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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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
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.
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: