Jordan seek stable 1USD face value, I seek stable 1USD buypower@2014, your seek what kind of stable?
Neither of those things are truly stable. True stability is not measured in usd, itās measured in user experience basically. Supply matching demand.
Ultimately, itāll be voted on by shareholders when to increase or decrease supply. So the stability of the shareholder base, which is really the only engine we can properly keep running anyway.
If you have no stable quantity(BTC 21mllion) or stable price( NBT, Tether), or stable buypower(Hayek money), people just donāt undertand whatās the meaning of your system. Do you believe people will join in a gambling with some one able to print stake from nowhere & as wish?
I understand you are pissed off but if there is no concept of trying to respect what has been passed as motions (non enforceable automatically by the blockchain) as much as we can, I think Nu is useless.
What about all the motions you wrote and got passed? Are they meaningless?
If there is no external market for nbt or nsr, how is the relative price nbt/nsr anchored?
They should be repealed and we should revert to a simple shareholder voting system, yes. They were made when we needed complication because we had things like nulagoon and alps. These structures are broken and dangling, we need to officially end them, along with flot, and thereby do away with all of nu law. This is equivalent to @Sabreiibās concept of zero cost operation.
As far as stability, once again I state that it is a user experience. If usd is plummeting because washington DC gets bombed, would you still call an nbt=$1 a stable peg? Clearly not. It is a user experience. If users experience stability, they will be back. They will trust their own experience far more than any motion or statement or abstracted concept of price. Simply match the demand with supply.
Calm down people.
Nu has this unique feature that the blockchain can record shareholder decission and make grants. We like that so we use it. Where else does @Nagalim want to get shareholdersā opinion and have it recorded? Number of likes in a forum post? How stone age.
@Phoenix, NuLaws are highly manipulatable by politically skillful members. The contents of current NuLaw body is full of ambiguity, outdatedness and inconsistencies, prone to misunderstanding, bending/stretching/abusing, and there are so many itās easy to forget some part of it. Community memory, check and balance, and determination are need to complement NuLaw.
Why donāt we make two random coins and do it? Why is it interesting by itself. What does it have anything to do with Nu?
Welcome to Hayek club. With Hayek money, perhaps 1HYK=3USD after that bombed.
What is NuLaw? Previously passed motions. It is not future motions, as Creon pointed out. So what does NuLaw consist of? What motions are on the books?
- FLOT
- ALPs
- NuLagoon
- Abstract spread and dilution motions
Anything else? I propose we do away with all of these, thereby ending the current iteration of NuLaw. Ban me for saying it, but thatās my belief.
In place, let shareholders vote directly on supply maintenance. If shareholders feel the nbt price is rising, they will dilute nbt. If they feel the nbt price is falling, they will dilute nsr. That feeling is rhe stability mechanism. The only question then is magnitude of velocity, which can become the entire basis of a new NuLaw.
But yah, fuck all the laws on the books. I canāt think of a single law we should keep if we donāt have a btc reserve.
So you are advocating the creation of a new mechanism to keep the peg, which would rely on a new body of rules, which could be called NuLaw2.
So in your new mechanism, liquidity would be replaced by matching the demand with supply.
Can you give details about you think it could work?
No Peg (see title). This is an extreme viewpoint compare to those that Nu has operated under in the past. So extreme that @Phoenix is trying to get me banned for even mentioning it. First, all external loss mechanisms are abandoned. This primarily involves every mechanism by which Nu holds or influences the BTC market, but also includes dropping park rates to 0%. Without a BTC reserve, FLOT (also an external loss mechanism) is asked to burn all funds and give up their power. The remaining BTC would be used to pay off any developer debts and buy back as much nbt as possible to burn. No developer will be paid in NBT going forward, solely in NSR.
Next, we as a community encourage an auctioneer to begin dual side auctions. Dual side auctions can be summarized as participants submitting either NSR or NBT or both and getting back the opposite token in return. All received NSR goes to those that submitted NBT, all received NBT goes to those that submitted NSR. If no one takes up this mantle, I will do it in August.
At this point, the NBT supply has no method of growing and will only shrink negligibly due to txn fees, so will remain approximately constant. NSR will continue to grow with mint rates and dev costs. This is the backbone, a āstableā NBT supply with a fluid NSR supply. Once dual side auctions find some consistency, shareholders submit NSR or NBT to auction to directly control the NBT supply. This submission process should involve paying both the auctioneer and the executor (who submits and burns the counter token) a small portion of the token submitted. Low-impact is the key here, and the NSR reward should be lower or on par with just the current cost of FLOT.
Once this ideal has been achieved, shareholders are in full control over the supply. At this point there is only one NuLaw rule that needs to be made: the velocity of execution.
In fact, the role of auctioneer and executor can eventually be imported directly into the blockchain in order to achieve perfect zero-cost aside from mint rates and no trust aside from PoS trust. However, that will require blockchain development and a hardfork. The velocity can be fixed, for example to a specific fraction of the NBT and NSR supply per auction every 1000 blocks. Submission could be done directly in the client and shareholder submission done by voting on a single boolean representing which token to dilute each auction.
