Can you address the key point above? We are not talking about letting RSOT taking over daily liquidity ops here.
Which decision maker said that?[quote=“Phoenix, post:41, topic:4362”]
I have been able to bring the NuBit money supply down from about 700,000 to around 350,000 in just 60 days.
[/quote]
No. Most of the apparent reduction is due to that you removed B&C dev fund in JordanLee’s hand and NuLagoon’s fund in the figure. I do give you and @jooize credit for removing ~170k NBT.
So where were you between January 2016, when increased spread was tried, and mid May, when reserve was going fast, increased spread looked working, and shareholders pressure against selling NSR was high?
I want nothing done. I have no reason for that. I just try to support, because I find this project interesting.
I proposed a revenue scheme. You chose to ignore it.
If you haven’t seen anything from me regarding revenue, you are not only stubborn, but blind as well.
This is what I proposed more than once:
And guess what?
But you can very well go on with your revenue free ponzi scheme.
Just don’t say you hadn’t got some advice.
There is still a high risk of funds being used sub-optimally, just as FLOT funds are currently being mishandled. The recent proposal supported by some signers that would use FLOT funds in an unfair manner is good reason to be wary of managing B&C funds with multisig. I have demonstrated a superior reverence for proper, fair and compliant actions. I also understand much more about the details of how funds should be spent than members of a multisig group would. I can provide more informed and responsible decisions than a multisig group at this time.
The 350,000 figure does include NuLagoon NuBits. I would still like to know from @henry how many US-NBT NuLagoon currently holds, but I am going to give a quick estimate of 70,000. It can be gleaned from nulagoon.com if someone wants to take the time. I’m not sure why you don’t want to give us credit for buying back B&C NuBits, but even without those it looks like liquidity operations has still removed about 230,000 other US-NBT from circulation in the last 60 days.
I stand by my claim that liquidity operations has removed fully half of all US-NBT in circulation in the 60 days I have been Chief of Liquidity Operations. That is an impressive reduction. Imagine what we could have done without the default. We wouldn’t have needed to remove anywhere near half the US-NBT money supply. My guess is we would have kept growing demand for US-NBT and brought the money supply to an all time high.
If you have ideas for additional profits, I would like to see you move forward with those. Of course I would support any reasonable plan to increase profits. What I remember about your proposal was that it burns US-NBT that customers paid money for, without their consent. I was opposed to that.
The question is whether you and other community members are going to take any action to make this happen rather than doing so much to prevent it from occurring, as has often been the case. What are you doing to help?[quote=“Cybnate, post:46, topic:4362”]
you failed to present a valid cost-benefit model which doesn’t involve creating more shares while keeping the peg in the long term. Anyone with some business acumen can see that there is a cost of holding a peg. If that is not offset with a charge to those who benefit from the peg the model will be unsustainable and always fail sooner or later.
[/quote]
Two points. First of all, the number of NuShares will certainly go down if there is even modest growth in demand for NuBits.
Second, many posters here seem to be in denial about the well demonstrated and proven capacity blockchain networks have to continuously dilute their coins or shares while enjoying robust price growth. More than 100 networks have demonstrated this in recent years. Bitcoin keeps creating Bitcoins from nothing to pay for network expenses, yet Bitcoins are very valuable and Bitcoin is not bankrupt. The same is true for nearly every other coin (there are only a few exceptions, such NXT). Why do people think our network works any differently? Of course we can create NuShares to pay for network expenses, and we can do so forever. If you apply @Cybnate’s argument to Bitcoin, you can see it is incorrect.
However, with proper management (which I am doing a lot to provide), I believe the likelihood is that we will see a huge reduction in the NuShare supply over time. That is my goal and expectation.
Nearly 16million BTC now, and the next 50 years there will be only 33% extra BTC to be created. Our PoS minting is similar. Obviously the crypto supply inflation(PoW or PoS minting) can support network security. We all agree with this.
However, the decentralized liquidity providing in last two years we spend extremly high on it which is more than 100% annually. Did we pay more than 10% per month to LPC?
This means our crypto(NSR) has much more supply inflation rate than most FIAT if we only reply on selling NSR without any other revenue. Would people like to hold this kind of “share”?
In real world, the debt-equity swap is usually played by the companies on the verge of bankrupt. Who raised the stupid NSR-NBT shift idea in 2014? @Benjamin ? I hate him if this shit idea provided by him. Hope @Benjamin never come back here. @Benjamin poisoned Nu.
Here is the very improtant thread where @Benjamin and @JordanLee, and other VIP in our community discussed about reserve ratio, negtive interest rate etc.
Very interesting reading after 18 months later.
F A Hayek told us that the success of private currency relies on the willingness of people holding it while Benjamin argured for negtive interest which is a much more obvious robbery than FIAT’s inflation. And he likes zero reserve ratio, so why not come back @Benjamin? Do you feel shamed? What’s your solution for today’s situation? Because we didn’t follow your suggestion to maintain the NSR/NBT cap ratio at saft level? Did you know NSR collapsed after NBT pegging broken? You are building on quick sand.
I respect @Phoenix for his effort after crisis but I disdain @Benjamin because he left some shit idea and disappeared.
I still hold my opinion in Dec 2014. Revenue can reinforce the pegging confidence.
I strongly disagree 0% reserve, and 100% reserve will defintely benifit NBT pegging.
NBT pegging depends on NSR, that’s ok, but don’t forget NSR price also depends on NBT successful pegging. That’s arguement in a circle…
If NBT pegging in danger, the NSR price will probably plumb. Money, is essential credit, the confidence people have in their mind that sth. can be used to store value, exchange goods.
If reserve ratio is low, people don’t trust NSR at all, NSR=shit in a insolvency situation.
The house of Nu is burning now, but one good thing is the fire can burn off those fake shareholders, day dreamers with low IQ, losers with weak-minded.
The remainers are hardcore force, let’s move on, anything cannot kill you only makes you stronger.
I must acknowledge that after 2 months since the peg failure, I am rather convinced by the liquidity engine model of @Phoenix .
The recovery of the peg with no reserves at all is a good example of it.
The avenues for revenues …there are infinite models once we have a good peg.
I think @Phoenix is right in saying that we can dilute nushares to raise money.
Look at all these crypto projects that have no real value proposition whatsoever (I still believe that the crypto projects that are the real deals are only Nu and B&C)…and yet they raise like 4000 btc…with nothing but vapoware…
It is clear that we cannot apply the traditional view of business to the crypto world.
So let us stop arguing on who was the cause of the peg failure in May.
Shareholders are responsible, period, including FLOT, @JordanLee , @Phoenix (i suppose he was a shareholder before the failure) and the rest.
And let us move on.
It is a waste of time to argue on that.
We must acknowledge that @Phoenix (and @jooize) is doing a great job in restoring the peg and @Phoenix must recognize that shareholders who entrusted FLOT are responsible for the peg failure.
It seems Phoenix’s reputation support on B&C decreases these days, and RSOT motion is about to pass. Near 49% ratio now. If it is passed, phoenix has to hand over the dev fund(in NSR/NBT) to reputed signers as a group.
If JL’s shares get removed and there’s an updated white paper I’d be willing to chip in something in return for extra BKS. As I understand there’s some deviation from the original design. @phoenix if you don’t want to get kicked out you should at least answer some questions.
Is this actually possible to do? If so, then Augeas can be the stable currency and B&C shareholders can burn Jordan’s shares and completely remove his influence from the network. It is too late to do that with Nu, which is why a new blockchain was necessary. As long as his shares are part of this network, I consider it dead on arrival, which is one of the reasons why I was advocating for Augeas to become a replacement for B&C.
