Leakage detection

When answering some critism to Nubits I am wondering how best to detect Nubits in circulation that were not sold by a pegging bot and not created as parking interest.

I don’t understand what you mean by “leakage.” Is this a question about identifying whether NBT granted as part of the strategic reserve are put into use before they should be?

As I understand it, those funds should stay in the address that they were granted to. Using the explorer it is public knowledge if that address shows a change in amount.

Or are you referring to another scenario?

For example after an LPC puts NBT into a bot’s wallet, someone hacks into the exchange or a bot and steals some NBT. Or the LPC embezzles the grant, sells it on an exchange and spends the proceeds, or uses it in speculative trade and returns the fund after taking profit, or parks it and pocket the interest. A doubter of Nu could also ask, “As NuNet creates NBT and spends it, how do I know the fund was actually spent in a way NuNet claims/thinks it has been spent?”

If the fund leaves the intended channels of flow, I call it leaked. How to detect leakage? Can we detect leakage? Is it possible to have a framework for public auditing?

A strange kind of leakage is going on right now, because KTm is holding some BTC on behalf of shareholders. This means that, as BTC rises in value, the buy walls grow, and vice versa.

1 Like

The more I think about it, the more NuNet is like small country that has its sovereign currency and its economy. There could be technical ways to show that part of the economy is running as intended and uncorrupted. But there are also business activities about which you never know what has happened in full details – even the people involved may not fully know.

I suggest NSR holders pledge some NSR to get NBT and then become a LPC, so if LPC is evil or hacked/stolen, system can be made up.

Interesting idea! When Jordan posts the NBT-burn proposal, we’ll see how this might fit into it. Perhaps the hacker/thief would have the ability to burn the NBT to regenerate exactly the amount of NSR that the system had seized.

Pledge is to handle the decentralization of Nu, in order to overcome stolen/hacked and run off of many small LPCs.

NSR holders vote a pledge ratio(NBT vs NSR), for example, 50%, so if NBTs stolen, the corresponding NSR will be kept by protocol, and we vote for auction: sb. send NBTs to protocol and burned, he/she get those pledged NSR.

The ratio can be voted to any level, from 0% to 100000%, this is short term smartcontract. If you pledge enough NSR and protocol will automatically pass your request.

The pledge solution has two merits:

  1. solve decentralization problem. I trust jordan and kiara now, I won’t trust other LPC in 2020.

2)The short term lending can be used to contol circulation of NBT and help pegging without paying extra NBT to anyone.

In fact, this is Hayek’s style, not my invention.

1 Like

To clarify my opinion, the pledge ratio should up to free market.

The NBT market cap may be 50%, 500%, 5000%,50000% of NSR marketcap.

If free market demands more NBT, you can even pledge 1$ NSR to get 100$ NBT.

That’s free market after all. But I predict the NBT/NSR market cap ratio will between 10%-300%, free market knows the risk when NBT exceeds NSR, and either lift price of NSR or turn to our competitors,ie NBT demands drops.

Perhaps the LPCs in future themselves are thieves.

I don’t trust future LPCs indeed.

I am not very worried about LPCs because reasons discussed here. Technically it is perhaps possible to ingest the fund directly to the bot and reduce bot operating LPCs to an ATM maintanence engineer. It is then possible to show that all LPC fundings enter circulation via having been sold by the bots (i.e. backed up by USD).

What is difficult to control is funding granted to custodians who spend it in the real world. These NBTs are backed by supposed value/asset created by the custodian’s work, which is hard to audit.

How do we then convince potential adopters that these fundings are not diluting the real value of Nubits.

@mhps, LPC spend funding in real world to develope software etc, after releasing, everyone knows the output.

Real world works don’t have to be in s/w development. They could be, say PR activities like promoting Nu in conferences. How do you reliablly gauge which PR dirve is money well spent? For software development, only because everyone sees the release of a product doesn’t mean it is not a waste of resources.

