Glad to see Nu shareholders begin to do accounting.
Could you tell me if the peg at spread of 2%, given with same NBT trade volume in the first 1.5 years, how much revenue can you get?
I can check everyday’s trade volume here, but difficult to summarize it.
Nowadays, Nu has 700,000NBT debts, for a 550 days(1.5years) period, if you can charge 1272NBT as a spread trade fee, on 2% ratio, means the trade volume of NBT per day is 64,000NBT, it seems that Nu can achieve 64,000NBT average daily volume easily.
It’s stupid to give up spread pegging. This team doesn’t know how to do business at all, hope community learn it quickly if there was a 2nd chance.
In fact if the official spread is 5%, and leave the room for volunteer LP to operate on their own, i.e. they are self funded and self management, LP can become a zero expenditure business. Just like BTC miners are all self management without compensasion from outside.
For the same 100 nbt volume, if you trade 100 once the fee is 100 times smaller than trading 1 nbt 100 times.
There is 2% spread between our Buy and sell wall, if someone buys 100NBT and sells 100NBT, twice trade, 200NBT trade volume and charged 2NBT. If someone buys 1NBT and sells 1NBT, 2NBT trade volumem, charged 0.02NBT, if he repeats 100 times, charged 2NBT.
If the first output of the transaction is empty (0 value and empty scriptPubKey), then it’s a CoinStake that generates 40 NSR. This transaction may have a fee that reduces the reward if it’s too large, but I’m not sure this can happen in practice.
If there’s only one input and its hash is 0:
if it’s an NSR transaction and “n” is -1 then it’s a CoinBase (and getrawtransaction mention it’s a coinbase). If it’s in the first 400 blocks then it’s the initial share generation, otherwise its value is zero and only there to make the network work.
if it’s an NSR transaction and “n” is -2 then it’s an NSR grant
if it’s an NBT transaction and “n” is -1 then it’s an NBT grant
No. I think there was a plan to add a new way to burn that would make them distinguishable but it’s not been implemented.
Actually I am in favor of a spread peg in that I see Nubits as a currency and I have never seen a currency market without a spread even if it is pegged. HKD is a good example. It is pegged to the USD and does not trade at mid.
However, my main concern is revenue and also Nubits Unique Selling proposition (which I will make a post about later today). As mentioned you could have a spread, a transaction fee or both. If for example the view is that US-NBT are to be perceived to be fungible with USD and therefore a spread is not workable then a transaction fee must be charged instead. Either way the effective amounts actually received and paid by the Nubits holder would either be or need to equate to that overtly displayed in a spread. It’s just about the optics.
Also the 2% to 5% was really a big guess on my part. The Transaction Fee% (or spread%) should = Liquidity Engine maintenance fee + BTC volatility fee* + any other cost of operation + profit margin *If possible the BTC volatility fee should be priced like a currency option premium so that the charge is more in volatile periods.
In my opinion (for what it’s worth) if the fee required is more than the market can support based on say 12 months of operation, then either the model needs to be changed to add more value or to create more efficiency. Also the way in which the fee is expressed must be easily understood by an average user.
Can anyone tell me what the tx charges are now to Nubit holders? I have seen much discussion but am unclear as to the actual outcome.
Thanks for the info. Ok so I think that most people in the forum would acknowledge that 1 cent for a BTC/NBT transaction is practically the same as being free, especially if no allowance is made for the transaction amount and hence the volatility risk. It’s good to see attempts made to try and address this. For Nubits revenue is the life blood, the injury is almost fatal but a transfusion is in the wings