successful!
Maybe I confused myself, but if I’m not too far off, count me in!
Nope.
Current status is that BKC will be sold at $1 just as NBT are sold at $1.
While NBT are guaranteed to be bought back by Nu at $1, BKC only get sold by BCE - there’s no liquidity operations like at Nu.
I have the impression that Satoshi made all those Austian guys looking like monkeys eating bananas upon a tree!
We need to start thinking of new ideas, out of the box and leave those guys rest in peace!
You realize that Bitcoin is inflationary as long as there’s a coinbase reward?
…unless the BTC rate compensates the new units, for which there’s no mechanism in place to warrant that.
As there’s no mechanism in place to adjust the BTC rate, let me focus on the units in circulation.
The inflation rate isn’t high and it will get lower over time - the next halving is near.
But I seriously doubt that Bitcoin will survive until it’s truly no longer inflationary.
It’s an economic train wreck waiting to happen that can only be prevented by chance (rising BTC price), but not by design.
Trying to chime in this style:
these monkeys might unload some poo on Bitcoin from where they sit
And Bitcoin was a good start!
Yet Peercoin was even better.
It still needs refinement if you want to have currency like features.
Being able to fully control the supply is necessary (PPC already has a built-in way to remove PPC!).
This control of supply was achieved by Nu.
The more I think about it, the better I’d like to have a product that is anti-inflationary.
I don’t mean to replace (US-)NBT. I rather think of a separate product that follows Austrian economics.
…I need to read more about that.
It looks like there’s some evolution going on
BTC -> PPC -> NBT
but there’s still room for improvement.
Yes, I don’t like multiple pegs either, it makes everything more complicated for everyone, even for the end users.
Why not just keep this one currency known as NBT and peg it 50% to USD and 50% to gold? This way if USD enters hyperinflation the rise of gold against USD will compensate.
This way if USD enters hyperinflation the rise of gold against USD will compensate.