And I want a comment from that little sucker @jooize on this. Comment on this, please.
Could you try to just put your thoughts into one post. It is incredibly spammy the way you shout over 4 or 5 in a row.
@Cybnate had an idea that we create a meta thread where all the criticisms of Nu can be collated. I’m all for criticisms being aired, heard and acted on but not to have them splashed across every single thread on the forum. I’d be interested in your and others thoughts on that as a way to constructively address these issues and come up with solutions that can actually be worked on.
I’m leaving your posts where they are as I think you really hurt your arguments by posting as you do and I think that becomes obvious to onlookers as they read your posts. I do agree with @jooize though that there does need to come a line in the sand We should probably come up with some guidelines posted on the forum to explain what is and isn’t appropriate.
I agree that there should be more openness and accounting but, correct me if I’m wrong, @jooize has been completely open about the amount of funds he controls and the locations of them. He posts daily with facts and figures about the continued liquidity operations with addresses and fund movements. Beyond that there is a lot more to do, I agree again, but we few who are actually performing the tasks have our work cut out. We’re repairing the network and the reputation of the network while also trying to develop methods and infrastructure to do so in a more automated and transparent way, all part time (whatever hours I can spare outside of Full time Job, Family commitments, Going Outside etc.) and all in an incredibly hostile environment. I’d love nothing more than to just crack on with my todo list and actually get some software out but every-time I feel I may actually have that opportunity, the network provides an alternative path. I’m sure others feel similar
Please, @jooize? And maybe @woolly_sammoth can comment on that as well. I would like to hear your thought on that @woolly_sammoth: what do you think is the motivation on failing at checking the prices of two exchanges at the same time? And if no motivation was behind that specific action, how would you justify that @jooize is in full control of Nu funds when he fails at comparing two prices of Nushares at the same time? Please provide your thought on that.
My opinion? I can see how it could happen when you’ve got many things that you’re watching at the same time (and no I’m not talking about just checking two exchanges so don’t try and twist that into a new stick to beat @jooize with), accidentally placing an order into the wrong exchange is easily done and I believe @jooize when he says it was an accident. It does highlight the need for automation of the liquidity activities to try and reduce the human error factor. As I said before, I would love to just get on with that but currently other infrastructure jobs are my main focus (when time allows).
Yes, it’s all accident. Everything is accident within Nu. Just everything. Placing opportunistic orders, theft, liquidity provision, a broken peg. Everything. And at the same time the actors are anonymous and refuse to leave even the slightest piece of a trail. I got you @woolly_sammoth, keep believing.
But let’s keep it fair here. Allow us to list all those “accidents” as often as possible. Newcomers should have a chance to understand how you guys are trying to suck money out of their pockets.
So posting the price, date and amount of the sale on the public forum is not leaving any trail? Was that the accident?
As I said before, I’m all for irregularities being pointed out as that makes the network better so yes, please, do keep pointing them out, as long as you can do so in a constructive way that allows those actually contributing to the network to act on them rather, than just raging.
How are you acting? You are discussing with those who point it out. Otherwise you are doing shit.
@MaVo, I understand your anger, I bought 7500BKS in 2015, my loss is greater than yours.
Let’s move on, some people are not so smart, just watch their final result.
Can anyone tell me the current parking rates and their time periods?
They finally have been set to zero by the shareholders. No park rates available.
I’m at a loss why shareholders are voting for 6-7% park rates on period for <12 months again.
Anyone cares to comment about this ‘strategy’? Are we doing advertising and why do you think this is effective? Any business case? It certainly doesn’t fit with the buybacks going on while the reserves are at the desired level.
Ok, I’m a bit early, but it’s already hard to trade NBT, while there’s decent volume at 5 different markets for XSPEC, which trade at $0.67 each.
That makes $1970 for the 2,941 XSPEC or a gain of 294% as of 2017-08-29.
To be continued.
- Your post has nothing to do with Park Rates.
- The point of NuBits is for them to stay worth the same.
I created a connection from the perspective of the economic feasibility for investors.
NBT park rates suck for the whole year 2017 compared to most random picks.
Please explain why anyone in his or her right state of mind should buy and park NBT if the profit to be had at e.g. XSPEC dwarfs it?
Oh, you already explained that, albeit with the wrong focus.
Because other investments are more viable.
