Park Rate Voting

If park rates stabilize at something like 12% then drop to 5%, they should do so by first dropping the long term rates down below 5% (this would be economically favorable for Nu, at least). That means we should be dropping our 6 month rate if we think that the park rate will drop in 3 months. If you can speculate a park rate decline and are willing to take the risk for the longest time bins, then more power to you. If you’re trying to game the short term park rates, you should find them fair if the shareholders are voting properly.

I don’t think it should be impossible to use the private key of the output address to change the output address, though it probably would require a fork. Currently, trading a parked nbt just requires trading the output address for the nbt. Honestly, I don’t see a clear way this could bite Nu in the ass short term. They’re still parked, so you can’t drop them on custodians or the peg, just on the futures market (which this would basically create). In the long term those nbt were destined to come unparked anyway, this just provides more liquidity and use in the meantime. I like it.

Didn’t know that its done like that. Actually the maximal park rate ever provided by the shareholders during the duration of the parked NBT should be paid as interest rate, right? At least that’s how I understood it in the first place, but maybe I am also overlooking something.

You can right now already sell the private that belongs to the unpark address.
But that means both seller and buyer have the key afterwards.
Sounds like a bad deal for the buyer and requires escrow or other concepts to prevent abuse.
But that would actually be the way I’d prefer, because it keeps the Nu protocol simple.

I think I would prefer a fork so we can have the possibility for change of address using the private key. However, I think it’s low on my priority list of what I think Nu should fork to implement.

I’m confused by your reply. If the 6 month park rate is 20%, the 3 month park rate is 5%, and the 1.5 month park rate is 10% and they never change:
If I park 100 NBT for 6 months I get 10 NBT
If I park twice for 3 months a piece I get 2.5 NBT
If I park 4 times for 1.5 months a piece I get 5 NBT
This is clearly a dumb example for Nu, and if park rates never changed all bins should be at the same rate.

The idea is to speculate what the park rates will be when you get out and if it would be worth the risk to try to double down on a shorter bin.

In this case, i.e. if the park rates are fixed and don’t change, both methods will result in the same payout.

Let’s instead assume the current park rate for 3 months is 2.5%, and after 1 month shareholders suddenly decide to raise it to 5% (i know this cannot be in one block, but for the example its fine) and after another month they suddenly decrease it again to 2.5%. So everyone who parked in the right window, will get 5% as payout, will everyone who started to park outside the window will get 2.5%, correct?

In my proposed method all people who parked before the latest decrease (2 months in the example) and at most 3 months before the increase, will get 5% and all who came later will get 2.5%.

What I said is correct for the current implementation, right?

Yah, I’m not a fan of that. In that case increasing park rates would directly increase amount Nu owes without actually increasing amount parked.

Yes I think your description of the current system is correct. Of course the proposed method could increase Nu’s liability but it also increases parking early on, because you don’t have to ask yourself anymore if its the optimal time right now to start. If the park rate now is fair enough, then park now, you can only get more or the same. This may reduce the target park rate we have to offer.

I’d also like to stress again that the targeted people to park their nubits (so far) are not high class economy wall street people who know the game and the rules with all its details, but regular cryptocurrency users who want to take an offer that is hopefully easy to understand.

It would change the game for sure. Since it can only increase the amount paid and not decrease from the current model all things equal, park rates would by necessity be lower. However, the real question is if we say that the amount Nu pays total in a given time period for parked nubits is held constant, does your method increase the number of parked nbt? I know that’s a hard question to answer, but if the answer is no then it is not a better model.

These are the types of people setting the park rates. If we were more logical about our chosen park rates I don’t think any of this would be an issue.

I think people have two fixpoints in their acting: One parking rate where they actually would be willing to park, and one parking rate where they immediately would park. I.e. maybe I am willing to park my NBT for 1% per year, but I’ll wait to see how high it goes. However, at some point I either speculate on an upcoming decrease and park or its just such a large interest rate that I don’t care if there is more to get.

In the current system people will always tend to wait, while the max interest system will merge both fixpoints such that in the moment where you are willing to park, your decision should also be to park. So I could imagine that we will need a smaller parking rate to encourage the same amount of parked NBT (i.e. we can attract more parked NBT using the same parking rate).

I didn’t want to muck Cryptog’s feed thread up, but I think this rate progression should be flipped when decreasing rates. I.e. longer periods should be valued less than shorter bins if you think we have reestablished the peg.

I personally don’t like the NSR dive and would be burning NSR for NBT right about now to take advantage of those park rates if such a thing were possible. What I’m saying is, I don’t think we’re out of the deep water yet.

I ll think about that.

Can someone remind me why the park rates are around 12% while buy and sell sides liquidity (44k and 70k, respectively) are not far from balanced?


People are responding to the NSR price. We should keep the park rates as they are and burn NSR for NBT, in my opinion.
But that conflicts with the auction, so it gets confusing. This is why we need decentralized burning.

If we aren’t burning, I agree we should reduce park rates and just deal with the low NSR price.

As a side note, is it possible to provably park? It would be interesting to have a motion like: Buy NSR > Burn for NBT > Park such that we successfully kick a portion of the problem down the road until we have a chance to develop and grow.

For reference, I just changed my numbers, because I don’t think we’re going to get a good burn mechanism soon. I’m currently going 10% for 11.4 days, decreasing linearly (quadratically in time) to 8% at 6 months and sharply dropping off from there down to 2.5% for 4 years.

It puzzles me too. We also burnt a lot of NBT recently so the pressure on the peg is much lower.
Hope the launch of two new liquidity pools soon will change shareholders’ minds.

1 Like

There are now more than 100k NBTs parked.
We saw an increase of more than 50k recently.
In terms of liquidity, we have:
44k in buy side
70k in sell side

So 38% in buy side. That is more than the 25% limit criterion advocated by JL.
I think we should reduce rates from now on.
I will do so in my feeds.


I reduced mine yesterday as well.

I don’t see any argument that could be articulated against raising rates right now, and the same is true over the last couple weeks.

Park rates have been consistently underutilized as our a method for maintaining the peg, which has placed the peg at unnecessary risk. It is definitely suboptimal to wait until most liquidity is gone to take action. That risks panic, erodes confidence and wastes resources. Shareholders should be constantly aiming to keep liquidity centered. It has been a mistake to not raise rates until liquidity is centered and balanced. The high cost of liquidity right now means there isn’t nearly as much of it as is desirable. This means what is there must be carefully maintained. Due to low levels of NuBit trading the volatility in the balance of the walls has been low. Liquidity being off center is only acceptable if it is short term (hours or a few days at most) volatility. If the average over weeks is off center, it indicates shareholder mismanagement.

Perhaps shareholders have been unaware that most liquidity is on the EUR/NBT and USD/NBT pairs on CCEDK. There has been very little on the BTC pairs for an extended period.

Those of you voting to keep rates the same or lower, would you share why please?


Did you read the comment by Cryptog directly above?

1 Like

There seems to be some selling pressure on NBT (or some rush to buy BTC), and the buy side has shrinked. One thing I can agree about decreasing park rates is to do that conservatively, in an experimental fashion.

I’m a big fan of decreasing the higher time bins and keeping the lower ones above 10% if you think park rates should gradually decrease.