phenomenal in your terms, disastrous in grounded peoples’ terms. I am too lazy to look it up, but @Phoenix himself non-stop repeated how important NSR liquidity is for the whole liquidity system. Then let’s measure his performance in the terms he himself defined.
I am not sure whether we are climbing the ranking up or down with you (@Phoenix) in full charge. Let’s assume we are climbing up: you are so phenomenal that we could even soon overtake FuckToken. Congratulations. For those who are confused by the weird ranking (Fucktoken vs Applecoin) - they first rank according to market cap and then after Applecoin there is a cut. That’s where the absolute shitcoins start with public interest approaching zero, which is represented by the literally non-existent volume. We are proud of you @Phoenix, without you all this would not have been possible.
@coinforward as you are an outstanding journalist, please draw a complete picture and let your followers know that this coin is literally dead. If you like how @Phoenix talks, you could use one of his favorite sayings, which goes like this: “The market has spoken”. I would be willing to pay you the same amount of money that @Phoenix paid you to write the article.
@MaVo you know the volume figure you pictured has no relevance. Neither is it accurate. Why did you decide to use it? Which of our competitors is paying you to do this?
I am self-employed, mentally healthy and morally consistent. Who pays you? I can tell you who did: I did. $20,000 for BKS that you put straight into your pocket.
And you know what? Come on, let’s argue about the volume figure. Tell me, what is the volume, the most important aspect for the liquidity engine to work. How much is it? I would use a percentage figure if I was Phoenix to let everyone know, because it sounds more impressive (although it is misleading of course). Let’s take $3,000 as an example because of the buybacks. I said it’s roughly $50. Jesus, that is 6000% of what I actually said! Ok, Nu is good to go. In best shape ever!
Edit: but you must still admit that we still can’t compete with AppleCoin.
The truth is not available to us, so we can only rely on feelings and gut instincts. This is how you have structured Nu. If you don’t like people assuming things about you, then do something to change it instead of consistently making the governance problems worse.
This link has most my design for Hayek model.
Hayek model solves two big problems of liquidity engine.
No need to pay decentralized LP, let them earn their own living, e.g low cost.
No need to dilute (early) shareholders. We must make the share price higher and higher, otherwise the early shareholders may rebel, this is dangerous for a child company.
In 2015, I invested 130 BTC into B&C, if BKS price is as good as BTC (more than 20X higher), I may consider retiring and put all my energy into B&C. See, we must make early participants rich, this will help our project just as BTC did.
In 1976, F. A. Hayek designed an excellent mechanism to issue private & stable currency, we just need to “port” it into cryptoworld. His thought is way better than BTC’s fixed supply.
Here is a link for people researching Nu and it’s history: [Passed] Performance Bonuses for Peg Restoration
Interesting thread, thank you!
@Phoenix I want to know your opinion about my model(modified Hayek’s), is it possible to try this way on BKC? We apply “liquid engine” on Nu and Hayek’s on B&C respectively, either of them succeeds, we succeed.
That really helps. When a contract is due, the LP needs to return BKC to receive BKS. Which scenarios can occur that affect this dynamic?
BKC is created from pledged BKS according to pledge ratio. What do you mean by 100% reserve when short-term contract is due?
If an LP doesn’t return the same amount of BKC, the pledged BKS are claimed by BCE itself (B&C Exchange shareholders) and can be sold to resolve the inconsistency (buy back BKC).
A short-term contract may be as long as the market can be reasonably predicted within the pledge ratio?
LPs can abandon their responsibility. What happens then? BCE would begin printing and selling BKS to buy BKC just like Nu? If LPs don’t reacquire BKC for their loans, they can buy new BKS to pledge for BKC to pay back the previous loan.
I like this.
According to historical data from 2014 to 2016, NSR cap is around 2-4 times of NBT’s. So if shareholders vote for 3:1 ratio.(3$ value of share vs 1$ value of coins), no need to worry the insufficient share cap. to support coins. Of course, not all shareholders will pledge their shares.
If coins demand is high in market, the need for LP and share will also increase.
For some reasons, share price plumbs to much lower level so that LPs choose to give up their pledged shares and to run away with coins or convert coins to BTC/USD. We start the “liquidity engine” like today. In most time, our short-term loan will work fine, when the contract is due, it’s indeed 300% reserve because LP will pay nearly 300% price to buy back their BKC otherwise 300% value of shares will be confiscated.
In my opinion, “liquidity engine” is an emergency resort(once per several years?), should not be a daily operation because it dilutes shareholders and depresses share price as @phoenix said “painful”.
So short-termed loan mechanism inspired by F.A.Hayek is not complete substitution for “liquidity engine”, it’s an firewall for “liquidity engine”.If Hayek model works fine daily, we don’t need to start debt-equity swap(liquidity engine),
A short-term contract may be as long as the market can be reasonably predicted within the pledge ratio?
Unless share price is very violent, shareholders don’t need to frequently adjust the pledge ratio. When share price goes up, we don’t worry about the LP’s responsibility abandon at all because pledged shares are more valuable. We only need to be alert for the quickly plumbing of shares into 1/3 price. But that would unlikely to happen without enough reasons, at least, our shareholder won’t suicide in this way if our business is smooth.
LPs can abandon their responsibility. What happens then? BCE would begin printing and selling BKS to buy BKC just like Nu? If LPs don’t reacquire BKC for their loans, they can buy new BKS to pledge for BKC to pay back the previous loan.
When an LP gives up pledged BKS due to BKS price collapse, his BKS is claimed by B&C protocol and for auction sell. This may not completely compensate the system loss because pledged BKS value is lower than borrowed BKC value which is the reason LP abandon responsibility. Extra BKS is issued just like Nu does today. Fortunately loan contract is short term, so when LPs want to sign new loan contracts they will find that the quantity BKC to be borrowed is smaller than previous contract due to BKS price drop.
So shareholders should vote for a safe pledge ratio with enough margin, so that even BKS price halves within short-term, LPs still find their pledged BKS is more expensive than their borrowed BKC. They will execute the contract.
A shareholder can select automatic data source, after his online wallet receiving BKS price info from some big exchanges, e.g $4 per BKS, combined with preset 3$:1$ pledge ratio(set by individual shareholder), his wallet will compute the final pledge number ratio 1.33:1.
That is he votes for “pledge 1 BKS to borrow 1.33 BKC”, this is mediant vote and his wallet shows real time voting result just like B&C now voting “reward” and “number of signers”.
Hayek’s model is very effective in shrinking coins supply, if shareholders want to make coins circulation into ZERO, they just vote ZERO ratio, then after a short-term all coins will flow back into protocol without issuing extra shares. If some BKC customers refuses to sell their BKC to LPs, LPs will have to pay 200-300% to buy back BKC to avoid their BKS loss, e.g. BKC pegging failed due to very high price promotion. I don’t think we need to vote for Zero pledge ratio, such a violent decision.