The key here is that the āpegā is not a peg. The stability of NBT would be solely in the hands of NSR holders, and could be pegged or not pegged to whatever the shareholders want at will. As the shareholders have only a single boolean to vote on (0=NBT, 1=NSR), I believe it would be babying them to impose a NuLaw on this to fix to a particular peg. However, if you really want to imagine a NuLaw 2.0, it could for example simply say that if shareholders believe NBT to be worth >$1 then they should vote 0 and if they think itās worth <$1 then they should vote 1. But again, I think that such a motion would be unnecessary.
P.S.
I feel I should mention that this idea is not new, nor is it mine. Itās simply the culmination of conversations had over the past year.
This proposal will is and will be hated by @JordanLee and @Phoenix.
But it seems that @JordanLee doesnāt post here any longer - if he ever came back he would have to deliver accounting information, which he doesnāt want to disclose; it would be so easy to counter this accusation by just coming back and going fully transparent. Oh, I know, the privacy of whomeverā¦
And @Phoenix is just a newbie, writing as eloquently as @JordanLee, but following his road to perdition. Itās a pity that there are so many sourced of revenue, but instead on focussing on them, thereās only distraction and lust for power in his posts.
@Nagalim, please donāt let yourself get discouraged by those evil actors.
I know how hard it is to continue if you face a lot of eloquent distractions, lies, inverse realities, accusations and FUD.
You never know whether to spend your time rebuking that crap or showing a superior alternative.
I failed. I broke down. I might recover. I might decide itās not worth continuing here.
You seem to be focussed on providing an alternative. Keep that focus. Itās the only kind of focus that can save Nu.
Your thread here, @Cybnateās draft āThink big, act smallā, @nmeiās proposal "āNo liquidity without a revenue modelā are amongst the constructive attempts to reform or revolutionize Nu.
Donāt let yourself get trapped in motions that try to follow a path that didnāt work in the past. Nu was only running astonishingly when it could burn thousands or even tens of thousands USD per month.
Startups donāt make revenue. Thatās right.
Read carefully: the startup time is over. Nu is bankrupt.
Except for the few BTC I could save for Nu opposing @JordanLee, getting attacked, insulted, excruciated for that, thereās not much left.
Discussing with FLOT, not sending them to NuLagoon and not offering them at a tight spread was all I could do against an architect that went rogue, but that had and still has superior political and rhetorical skills.
Dumping NSR at the market now would only benefit those who want to buy NSR cheaply.
NSR sale according to āStandard and Coreā motion is not important at this very moment.
It violates NuLaw? Ban all that dare evolving Nu beyond a ponzi scheme!
But if you first create a sound revenue scheme and try to sell NSR afterwards to fund development, you might wonder about the NSR rate you can sell at!
It benefits NuBit holders a great deal. Supporting our currency gives us credibility, which is what we most need at this time, given what has occurred over the last month.
It is quite permissible to hold and express an opinion that the Standard and Core motion is no longer helpful. If that is the case, you should advance a motion to nullify it. If your motion passes, you can discard the regulation and be in full compliance with NuLaw.
I will give the same advice to @Nagalim. Think all NuLaw is now inappropriate? OK, you can say that. The appropriate action is to advance a motion that nullifies all existing NuLaw. If it passes, then you can ignore the entire body of nullified motions and you will be perfectly compliant with NuLaw in doing so.
What is not permissible is to simply say you arenāt going to follow shareholder directives. If you refuse to follow NuLaw, you are of no use to shareholders and should not have any position of trust whatsoever. Widespread violations of NuLaw renders Nu completely dysfunctional, as we have discovered this last month. It simply canāt be tolerated.
Violations of NuLaw were the primary reason for the loss of the peg and the drop in the NuShare price. As Chief of Liquidity Operations, I will always follow NuLaw and will dismiss any liquidity provider who insists on violating it.
No, the appropriate action is to speak my mind and not be bullied by the likes of you. Iād appreciate it if you donāt try to force your opinions on me with empty threats, thank you.
The primary reasons for the loss of the peg were the end of an unsustainable business model and an NBT dump of someone who knew about it (while others didnāt realize it).
The NSR price went down, when it became clear that Nu failed.
The NBT and the NSR rate are victims of the same failure: the economic failure of Nu.
You never get tired of repeating the same untruths.
Both NSR and NBT rate can only be restored, if Nu finds ways to generate revenue.
A motion thatās aiming at adjusting actions to the current situation has already been created:
Itās good to read this:
If somebody made a motion that forbids you further liquidity related posts, would you follow that as well once it passed?
Would you come back with a new account in this case?
Certainly.
How about a motion that solely requires you to burn all your shares and nothing else? Would you follow that too? Remember, if you say no, you risk geing banned.
I doubt the motion can be passed, although DAO is not a real world company, it must comply some basic rules, to deprive weath without any decent reasons is illegal, e. g. How about send money to ISIS?
Tell that to the eth hardfork.