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


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

1 Like

Getting now 29.45%…Decreasing.

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 :


Can’t wait to have feeds in the client .

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

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

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

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:


Got the link to this topic from Facebook. Voted.


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.

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

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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.

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…

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.

That makes a lot of sense.

Let me add that aspect

to the proposal.

On the suggestion of @mhps I have added a rebalancing.
Please vote :smile: .

Oh I though it would be good enough if you could just express your willing ness here and keep the proposal unchanged. If you change the proposal, although it becomes better, you have to start again from 0 vote.

If you really decide to keep the change you made to the proposal, then maybe it is better to tell people the old hash to remove at the end of the OP. I used to forget which one to delete when a proposal has a new hash.

I actually did not modify the content of the text hashed.
I have just added below it the following:

Since the buy side is likely to be eaten up quickly,I will rebalance from time to time (from buy side to sell side) by
1- buying some bitcoins on NBT/BTC based on the proceeds of NBT/USD buy side.
2- selling those bitcoins on BTC/USD
3- putting back those us dollars for sales on NBT/USD.

The goal is to try to maintain at least 100 USD on the buy side of NBT/USD.

I forgot to mention that I will cap the maximum total exchange loss to 50NBT.

But if it is problematic, I will remove that part.
I think at that stage it is better not to modify the hash since I have already modified the proposal in the past. I do not want to get people even more confused.
Also, that rebalancing does not change the core of the proposal.
Is that ok?

I guess it’s fine.

All right.

After more than 1 months, getting only 16% and decreasing.
I wish I could get more votes or more competition.