If you don’t have the private key for an output, it isn’t yours 
Would be a good reason not to leave NBT on an exchange.
…the more transactions the better for Nu
So we would be paying exchanges to hold nbt cold wallets. That’s not necessarily a bad thing.
Because I think that the longer the nubits stay parked, the longer they are harmful in case there is a sell pressure but yeah if in 6 months, there is too much buy pressure on the contrary, having parked nubits becomes instead harmful. However, in that case, we would print more nubits having in mind the nubits that are getting unfrozen each day so that we can control how many nubits become free electrons in circulation each day.
But perhaps it could get too complicated to get control over it.
Anyway, we should get a compromise between a not too low interest rate for a not too short period and a too high interest for a too long period, I feel.
Since we are still having a buy side higher than 50% of the sell side while rates are all at 0%, I will reduce my rates and discard the 6-month period.
Good you remove the 6-mo one.
That is just snake eating its own tail arguement. You just push small short term risks to bigger long term ones, and hope everything will be magically sorted out. Those parked coin will be 10% more in 6 mo and you will have to offer even higher interest to lock them up again.
bisides 20% APR will kill any business proposal that cannot bring back 20% risk-adjusted profit every year with Nubits. Look around you, how many business offers 20% return a year without risk? Basically nothing. So forget legit business with nubits and enjoy nubits like those 20% pa POS scam coins.
I hear you. Indeed, I do not know such businesses.
However, I do not know such businesses with 10% or 5% annual return either.
So parking NBTs must entail some risk or the whole parking concept is either flawed or giving away money for free.
I think it does entail some risks since there is no guarantee for the depositors that those NBTs will have kept their pegs during the parking period.
So the parking concept brings a valid tool.
I feel there must be some kind of acceptable max annual rate and max parking period.
10% and 3 months?
Would you have any concrete justification for such limit if that makes any sense to you?
This is how I determine park rates:
Take any given category n with time t and rate r; choose that category’s ideal rate r’ after time t. Now, category n+1 = ( r’ + r ) / 2 in order to maintain internal constancy, such that all rates for categories greater than n are determined. Do this every t days.
You should find that all the higher bins will tend to have small numbers and you can just kind of cut off at some point. I generally go out to 4 or 8 years, cause it’s really easy to do this kind of linear math for me.
The lower cut off is determined by how often you want to adjust the rates. I tend to go down to 11.4 days.
Can you give an example?
Today rates are 0%. I think in 11.4 days, we want 5%. Those two bits of info are all I need to fully determine park rates using a shortsighted method:
11.4 d: 5%
22.8 d: 2.5%
1.5 m: 1.25%
3 m: 0.625%
6 m: 0.3125%
As another example, let’s pretend the rates currently are like the example above now and I think rates should be 3% in 11.4 days. Therefore, I vote:
11.4 d: 3%
22.8 d: 4%
1.5 m: 3.25%
3 m: 2.25%
6 m: 1.4325%
1 y: ~0.65%
And so on. The math can get cumbersome without a calculator.
Edit: With the current park rates we have now (2% for 22.8d, 1.5m and 3m), that same first example where I want 5% after 11.4d looks like this now:
11.4d: 5%
22.8d: 2.5%
1.5m: 2.25%
3m: 2.125%
6m: ~2%
1y: 1%
2y: 0.5%
Here you can see why I call this the shortsighted method. If the park rates for everything above 11.4d were 5%, but 11.4d was still 0%, this method would drag all the rates down. For example, if I started with 22.8d instead of 11.4d, I would get this:
22.8d: 5%
1.5m: 3.5%
3m: 2.75%
6m: 2.375%
1y: 1.1875%
2y: ~0.5%
If we really want the best picture, we have to decide for each category. With the more complicated model, however, we can forget what’s actually happening with the park rates and just focus in on our ideal distribution.
11.4d: I want 5%
Vote: 5%
22.8d: I’m voting 5% now, I want 5% in 11.4d.
Vote: 5%
1.5m: I’m voting 5% now, I want 4.5% in 22.8d.
Vote: 4.75%
3m: I’m voting 4.75% now, I want 4% in 1.5m.
Vote: 4.375%
6m: I’m voting 4.375% now, I want 3% in 3m.
Vote: ~3.7%
1y: I’m voting 3.7% now, I want 2% in 6m.
Vote: 2.85%
2y: I’m voting 2.85% now, I want 1% in 1y.
Vote: 1.425%
4y: I’m voting 1.425% now, I want 0% in 2y.
Vote: 0.7125%
When I say “I’m voting ___ now” I mean that that’s the vote for the previous category the we just established. This formula allows me to turn my preferred park rates into self-consistent park rates.
For instance, @cryptog has posted his preferred rates as:
– 1.4d: 2%
– 2.8d: 3%
– 5.7d: 4%
– 11.4d: 5%
– 22.8d: 6%
– 1.5m: 7%
– 3.0m: 10%
Which I assume are his actual, real desired rates. In that case, what he should really be voting, in my opinion, is as follows:
– 1.4d: 2%
– 2.8d: 2.5%
– 5.7d: 3.25%
– 11.4d: 4.125%
– 22.8d: ~5%
– 1.5m: 5.5%
– 3.0m: 6.25%
– 6.0m: 8.125%
– 1.0y: ~4%
– 2.0y: 2%
– 4.0y: 1%
– 8.0y: 0.5%
The fact that we can’t come up with a convincing reason to deternine differences in interest rate for different park lengths suggests that they all should be set the same.
1 Like
That is a good way to avoid a complex model, but then we need to be extra careful not to set too high a rate for too long or too short a period of time. I’m happy with the distribution we have right now, offer parkers a flat 2%/yr interest if they park between 1 and 3 months.
1 Like
buy side is 35k. sell side is 30k.
i will nullify my rates.
EDIT: well instead of nullifying, drastically reduce them.
2 Likes
I’m reducing my rates as well.
1 Like
I’m 2% from 11 days to 6 months.
1 Like
buy side: 31k
sell side: 44k
I am raising my rates - 2% 5% 10%
I am raising the rates from 0% to 15% over up to 3 months since the the gap between sell and buy side is more than 20k NBT now (buy side is almost only 50% of sell side) but parking rates do not seem to be regarded as a reliable tool by shareholders in general for adjusting the supply on the short term, any more. Am I correct?
I am raising my rates as well due to the imbalance between buy- and sell-side.