[Passed] 150k for tier 4 sell side liquidity (extremely urgent)

Approval of this grant is very urgent, because reliable tier 4 sell side funds are on track to run out in about 48 hours.

Proposal RIPEMD160 hash: 243e992e3b542644ec16147f543ad52e80d3491e
Please do not place the above hash in your Nu client (it is for verification only).

=##=##=##=##=##=## Custodian Hash starts with this line ##=##=##=##=##=##=

Custodial Address: B5Zi5XJ1sgS6mWGu7bWJqGVnuXwiMXi7qj
Amount Requested: 150000 NBT

Despite the large amount of this requested grant, it is for a routine purpose that merely enables the status quo, much like the monthly grants to pool operators.

I only have about 60,000 NBT that can be used as tier 4 liquidity right now, and yet the network has needed me to bring about 33,000 of tier 4 sell side liquidity in the last several days. That may not lastlong, making this custodial grant urgent. Soon FLOT will be the primary solution and FSRT the backup, but that isn’t the case yet.

The granted funds will only be used for tier 4 sell side in accordance with unpassed motion f99ddf406a32d39be7d614c13dc1ce63c96e4003 and for development and marketing in an average amount of 10,000 NBT per month, as a continuation of the current practice. Any other use of these funds, such as additional development, must be approved by shareholder motion first.

=##=##=##=##=##=## Custodian Hash ends with this line ##=##=##=##=##=##=

Verify. Use everything between and including the <custodianhash></custodianhash> tags.

Peg maintenance is the highest priority, so I prefer this motion over doing nothing. I am voting for it, and look forward to FLOT establishing itself in the near future.

1 Like

The above grant has passed less than 1 week ago. Excuse my ignorance but has the 100k all been spend on tier 4 liquidity provision so another 150k is required within a week? Although T4 and liquidity provision is tied up with each other, this grant appears to be only driven by the need for additional t4 liquidity due to FSRT failing?

Maybe this motion should have slightly different wording or some further explanation?


Suuuper uncomfortable giving out another 150k a week later. Where is all the nbt going? What do we do with all the revenue in such a short time without introducing liability? I think we should hire another top notch developer and pay them out of T4, personally.


I have the same concerns. First we need to know where the first 150k are and where the assets that back them are.

1 Like

The first grant was 100k and it’s all sitting in T4 as btc right now. We are using them for buybacks. This is wonderful if the demand is real. We must be wary of a ‘buy slow sell fast’ attack though. I think we should increase the threshold from $80k for buybacks to a % of the nbt in the wild, like @masterOfDisaster wants. Since we’re changing that number so quickly, now is the time. Imagine if we keep dropping 150k nbt/week. The nbt supply will double in a month.

1 Like

We might be under attack actually I was thinking. Anyone with the same feeling?

It makes sense. Any concrete idea for that percentage?

1 Like

@masterOfDisaster uses 12% in the FLOT motion.

1 Like

Introduce a motion then. I would support a very limited motion dictating that we should always keep 15% of the circulating supply of NBT in T4 funds. It would be much more likely to pass quickly than the detailed motion @masterofdisaster is proposing.

My motion draft is not that much more detailed, but it is in some areas e.g. dynamic where static behaviour has significant drawbacks.

It tries to focus on the most important area of Nu’s business: providing liquidity in a reliable way.

It has recommendations to guide the voting/granting behaviour of shareholders to fill the NBT funds to support the sell side and it refills the T1-3 sell side quite reliably.

Proceeds from sold NBT will be distributed, but only those funds in excess of what is consider required to keep the peg if NBT holders want to sell NBT to Nu.

What’s the reason to vote for band aid motions (for single problems) instead of a motion that is more complete?
People not willing to think this through?
If that’s the reason, attackers will soon be ahead of Nu’s processes…

While i completely agree with @masterOfDisaster in that I would prefer we have a well-thought out plan rather than a pieced together structure. That said, we already have what we already have and this argument is referencing a number in a motion that has been passed and acted on for a month now. So I will be proposing a new motion about this like @tomjoad suggested if no one beats me to it.

@masterOfDisaster suggested 12% global reserve. @tomjoad suggested 15%. Anyone else have opinions, or should I just pick whatever number I fancy at the time?

