Would anyone want NuShares while Nu does nothing to support its product? Is it not worse to cease operations, like was done when liquidity operations stopped and NuShare value crashed?
NuShare value would undoubtedly have gone down whatever we did, but I believe that had we begun selling NuShares at that price point (which was the plan), we’d be in a much better position than now, with no guarantee that would be sufficient of course.
If we stop selling NuShares without any outlined alternative future prospects, investors would have to buy shares blindly hoping for a plan to appear or aim to influence consensus (by voting with shares) enough for their own idea to pass into NuLaw, and also bet on whether anyone will carry the plan out.
There’s currently a 30 BTC sell wall up to 100 satoshi of NuShares at Poloniex of which Nu wouldn’t receive much BTC from being consumed.
I’m not an expert so expect there to be flaws in my assessment. Present your beliefs and try to influence consensus or @Phoenix.
I would suggest a temporary easing of NSR inflation/auctions. No need to rush auction after auction sometimes the tortoise wins the race. It seems like cutting your nose to spite your face. We could simply delay the next few auctions to give NSR some breathing room. Not to mention we will need BTC and/or NBT funds to even hope to prop NSR back up if it continues lower. Two steps forward one stepback. Maybe Im mistaken, but at least I threw a lot of cliche idioms at it.
Currently our daily US-NBT purchase target is 2000. I had been discussing reducing that with @jooize. I am ready to say that it should be reduced to 1500 beginning Thursday, August 11th. We will still be reducing the US-NBT supply by 0.28% each and every day. I am not aware of any other crypto asset that is increasing in scarcity to anywhere near that degree. For now, US-NBT is the ultimate deflationary currency. The purpose of this additional reduction in NSR sales is to reduce downward pressure on the NSR price.
My highest priority is cultivating and maintaining liquidity in NuShares as I decide how to conduct liquidity operations. NuShares have half the liquidity at 50 satoshis that they do at 100 satoshis, so it is vital to maintain the NuShare price in order to continue funding US-NBT purchases.
Just to be clear: you are aware that the relation of cause and effect is not between stopping liquidity operations and NSR value crashing, but rather both had the same cause?
Which was Nu being bankrupt.
Why is liquidity more important than revenue?
Can you imagine that providing potential NSR buyers with revenue could easily do the trick of increasing liquidity?
Your post sounds emotional.
Nevertheless I agree that this firing post didn’t help Nu and instead was rather on the FUD side of posts.
Lessons that could’ve been learned, haven’t been learned.
Nu is bankrupt and revenue is not in sight, not even planned.
The debts will eat Nu, if there’s no change of business processes soon.
NSR sale won’t be able to cover the debts as can be derived from the auctions. It was a bold attempt that has failed.
As far as I understand NSR sale #7 couldn’t be completed, because there was no bid above reserve price for which the bidder was willing to make the deal.
The first auctions plummeted the NSR rate. Now at a historically low rate there aren’t even buyers.
There are still hundreds of thousands of USD debts.
Time for (credible!) revenue. Spare us with 0.01 NBT tx fees.
Or time to liquidate this business.
I agree the firing post was inflammatory, but not unwarranted. I suggest everyone read the motion again after gaining better understanding over the last months.
Calmly? The price couldn’t have stayed there long without liquidity being offered from Nu (or speculators).
6.9 BTC was gained from NuShare sales. Those were put at 90% offset ($0.10, 180% spread). While that is more than I gave credit for, it didn’t support the peg to any meaningful degree.
Whether the NuShare price could have fallen differently is debatable. It would with little doubt have crashed, but taking these consistent actions (auctions and sales) to support our product seems to me like it would have been much better to do in preparation of running out of Tier 4 reserves (assuming we had, but in any case effectively did after NuBit holders put up a sell wall larger than our reserve), or at least immediately when that happened.
After all this time, there’s still no alternative idea brewing that I’m aware of. Where would the NuShare price be today if we hadn’t done anything? Higher than today? In which case to what benefit?
Looking at how much the auctions and exchange sales have generated for Nu at low NuShare prices, imagine the proceeds having conducted them before a crisis.
Isn’t that what our business is essentially, and what we’re currently doing?
It first felt to me as though releasing a new product in the state we’re currently in would be dishonest, but considering the economics and 100% reserve, I don’t think it is. Read my post in that thread. If you see a flaw, post it there.
The new product may not give us revenue directly to support US NuBits, but a successfully working CN‑NBT may raise demand for NuShares and also the confidence of US NuBit holders.
In what way shall the reserve be kept? USD on exchange? Have you heard about Bitfinex? You should always take exchange hacks into consideration. Even if you have 100% reserve at an exchange, you have no 100% reserve, but effectively
(1 - exchange risk) * 100%, where ‘exchange risk’ is between 0 and 1.
What pegs will you support?
CN-NBT/CNY? I suppose this won’t create enough demand (neither for CN-NBT nor for US-NBT).
CN-NBT/BTC? Welcome to the losing game again…
What has happened the last month in regard to continued NSR sales strongly suggests the peg could have been kept all along if even the most basic and essential aspects of our shareholder approved plan had been followed consistently. All it would have taken was rapid NSR sales and not introducing the asymmetrical offset. Thus, it was a governance crisis, not a financial one. The governance crisis resulted in the shuttering of every day liquidity operations. This understandably seriously undermined confidence in NuBits, which led to the low demand we now have to deal with.
Our governance crisis was characterized by a disconnect between shareholder directives and the behavior of decentralized liquidity providers. The disconnect only persisted for a few weeks. Shareholders really are in control in our DAO, but it takes weeks for them to meaningfully speak.
Initial indications are that the reorganization of liquidity operations will prevent this type of disconnect from occurring again, while simultaneously dramatically reducing liquidity operations costs. This in turn allows us to support additional currencies.
Why do you waste your time and use your rethorical skills to lull people into a story that just isn’t true instead of working on what’s important?
Nu has financial problems.
During the crisis it became apparent.
This is no mere governance issue.
Nu makes no revenue and has burned through all its funds.
Instead of working on revenue, a redesigned business, you strive for a ponzi scheme, prolonging the dream of an insatiable liquidity engine, which behind the fancy name is just another expression for a ponzi scheme.
This liquidity engine doesn’t work with new money flowing into Nu (e.g. by CN-NBT).
It could be different with revenue.
You are right and that’s the only reason I write here any longer.
What I meant is: I’d be wasting my time, if my goal was saving Nu.
The time is not wasted, because lessons can be learned for future attempts.
Increase NSR liquidity to get rid of the NSR he bought - realizing that reviving the ponzi scheme was without avail.
That is how Nu pegging works – liquidity is offered by Nu to give market a stable price of nbt. No?
I think the reason of crashing so hard is that confidence in Nu community was suddenly removed when the architect, ignorant in what was the team were doing (e.g. blame @Cybnate who strictly followed orders, and disbanded the whole team without realizing it), wielded his then still existing authority over the community to drive away everyone tending the Nu machine.
I agree that we should have followed the Standard strctly. However I believe as long as the team and the architect are seen working together rationally confidence in Nu would not have been lost. How else can you explain that Nu lasted so long with 15% reserve? Price reflects confidence. Now we have someone who would rather commit a false identity suicide than admitting error ruling with one assistant. That hardly inspires confidence.