The manhours of certain projects can be discussed on forum. There is always risk there, that’s shareholders’ duty.

Fine. How do you convince potential adopters beyond the “shareholders will do their best” line?

I think there will be reports on how Nu is operating and financial situation such as revenue&cost and reserve ratio etc.

How can the system determine if the granted NBT is hacked/stolen, so it should seize the NSR? Do you have ideas on this?

@Chronos, The smart lending contract is short term, ie one week. For example, on 1st Sep. I submit a contract request to borrow some NBTs from protocol where I specify a NBT address and a NSR address of mine. I deposite 3000$ value NSR(on price of that day) and protocol will check if my NSR is sufficient (deny too small contract). Because the pledge ratio is voted at 50%, so I am automatically given 1500NBT by protocol.

When protocol and I sign the lending contract, I actually send 3000$ NSR to protocol but the transfer is intentional postponed by protocol to 7th Sep., and at the same time protocol send 1500NBT to my address.

I use this 1500NBT to provide liquidity by Bot, at 7 Sep, I have to send back 1500NBT to the protocol otherwise my NSR will transfered to protocol.

During 1st to 7th Sep, protocol may check the pledge NSR value and have the option to cancel the contract, and I can cancel contract at any time by sending back 1500NBT. Because I temporarily holding my 3000$ NSR, I can still vote and mint until they are actually transfered to protocol.

Shortly after my returning of 1500NBT on 7th Sep. my wallet automatically submit a new contract with same clauses, and system passes it again.

I can setup an automatically timing of NBT payment from my NBT address with extra NBT in case of Nubot bug/flatform default that lends to stuck of borrowed NBT on exchange, so I can’t lose my NSR accidentally.

For me, every thusday is the contract day when new contract signed and old contracts end. I can check the status mannually or automatically operated by wallet. If NSR price halved, the protocol will sign with me a new contract by sending 750NBT to me.

To sum up, the protocol always keep pledged NSR and in one week, the NSR price is relative stable. Nu system is immune to LPC hacked/stolen/run off and in this way, protocol can control the circulation of NBT because the pledge ratio can voted to 10% which lends to dramatically decrease of NBT supply, or voted to 10000% which can provide 100 times NBT value of NSR market cap. If pledge ratio is 10000%, even 300%. the free market’s organic demand for NBT will definitely decreases or the NSR price will go up. Nu system interacts with free market. We can NOT arbitrarily decides the pledge ratio such as 50% or 100% regardless the free market demends. In fact it is the free market demands drive shareholders to vote a proper ratio. If the market is sane, our pledge ratio is sane, if market is insane, our ratio is also insane such as 1000% ratio.

when pledge ratio is above 100% that means a LPC may run off with more valuable NBT and discard NSR. The risk is taken by both sides: free market may suffer NBT pegging failure and lose money and Nu will suffer reputation demage, so win win solution is NSR price rise since our business is so good just like apple inc.:slight_smile:

There’s a problem with this. Exchange rates are arbitrary, and it’s very difficult for the protocol to know what the “correct” price is at any given time. It is possible that there is a way that this information could be encoded, but as a whole, protocol changes are much better suited for things that do not vary much in value. Parking rates are a different condition, because the protocol is what sets and enforces how they pay out.

Maybe it’s possible, but so far, my investigations into a pricing “self-aware” protocol layer have turned up nothing.

@ben, if it is difficult for protocol to determined the NSR price in real world, the duty should be taken by shareholder.

As a NSR shareholder, I have a data feed of NSR price on various platform and I can vote to pass or deny those borrow request in an antomatical or manual way.

Both parking interest rate and short term lending are good methods to control circulation.

But I think we should be careful about picking a reliable BIG LPC who is not a big NSR holder. Assume a bad guy (holding huge NSR sell oder on market) and promise to provide liquidity to NBT, shortly after his duty, he betrays us and spread the rumor, he may get profit by doing such a bad thing.