The statements made by @JordanLee about the liquidity engine in regard to volume following with liquidity provision quality do not mean it’s magical. Lower volume is likely caused by a loss in trust from the peg abandonment, lack of visibility at Bittrex and Cryptopia, and being delisted from the largest exchange Poloniex.
The BTC spent on buybacks can at this point be considered wasted only because of the misguided devaluations and ineffective actions by liquidity providers at the time. It is possible that shareholders and investors that need to buy NuShares in a time of declining NuBit demand would have lacked understanding of their incentives to do so. As we saw in auctions later, there was people who still believed in Nu at some price point.
Already invested shareholders would like to avoid a reduction in NuShare value and support the NuShare with additional funds until NuBit demand is stabilized or increasing again. They might want to go somewhat lower to buy in themselves. New investors would rather buy NuShares at the lowest price point possible in order to maximize their holdings and benefits of future NuBit demand (and other potential revenue). The new investors would consider where they think their competition will begin support, and how low they dare let the NuShare fall, including factors of at least NuBit holders’ confidence in the peg and other shareholders’ confidence in the NuShare.
With the improvements in procedure of Tier 6, we now have a bidirectional scaling calculation for responding to NuBit demand gradually. I’m sure there are ways we can improve it, and I think that is where focus should be for those concerned. I would like to have someone that can run numbers and find weaknesses in the liquidity flow. Anyone who thinks they can provide value to Nu should get in contact with us and we’ll evaluate the possibility of compensation.
