Hi Everyone,
Please accept my apologies for the delay in processing this round of burns. I’m working through an issue with Allcoin where the final withdraw of 1929.27 NBT failed to be transferred and was not returned to account balance. Also, the Poloniex withdraw process is taking a few days longer than originally expected due to their recent withdraw limit changes. I will provide a detailed update very soon. Thank you for your patience.
Jamie
Any update?
By the way, I am wondering about the amount of this commission. And was it eventually granted?
Yes. I’m sorry this has taken so long.
I suspect Allcoin of insolvency. If anyone has funds there, I would strongly suggest attempting to withdraw them. For several weeks, I have been attempting to withdraw the final chunk (1929.2719 NBT) of shareholder funds that are still held on Allcoin. This started as a couple of failed withdraw attempts, where I was given an error, the funds were returned to balance, and I was instructed to reattempt the withdraw. This failed withdraw error has happened again, but now I am no longer receiving replies to my inquiries from Allcoin support. This leaves me with nothing to suspect other than pending exchange default for Allcoin.
All remaining funds (91178.16 NBT) under my control, with the exception of pending Allcoin and Bter funds, have been burned in this transaction: 37546ba46b3b546d7c9edce3c61922993e2b4529723a4cef1e704748a894eed0
I will continue to monitor the situations at Bter and Allcoin until resolution or default and inform all of you as soon as I learn anything new.
Tks a lot for your update.
My NBT test deposit to allcoin.com didn’t show up (blockexplorer showed successful tx). My support ticket for the issue hasn;t been answered for almost a week. I think the Nu exchanges page should put up a warning of allcoin.com
Shareholders seemed to suggest that we should not be in the business of preemptively warning our users about potentially dangerous exchanges. From the recent motion to list all exchange resources:
This motion is to express the desire of NuShares holders to list all NuBits and NuShares exchange resources in all current and future marketing materials which are under the control of the Nu team. […] The exchanges listed are not endorsed by the NuShareholders by any means. The NuShareholders cannot be held liable for any funds lost by using these exchanges. This listing only intends to be an overview where NuShares and NuBits can be traded. Users of these exchanges need to do their own due diligence before using these exchanges. This can be done by searching the discuss.nubits.com forums for any previous events or asking questions in the community.
I would like to avoid acting unilaterally in the area of exchange listings, given my previous stance on CCEDK. If any NuShareholder would like to introduce a motion to remove AllCoin from the Exchanges page, I would be happy to comply if it passes. I would assume such a motion would include evidence of the risk the exchange poses to the public.
allcoins has also frozen nsr deposits/withdrawals
There already is a warning - for all exchanges on the footer of https://nubits.com/exchanges/nubits-exchanges:
I feel that trying to track the reliability of exchanges is beyond the capabilities of Nu. Issuing warnings shouldn’t save people from doing their own due diligence, but it might lead to exactly that: they rely on the information about exchanges, believe in them and make Nu accountable for damage that is dealt by that.
I’m not in favour of Nu giving the impression it would vouch for exchanges that carry no individual warnings.
I see a big difference to exchanges with liquidity operations, though (which is not the case for allcoin).
If Nu provides people with incentives to put money at an exchange, it should keep an eye on it.
Practically the liquidity pool operators will be in a good position to track the situation, but still I see some responsibility for Nu not to continue (by funding it) liquidity operations at exchanges that don’t work reliably.
That might be related to nu 2.0 upgrade.
fine with me
This requires me to burn the remaining 40 million NSR I have custody of in the next few days. I will do so, but it weakens the peg until someone or some group has NSR granted to them that they can use to defend the peg. We still have the ability to sell NSR for NBT, but the network will require a week or two to set that in motion. Temporarily, the network is losing its capacity to use tier 6 liquidity in reaction to a quick and unexpected drop in demand for NuBits.
I know group efforts are underway to regain the capacity to bring tier 6 liquidity within hours if needed. Such efforts are important and urgent. I recommend the criteria for selling NSR to support the peg be specified as either:
This NSR burn is required by motion, but it’s very bad timing.
