Seeing an interesting turn in the market with the sell side lower than the buy side. https://alix.coinerella.com/charts/
Bitcoin broke through the 450 USD and traders are locking in their profits. This maybe the signal to lower the rates soon.
Current rate for supplying BTC is 1/10 of that, about 0.008. I guess it is because BTC is more liquid. Since we want people’s BTC to help our nbt/btc wall, the btc rate on bitfinex is more relevant.
Then if the btc rate is more important. I would consider polo’s rate @ 0.04%. Because a savvy investor goes to the best.
But the whole thing is confusing to me. Since we are dealing in virtual fiat.
Still talking about parking NBT, has anyone here tested parking NBT with a different unpark address when major protocol event/change occurred?
Is that even possible to occur some crazy bugs* when a hard-fork (or even soft-fork) occurred before it’s unpark time?
- e.g. issue while trying to unpark (coins stuck on protocol level; coins unparked and sent to different address; coins “unparkable” only in previous client version; etc)
Why would a network change be an issue? Once the number of blocks exceeds the parking duration the outputs become valid to use.
I just came up with that eventual possibility after reading what happened here:
BTW I was thinking about rates: maybe it’s plausible voting for APR/2 (half the APR) of liquidity providers average (expected or past) profit.
Wouldn’t that be logic considering the risks taken by both players (LP and “Parkers”)?
That thread had to do with issues with the wallets. The coins were where they were supposed to be on the blockchain the whole time.
Most parkers will park once the rates either stop going continuously up or even start coming down. This will coincide with our first wave of potential economic recovery. I do not expect a serious amount of parking until then. In theory, shareholder sentiment will cause that to occur as the BTC price starts leveling off or reversing, which is also when demand for NBT starts picking up again. The whole thing is very fuzzy, but they’re all positive feedback mechanisms that will either tip the scale or not. If it doesn’t tip enough, we have to deal with the negative feedback stuff again later. If it tips too much we become wasteful of resources.
This can’t be a coincidence (see screenshot). Round numbers for all park rate durations. Someone is controlling and manipulating the interest rates here. Would be interested to hear why. It scares me as it means someone or a small group collaborates and control very large parts of the current minting power. This doesn’t help to convince people that we have a good distribution as this appears to proof otherwise sadly, even though this proves it only for the current minting power. Hope someone can clarify this and explain the purpose of this experiment please.
2 Likes
It isn’t so hard to collaborate in this. Many shareholders could follow a single proposal about park rates.
What are the current numbers that all data feeders use?
edit: i see they are all different!
No worries about it 
I guess a script can be made by someone(s) in order to alter dynamically their park rate voting in order to make this result.
2 Likes
It requires a great deal of collaboration and effort to calculate minting power if you look at my park rates and cryptog’s and MoD’s and Crypto-coiner’s.
Ok, let’s play and collaborate then 
It might be bug of the client.
I believe that would be a very interesting bug to analyse. But you are right anything is possible, some people do win lotto after all. It just appears unlikely to me as bugs tend to be leading to more random results. And I haven’t seen anything like this the last time we had park rates. Will keep a closer eye on some park rate voting behaviours. Lacking a bit of time to analyse data.
Why wouldnt they be round numbers? If all shareholders enter round numbers then park rates will always be round numbers when the system has reached equilibrium. The network settles onto the median number, which is usually a round one. Just check out the response to getparkvotes and you’ll see that everyone is voting in round numbers.
1 Like
Sorry, saw something about a bug mentioned. Can someone explain further what the problem is with whole numbers showing up for park rates? Park rates are calculated using a median and not an average. If many individuals are using whole number park rates there’s a very high possibility the rate chosen from a large set could be whole values.
3 Likes
Agreed. I don’t think it’s odd that the middle number from a group of numbers might be a whole number. Perhaps @Cybnate thought it was taking the mean instead of the median.
2 Likes
I knew it was the median but what median, but still think the round numbers and 1% difference between each active durations was a very coincidental outcome looking at the datafeeds and the votes.
Regarding median, given that the rates have been in broken numbers all the time from zero to where they were yesterday, I understand it is the median over the last 1000 blocks or something like that, so only when the voting doesn’t change over the last 1000 blocks and everyone votes real numbers this coincidence is remotely possible. Assuming no scripts been used by major shareholders which won’t be easy, I still think we could have won third division lotto
Someone bought $2000 worth of nbt with USD at ccedk, maybe to park? This amount is newsworthy for nbt/usd.
2 Likes
Like to think your park rate bitcointalk thread did work.
2 Likes