[Passed] LPC grant request for supporting NBT/USD on CCEDK

[GreatScott]

I am sorry, but I am very much against this. 10% a month for providing USD liquidity is not worth it. Think about this:

There is a bitcoin trader looking to cash out some bitcoins to his bank in Denmark. CCEDK has low fees for withdrawals in Denmark, just speculating. A Denmark bitcoin trader sees an opportunity to cash out $5000 with NuBits. He trades his bitcoin to NuBits and then to USD. He makes the withdrawal. Now there is no buy side liquidity on NBT/USD for the next 30 days.

If this likely scenario were to play out, the network paid $500 for this trader’s single withdrawal. He would have a very hard time cashing out $5000 worth of bitcoins on CCEDK otherwise.

[GreatScott]

Further, this is the second time I have spoken against a NBT/USD LPC proposal and I really do understand how important USD liquidity is to the peg. So I thought I would comment about how I think this can more efficiently work.

I think a possible solution to this is to find somebody who can easily put USD onto an exchange that would be willing to provide the service at a much lower fee, OR find an exchange owner that realizes that providing USD liquidity to NBT/USD is a low risk way to increase overall USD liquidity on their exchange.

@ronny have you at all thought about providing USD liquidity to NBT on your exchange as an LPC with the added possible benefit of increasing overall liquidity?

I have a large USD balance on BTC-e, but I have never wired money there. I am sure there are many others in my position.

[Cybnate]

That is a realistic scenario indeed. The problem I have is that no other options to provide liquidity on the NBT/USD pair are available. That is the reason I’m currently voting for it, until someone has a better proposal.

I’m looking forward to alternative proposals as you suggest.

[cryptog]

I see. So if 50% is not reached within that 10,000 blocks window, the protocol automatically dismisses the motion hash or custodian address? If it does not, what if 50% is reached at a point beyond that window, say 12,000 blocks later for example?

[desrever]

does not, what if 50% is reached at a point beyond that window, say 12,000 blocks later for example?

the window moves with blocks

[mhps]

The problem I have is that no other options to provide liquidity on the NBT/USD pair are available.

Why not sell NBT on Payeer and other payment processors / gateways. They have USD.

[cryptog]

So my grant can pass say 1y later and be totally ignored for 12m prior to that?

EDIT :Typo

[Cybnate]

Yes, as long as the Shareholders have confidence that you would execute it, it could pass. No deadlines from the Nu system.

[masterOfDisaster]

Right - it’s not a matter in which 10,000 consecutive blocks the majority was voting for a motion or a grant; it’s a matter of whether or not there is ever such a majority!
Am I right that the way to step down from a proposal would be to withdraw it before it has passed?

[Cybnate]

Yes, that is correct. Withdrawing a proposal before passing is the only way to ‘step down’ from an earlier submitted proposal before passing.

[cryptog]

Getting 40.83% right now. Please vote. My proposal is certainly not perfect but this is the best solution to support NBT/USD right now.

[cryptog]

I am losing support. Getting 32.54% now.
I do think supporting NBT/USD should be the priority.

[CoinGame]

Not sure why this is falling.Try cross posting to our subreddit?

[mhps]

Not sure why this is falling.

Maybe [a big fraction of shares stop minting][1] because they are moved to exchanges?

edit: mental note: when trying to get a motion to pass, pick times when NSR is cheap.
[1]: Current Proof of Stake Difficulty

[cryptog]

done.

[seki]

i believe that voting in times like this (i would call it a crisis) is a very slow mechanism to support pegging when needed. I hope there are other ways more spondaneous to do this

[cryptog]

Getting now 29.45%…Decreasing.

[desrever]

I am sorry I have been voting for this wrong all along. I voted for it as a motion. I got confused the first time I voted and never checked again. This is what confused me probably.

The RIPEND160 hash of this proposal is: 0d29544214dc78cbf9c946c25eb8994435394871

I thought this was a complex proposal that deserved its own motion.

My apologies again. My vote is not really going to change the trend but I now corrected and casting my vote :

BTgryZQ1dQNJYMjm74K3ajdRnDfsCjh3c3
499

Can’t wait to have feeds in the client .

Feedback: maybe graphically isolate the custodian address and the amount more clearly.

[cryptog]

I thought this was a complex proposal that deserved its own motion.

Since the original proposal has been modified, jordan lee recommended me to put a hash.

Feedback: maybe graphically isolate the custodian address and the amount more clearly.

Tks. I ll do next time I propose another proposal.

[Cybnate]

Like to repeat that I think this is an important grant. It provides liquidity (5k) on the USD/NBT pair on CCEDK which we currently don’t have anywhere. One can argue about the price for this liquidity (see discussion), but lacking other options I suggest to vote for it.

Add this to the custodian vote (under Vote) in your wallet if your in favor of it:

BTgryZQ1dQNJYMjm74K3ajdRnDfsCjh3c3 - 499 NBT