A pity that the community didn’t put more efforts in forming a tier 4 (buy side) fund management - the NSR would be better there than burned only because of the time it takes to create them by grant.
Keeping a part of tier 4 buy side funds in NSR instead of BTC seems wise in terms of BTC volatility and potential BTC default risk (which might be low, but not 0).
Don’t we have so much Tier 4 we are selling it to buy NSR to burn? It doesn’t make sense to keep these NSR it seems
It should be defined for “are less” for how long.
If this is the kind of timeframe there should be enough time to make NSR grant by voting. Burning the 40mil shouldn’t be an issue.
You do with what you have.
I think the NSR should be burned and have the action closed.
I think criteria 1 is defined as “immediate”. If buy-side walls dip below 25% of all liquidity, the emergency funds kick in right away. It would be dangerous at that point to let any amount of time pass without acting.
The buying side dipping below 25% happened once, right? It was solve by offering high parking rate supposedly. So that was once a year and solveable without selling reserve NSR.
Note that there is another scenario of low percentage buy side. What if the sell side is 74k and buy side is 26k and daily volume is hvering 1 k, then one day the buy side dips below 25k, causng the buy side to be less than 25%. Are we going to increase buy side or do we realize there is actually too much sell side and we are going to cut liquidity provision interest and reduce sell side (which in the example is a better way)? Reducing sell side is also going to lift the buy side in terms of percentage, and if the volume is constantly low, it is the better action.
We only have so much braintime to go around. I say burn the NSR and get the action done.
by the way this discussion highlights again the similarity between Tier 4 and 5, here.
If my bot messes up and posts a million sell side liquidity, does it force the multisig hand to sell nsr? I should hope not.
It’s possible to mess up liquidity information if false information is provided - intentionally or by accident.
For that reason the requirement to grant somebody a custodian address is trust in the reliability and integrity of that person. It would be good if that person does all to make errors unlikely, keep the involved systems safe and use tested software.
If something happens despite all the efforts, it needs to be treated by clever exception handling - checking the buy and sell side via API is one option to improve the reliability; plausibility checks are another option.
if you don’t want to rely on the broadcast liquidity information, you need to gather information from exchanges through API.
That combined with broadcast liquidity could be much more reliable than relying solely on broadcast liquidity information.
plausibility check: the first thing to look after if a million sell side liquidity were reported would be the final balance of BhCnQrYrA5LZm871dtMQEXeU93gmqbhdrC, because that much funds could only be on sell side if the FSRT had put them there.
I think a better strategy is making decision based on averages which weighs down spikes and irregularities.
Done. Here are the transaction IDs for burns totaling 39,999,999 NSR:
There are no more undistributed NSR in existence and the initial distribution is completely finalised. When the project began, 1 billion NSR were expected to be distributed, but in fact only about 815 million were. I am glad we have been able to exceed shareholder expectations by making NSR more scarce than expected.
The burns contain a small number of minted NSR. There is a minor bug in the software that causes minting when a wallet is momentarily unlocked in the process of creating a normal NSR transaction. There were also a small number of blocks accidentally minted when the wallet was unlocked to import and export private keys, although this is generally done in a disconnected environment. Voting was never configured in these wallets, so in no case was undistributed NSR ever used to vote for any grants or motions.
Going forward, the NSR supply will depend on the level of demand for Nu’s currency products. Increased currency demand will likely result in NSR buybacks and burns, while decreases in demand will likely result in the sale of new NSR created directly by shareholders.
This also means the network has no capacity to bring tier 6 liquidity (NSR sales combined with NBT burns) quickly should buy support suddenly and dramatically diminish. A custodial grant of NSR must be passed by shareholders first. We ought to select a group of shareholders to hold NSR in a multisig address that can be used within hours of when our liquidity drops below 25% of total liquidity in tiers 1, 2 and 3. We may never need to use tier 6 liquidity quickly, but our ability to do so will strengthen the peg and public confidence in the peg.