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.
Fair enough, if a Tether reserve is not possible this motion is less complicated for now. Would like to keep the text in mind for the hopefully next proposal regarding a value stable reserve.
I think this proposal makes sense.
It forces Nu to increase its dynamic reserves and add a stable reserve.
I will vote for it.
less than 2% of support right now
That’s fine, consensus takes time. Once the motion picks up a data feed or two people will take notice and add it. Im fairly confident this one will pass.
Sorry for the delay. Voting.
This is interesting but how can you ensure that will be effectively executed and this is not clearly elaborated within the motion text, imho
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.
I guess I need some context and elaboration within th motion – does the motion regard btc reserve at any time or at the buy back time spcifically?
What’s the difference? We only calculate the size of the reserve once a week at buyback time.
So ok, this is a motion that specifies we hold 15% of nbt value in btc at the time of buyback check.
Reserve = which tier and who holds it?
This isnt a new reserve. This changes just one little clause in the buyback motion to switch from all T4 buy side to btc only.
Well to be fair it significantly increases the reserve fraction from 15% to like 24%, which I happen to like given that Nu is still young and fragile. The draw back of a higher reserve is efficiency of fund is lower – more money is idle. I think it is acceptable. The idle funds are guards.
And they are necesary!
Liquidity wise Nu is operating as fractional reserve, which backs the difference by corporate value.
The “guards” need to be on a sufficient level to keep both Nu and its customers safe from a bank run.
I highly appreciate to ramp up USD stable reserves.
The 24% might still be too low for the next months and quarters.
While this will impact the NSR buybacks (more funds in reserve = smaller/no buybacks) it helps fostering a more reliable liquidity operation.
Im hoping this will pass before ppc buybacks trigger so we dont buy into ppc before we’re ready. I’m hoping we’ll see the ppc reserve fill when demand for nbt picks up again, rather than stretching our bitcoin reserves thin.
Now i get it.
Added to my data feed