Plus other stable coins are more stable AND sustainable (e.g. bitUSD).
As long as you can continue the greater fools game. Nu has no revenue. If that doesn’t change, Nu can’t survive. NuBits will be near worthless once that happens.
You haven’t started to learn some economics 101, Vice Chief of Liquidity Operations, did you?
Offtopic: it is hard to compete in a strong growing market. Still some people prefer a savings account with low interest over something else. Some prefer it to have it under their bed. It is not always about profit only (although nice bonus), it is about options and diversity. Please open a new thread if you like to continue this discussion.
I would like to find the time to articulate a comprehensive vision of what role park rates should play now and as Nu matures and grows. I will just mention a few quick points here.
Park rates are not very important right now, but I expect their importance to increase. Before they can become really important, there must be a large lending market in NuBits. Today, there is no discernible lending market. We need an active market in parked NuBits in order for them to be effective in peg support when we need it. Therefore, I believe park rates should be offered constantly, even if the rate is very low.
Our current task is to develop a market in parked NuBits. We need to balance the costs of paying the park rate and the benefit of developing this peg supporting mechanism. There has recently been a surge in parked NuBits, to $427,000 total. The total cost of premiums is less than $10,000. This means a little less than 4% of the currency supply is parked. It is a significant but still modest proportion.
As a reaction to the increased demand, I recommend minting shareholders reduce the park rate to 17% from its current 20% rate, for a period of a year or less.
Without the lending market I don’t see any value in short term (<3 months) parking rates. Short term parking rates don’t contribute not even to a future event when peg support is required and the market needs to be reduced. I believe it is just a waste, maybe less than 10k, but even so a waste. Why would you want to do that, shareholders?
I can see some value in long-term rates as that would stabilise the peg during future events. That can be justified as an insurance premium shareholders pay to NuBits holders willing to long-term park against the right rate. A bit like a bond. I don’t believe in bonds expiring within 3 months though. There is no value for shareholders.
I agree that parking should be developed as a mechanism to support the peg because issuance of new shares NuShares should only be used as the last resort. Nu does not want to dilute shareholders wealth.
In order to do so, parking rates market should be offering attractive rates, all the time, I agree, positive values even if very low.
I do not have particular insights about the exact number so I would following phoenix’s recommendations here.
I believe 17% would be too high within the current circumstance but since we would like to develop rapidly that peg mechanism, it should be regarded as a campaign period to attract customers.
So I would vote for 17% until further recommendations.
I strongly recommend minting NuShare holders and data feed providers vote for park rates of 28% annually, for a period up to 6 months.
Today park rates dropped slightly to 17%. I was expecting it to continue to rise, but there was shift in the vote pattern, at least by share days.
Our liquidity model very clearly indicates that elevated park rates are needed in the present circumstances. My confidence that they are necessary and far better than rates at 17% or below is extremely high. Not raising park rates now would be a significant deviation from the model that has flawlessly prevented our peg from falling below $1 for three years.
NSR pricing pressure from NSR sales is currently very high, with NSR sales last occurring at 10 BTC satoshis. From a shareholder viewpoint, this is a bad price to sell NSR at, relative to the option to offer park rates in the high 20’s. Low park rates mean shareholders will get diluted with NSR sales around $10 per voting NSR.
A park rate of 28% for up to 6 months, which is my recommendation at this time, will allow the reserve equilibrium to be approached with less pressure on the NSR price and without diluting NSR as much. Park rates don’t dilute NSR, but of course NSR sales do.
There is a problem with the protocol that shareholders have mandated be fixed, but development has not yet implemented it. Park rates use share days destroyed to calculate rates. This means NuShares that haven’t been transferred or minted with in an extended can have a very heavy vote rate. Most likely, someone started voting for no park rates with old NuShares in the last two days. To counteract this, if you have NuShares available for minting that haven’t been transferred or minted with in a long time, you can have a very large impact.
Will modify my park rates too.
I even think 28% is not enough though.
You forgot to mention that the peg was lost in june 2016 because we did not sell enough NSRs.
We do not want to make the same mistake here too.
So we must be prepared to sell plenty of NSRs if necessary but i agree let use park rates first.
28% for 6 months means in fact an actual interest rate of 14% over 6 months since the number you input into the client=28 is an annualized figure.
Please correct me if I am wrong.