1 Like

The hashed proposal text explains that 33,000 of the 100k has been promoted to tier 3. At that rate, the 100k will be gone in a week. Of course, it is possible it won’t last that long, so this is urgent.

It is driven by the need for additional tier 4 sell side liquidity, yes. @FSRT has been slower than I would like in completing final steps for safe handling of funds. I imagine if the situation became more urgent that FSRT would respond favourably to the pressure. However, we shouldn’t endanger the peg as a means of applying pressure to FSRT to finish. Peg maintanence is priority one. We need backups and redundancy when it comes to keeping the peg.

We all understand liquidity operations can be improved, and they will be soon with FLOT. Today we have to use what works right now.

1 Like

Anyone can see where it is going. So far, all of it has gone to NuLagoon in exchange for BTC, which I have detailed in other posts.

I am also excited about increasing the pace of development. If our market cap stabilises far above its previous base of about 1.5 million then we will have some options there. However, that is unrelated to this custodial grant. I will ask for development funds in NuBits, and when sold by contractors they will apply pressure on the sell side. That will organically decrease funds available for share buyback.

So it’s just going through NuLagoon, it’s really going to the people buying from NuLagoon. So again, where is it going? Presumably people are buying NBT and holding it. As @cryptog is concerned about, how do we know most of those NBT aren’t being held by a single attacker?

My guess is that this is organic NuBit demand. Our NuBit transaction counts have about doubled over the last two weeks compared to earlier periods. There is little evidence one way or another, however. With that in mind, we are well prepared to handle any sudden sell volume with more than 500 BTC in tier 4, park rates that have been at zero for many months, and the possibility of tapping our market cap at a higher level than has been the case in many months.

I can see this doesn’t feel good to many shareholders. It doesn’t appeal to the geek in us that wants clean and automated multisig solutions. It may feel like I am demanding more resources when I was just given so many. That isn’t really an accurate take because the resources aren’t being consumed, they are being pumped back into the market cap.

We should all be overjoyed that we are working on the problem of excessive NuBit demand. This is what winning looks like. We are in a very strong position. Now we need to meet the market demand for NuBits with supply.


I understand that you may be sensitive to that, but that’s not actually my concern. My concern is that we give a ton of NBT to a single attacker, thinking it’s genuine market demand, and then we invest all the money that attacker gave us and when he comes back to sell all at once we have to back out of all our investments in a hurry.

The concern I have with this motion is actually the same concern I would have if FLOT were operational and asking for a new $150k grant every week. It’s like @masterOfDisaster says, if we don’t think through the possible attack vectors now we’ll be one step behind and end up getting taken for a ride.

Just to be clear, I am voting for this grant because I don’t think even this much would be enough to really cripple the network if there were an attack. Still, I would like to steer toward solutions that make it so that we don’t even have to worry about how many NBT we’re putting out in the wild.


how exactly an attacker could attack nu?
by destroying the peg and sell all his nubits for a loss?

We could have a motion to suspend the buybacks for the next 4 weeks or something.

I plan on making a post about balance sheet attacks later, spelling them out as I see it. There are several attack vectors, most of which are highly risky for the attacker and all of which require a lot of liquidity. Basically, the one I’m referring to is the one where the attacker just keeps buying NBT from the network until they own a large portion of the NBT debt, then sell all at once. It’s one of the simplest attacks that causes people to fear <100% reserve systems like ours. I am advocating switching from a fixed $80k threshold for T4 to a % reserve threshold.

1 Like

It will be important to keep game theory considerations in mind when analyzing attack vectors.

The ultimate question an attacker would ask prior to starting is whether or not the attack would be profitable for him (financially) or his interests (such as harming our perceived quality to promote a competitor) and then how likely success is.

This is an underrated benefit of NSR for NBT burning. Shareholders have already signalled previously that they are very willing to use that tool when necessary. Given that the NSR market cap is many multiples higher than NBT right now, as well as our robust T4 liquidity, I doubt an attacker would view our network as an easy target. They would have to update their odds of a successful attack with that information. I certainly wouldn’t want to try a buy slow, sell fast attack right now.

1 Like