The buyback threshold at 15% of circulating NBT is considered with regards to only BTC addresses controlled by FLOT and @JordanLee. Explicitly, NuSafe is held in addition to the Bitcoin reserve rather than instead of.
This motion is void if 5b184631f652c286b6b85c284a4f1b8839bf41fb is passed.
Not sure about this. Is this just for the share buyback calculation? Can’t we just assume what we have assumed before and continue to use that. Shareholders can raise a motion if they are not happy with that direction.
It appears to be too small of an issue to raise as a motion imo, but happy to be proven wrong.
I am a shareholder, im not happy with the direction, im raising a motion. Im not sure i understand your objection. There is a clear difference between counting stable liquidity like NuSafe for the 15% and not. The difference is $30k in reserve, or $3k per buyback. As our buybacks are currently under $3k and NuSafe is over 20% of our reserve, i would say it is indeed a big difference. What’s more, it sets a whole lot of precident for things like tether, as referenced in the stable liquidity motion.
If a motion like this is not passed i will refuse to vote in any other stable liquidity option like NuSafe as it will deplete our btc reserves and break the way Nu functions by causing a hypothetical negative btc reserve. This impossibility will break the buyback mechanism.
This motion is the $150,000 case, the other motion (referenced in this motion) is the $75,000 case. The -$350,000 case is current operation.
Thanks for your clarification. I was under the impression that we added NuSafe and Tether (later) to the reserve, not as a part of the 15% reserve. That probably proves it needs to spelled out better.
Re Tether motion, with the motion in this thread you are basically trying to secure the NuSafe part in case the Tether motion doesn’t pass? In that case I support this and will add this motion to my datafeed soon.
The other motion does a complex thing where it uses the concept of outstanding nubits for the 15% instead of circulating nubits (so stable liquidity affects the btc and ppc reserve in an ancillary way) in addition to the tether stuff. The motion in this thread is simple and straightforward and designed to pass consensus.
NuSafe can be indeed to be used to buy BTC which is used to buy back NBT. In this sense it can be seen as part of the reserve. But I can agree to not counuting it in, because I personally think te 15% is lowered than I like.
Truth, NuSafe is technically T4 buy side, which is why it is counted for the buybacks by the letter of NuLaw. This motion specifically says that we will hold 15% in btc, and everything else is on top of that. It is a slight, but important, change in philosophy of T4 reserves.
Can t we say in this case that we need to hold at least 150k nbt worth of funds into T4 reserves, whether it is dynamic or static which means that there are 350k usd worth of stable liquidity that needs to be used for purchasing nsrs back? In this case, I do not see where the issue of negative btc funds arises.
Nu has a very powerful ability to settle technical debt within NuLaw without requiring anything but shareholder consensus. We could indeed continue without regard for our btc holdings, and any contract like NuSafe would be forced to wade into the muck of approaching the 15% and how the weight of keeping the peg will fall on usd contracts because FLOT simply doesnt keep a separate btc reserve. However, i think it greatly takes the burdeon off future stable liquidity contracts for Nu to explicitly separate out a btc reserve with its own rules separate from NuSafe and other potential contracts.
If I understand correctly this would mean NuSafe would be in addition to the 15% norm right? Instead of it being an replacement of part of the 15% we’d normally have in BTC (current situation).
I’m a proponent of both increasing our reserves and diversification of said reserves. I like the distinction you made here in terms of stable and dynamic liquidity. If a tether reserve won’t be possible due to regulations, (we really should find someone or maybe contact tether to find out the details) I would like to see the Definitions and Outstanding Nubits & Overflow parts added as motion text to this motion.
This motion does not use outstanding nubits, instead using a simple bitcoin reserve and ‘other’. The outstanding nubits concept is a useful complication in my opinion, but without the tether reserves it just seems like it makes the bookkeeping more complicated without much gain. This motion is simpler, stating that NuSafe and the bitcoin reserve will be accounted for entirely independently. The outstanding nubits concept creates a coupling between stable and dynamic reserves and I do think we’ll want to head there eventually, especially if we figure out how to implement tether and allow FLOT to freely buy them to reduce the outstanding debt.
Anyway, for this motion there is no such thing as outstanding nubits. If this passes, the bitcoin reserve will be 15% of all nubits in circulation, peercoin at 5%, and NuSafe with an independent $30k.
Im not sure i understand the question. The statement of the motion is that we will hold 15% of all circulating nubits In Bitcoin. That means that nusafe will not be counted toward the 15% and will therefore be excluded and independent.