As @creon said above, liquidity providers for Nu and miners for Bitcoin are not the same. Bitcoin is diluted in the form of block rewards to pay miners. The block rewards decrease over time, increasing Bitcoin scarcity and value of the coins. As the block reward drops to zero, transaction fees are supposed to take over in sustaining mining operations. If the value per Bitcoin dropped below what it cost miners to sustain their operations, Bitcoin’s network security would be threatened, thus security hinges on the value of Bitcoin.
In Peercoin, security of the network is paid for by diluting Peercoin around 1% a year. People mint with their Peercoin in order to maintain their wealth in the face of this dilution. The cost of maintaining the security of the network is extremely low, therefore Peercoin’s security model is not dependent on the value per coin to the degree that Bitcoin is.
NuShareholders act in a similar way and people mint in order to escape dilution. Since the reward is constant, rather than 1% per year, minters might actually profit from minting. However they also mint to vote in order to have their say on which direction the network is headed.
The liquidity provision of NuBits is entirely different from all of these. All we have is the money people give us when they buy our NuBits. Even if we have 100% reserve, we will slowly spend that entire reserve on liquidity providers who maintain the walls until all the funds run out. The only way to prevent the reserve from running out is to figure out how to earn revenue, such as through transaction fees. There needs to be enough transaction fees in order for Nu to reduce its liabilities under what it costs to maintain the network. That seems to be the only way for Nu to obtain self-sustainability.
