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

[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

[Hyena]

Got the link to this topic from Facebook. Voted.

[mhps]

I used to have problem with LPC grant proposals that needs the blockchain to generate nubits as the reward, because these nubits will enter circulation without having the same amount asset in Nu reserve to back them up. Now that burning nubits is likely to be implemented this is not a big problem anymore.

However I think what GreatScott suggested – this amount will be consumed very quickly by someone’s trying to cash out so the LPC could run out of USD early in the service term, consequently crippling the service early – is likely to happen in a bear market. Unless the LPC will rebalance actively.

So @cryptog, are you going to rebalance after buy side liquidity runs out and no sell side transaction provides fresh USD for e.g. 3 days? By rebalancing I mean e.g. using NBT on the sell side to buy BTC then using the BTC to buy USD for the buy side.

[Cybnate]

So @cryptog, are you going to rebalance after buy side liquidity runs out and no sell side transaction provides fresh USD for e.g. 3 days? By rebalancing I mean e.g. using NBT on the sell side to buy BTC then using the BTC to buy USD for the buy side.

I would definitely appreciate to hear that too as it would make the proposal a lot more valuable when confirmed.

[cryptog]

I understand your concern.
The issue is that https://www.ccedk.com/btc-usd has low liquidity on the buy side for a decent price.
If doing the rebalancing under such conditions is mandatory, then I suggest that the liquidity provider that is currently offering 35000 nbts or so in sales for USD right now starts doing some rebalancing.

[mhps]

I suggest that the liquidity provider that is currently offering 35000 nbts or so in sales for USD right now starts doing some rebalancing.

I think it is KTm’s LPC operation. It would be nice if rebalancing could be included for NBT/USD. Note that KTm’s operation finds out how exactly LPCs work through a lot of work, covers multiple NBT/crypto pairs (more risky) in addition to NBT/USD, over many months, for a 2% fee.

[cryptog]

I see. If the rebalancing implies more than 10% loss of capital because of low liquidity on BTC/USD and because of BTC’s downtrend, I do not think it makes sense to me economically to request 10% of interest.
If there is rebalancing, I believe getting shares as a reward makes much more sense.
I applaud KT. But did she put money upfront?.
I could try to balance from time to time but depending on the liquidity of BTC/USD it is likely to produce only a thin rebalancing…

[mhps]

I could try to balance from time to time

I think if you can rebanalce from time to time and cap the maximum total exchange loss to $50 for the full period, it would be very helpful. Even if every rebalancing only generate $100 buy side liquidity it would allow people to try out, which is more important than satisfying the need of whales. Think that you are providing a “faucet” with limited resources.

[cryptog]

people to try out, which is more important than satisfying the need of whales

That makes a lot of sense.

Let me add that aspect

cap the maximum total exchange loss to $50

to the proposal.