I am quoting here, but to me it constitutes the gist of one of the pictures here:
The more LPCs, the more decentralized
“Running NuBot isn’t harder than running a miner, and many people are able to do that. Targeting many people with low to moderate funds will provide a stable liquidity floor which won’t fluctuate as much as with a few very rich custodians.”
“Ideally each NSR holder should be willing and able to run a NuBot”
“Exchanges can be great LPCs even without asking of any reward. just
the fees would be enough”
When our network began, we had a way to increase the NuBit supply at the will of shareholders. We then decided to add a way to decrease the NuBit supply at the expense of increasing the NuShare supply (due in the 0.6.0 release). It should not be surprising then, that a mechanism for reducing the NuShare supply would also be introduced, to complete our flexible supply of both share
The protocol switch date is unknown. I would be surprised if it happened in less than two months.
To remove any question about what I will do with them. The increased certainty and the control that shareholders will have over the creation of NSR should increase the network’s value.
536,000 + 5,000 currently at BTER
Yes, non NBT funds would remain for tier 4 liquidity. Medium term, this should held jointly using multi-sig. If enough liquidity could be developed in the NSR market, tier 4 might only consist of NSR.
When our network began, we had a way to increase the NuBit supply at the will of shareholders. We then decided to add a way to decrease the NuBit supply at the expense of increasing the NuShare supply (due in the 0.6.0 release). It should not be surprising then, that a mechanism for reducing the NuShare supply would also be introduced, to complete our flexible supply of both share
I am late but I wanted to make sure that even with the passage of this motion, we would still have some time margin to increase the number of lpcs.
The end of operations of KTm and Jamie will be a gradual process.
So their buy liquidity support will fade away gradually.
In the worst case in which Nu has not increased the buy liquidity via private custodians, we would still have some liquidity present in some of the reserves held by JL at Tier4.
Voted.
This has passed. I will have more to say about steps that need to be taken for a smooth transition in liquidity operations over the next several months. In three months time we will be certain there will be no more exchange defaults on shareholder deposits, because there won’t be any.
For now I would encourage shareholders to quickly transition away from using Jamie and KTm’s services. We can do that even faster than the motion stipulates if there are enough LPC proposals and shareholders pass them. It could take as little as two weeks if people stepped up quickly to provide alternatives. Such an outcome is worth a lot. I would be especially pleased to see liquidity pools form and LPC proposals that make use of off exchange funds in tier 3, even though that means movements between tier 3 and tier 2 would be handled manually for now. It is worth the trouble to protect from exchange defaults, as we have learned. As I have said elsewhere, it may make sense to have 5% in tier 1, 5% in tier 2 and 90% in tier 3 to provide excellent protection from exchange default.
I think this is must.
Otherwise it is gonna be difficult to find new LPCs I believe.
The new LPCs new to protect themselves. Hedging by purchasing derivatives is probably too complicated for the average LPC.
Spreading the liquidity over Tiers1-2-3 is much simpler
It has been 7 days since the passage of this motion. It would be appropriate for @KTm and @jmiller to give a report on their implementation of the above terms.
To accomplish burning at the present time raw transactions must be used. Information in how to contruct them is available. Nu specific documentation also outlines how to use raw transactions for multi sig addresses, which may be helpful. If you have questions about how to proceed, please as @sigmike, @erasmospunk or myself for assistance. I would advise burning a NuBit or two as a test before attempting to burn the entire amount. Please let everyone know what address(es) you will burn from in advance.
A test burn of 5 NBT was sent to address BGzfoZHwjKXgbX7R5oPdG12QgFZV6tjpcB. By examining the txid, you can see that 4.99 NBT was burned as fee.
Funds that are still locked up on Bter will not be factored into this first 25% burn, as they are currently out of my control. Below is a breakdown of the funds that are currently under control:
Off Exchange
BTC: 32.0023 (9314.5894 NBT)
NBT: 150503.9
The exchange rate used is $291.06, which came from Bitcoinaverage.com on March 9, 2015 21:04 UTC.
Total funds in NBT:
228798.3213
25% = 57199.5803
If someone could please look at this breakdown and verify that there are no obvious errors in calculation, I will proceed with the burn of 57199.5803 NBT to this address: BMdEGVo9oSmsFHDKiL39CYhaSD3AmCv4s4
Jamie
Edit 3/9/15 21:22 UTC: I found an error in the amounts reported for Bitspark, so I recalculated everything using the current BTC exchange rate.
I’ve just run the numbers and they come out agreeing with your calculations. I’ve also verified that the transaction you mentioned has a 4.99NBT tx fee.
As far as I’m concerned, the burn can go ahead
Sorry for the delay, I can confirm these numbers. If you don’t truncate the exchanged BTC values after the 4th position you get 0.0001 NBT more in the final balance
Mind to share how exactly you are burning? Are you using ‘nud’ and if so, what exactly do you use as command?
