[Passed] Motion to permit NuShare custodians and burning transactions

[JordanLee]

For the sake of clarity, could you write down a couple of concrete scenarios involving currency burning and its consequent NSR reward issuing?

Here is one scenario:

Burning a specific amount of currency

Agreed. I would like to point out that it is possible to burn currency without trusting the burner. When a need arises to burn currency someone could propose a motion that states they will burn x amount of currency first, to be followed by a custodial grant of NSR of equivalent value. If the motion passed, even shareholders who were opposed to the motion (which would necessarily be a minority) would vote to approve the custodial grant of NSR to preserve the credibility of the network. NS…

Another is the recent NSR bonuses given to new LPCs. With this change there would be no need for human intervention as there has been until now. The protocol itself would award the NSR to these LPCs upon shareholder approval.

[Cybnate]

Another is the recent NSR bonuses given to new LPCs. With this change there would be no need for human intervention as there has been until now. The protocol itself would award the NSR to these LPCs upon shareholder approval.

Slightly off-topic: I hope that people asking for NSR in proposals realise that it can go up and can go down. No crying allowed when the shares are declining from an earlier peak when it takes a bit longer for your proposal to pass. Ask for NBT and you know what you get as your reward, you can always buy NuShares with them afterwards.

[desrever]

thanks !

So, in a step-by-step order (best-case scenario):

1. A need to burn currency arises.
2. One person (Mr Burn) proposes a motion specifying an amount of NuBits to burn and how many NSR he wants to receive in exchange.
3. Shareholders vote
4. The motion passes
5. Mr Burn burns some NuBits using the new RPC (and proves it?)
6. Mr Burn submit a NSR custodial grant
7. Shareholders vote
8. Grant passes, Mr Burn receive its shares.

What if(s) :

There are N persons submitting a proposal in step 2? I can think several different scenarios of things that can happen. I guess we just created a competition/market, where the fastest/best proposal can pass fast(er). Unless N persons get together under a single motion.

I want to invite everybody to reflect about worst-case-scenarios.

[mhps]

JordanLee:
Another is the recent NSR bonuses given to new LPCs. With this change there would be no need for human intervention as there has been until now. The protocol itself would award the NSR to these LPCs upon shareholder approval.

Slightly off-topic: I hope that people asking for NSR in proposals realise that it can go up and can go down. No crying allowed when the shares are declining from an earlier peak when it takes a bit longer for your proposal to pass. Ask for NBT and you know what you get as your reward, you can always buy NuShares with them afterwards.

I am glad this proposal enables the scenario Jordan described to happen. Were not for this proposal I was going to make a proposal to create a custodian of NSR (from existing undistributed NSRs) just for rewarding LPCs. Without easily rewarding with NSR, LPCs are rewarded with printed nubits which is not good.

[cryptog]

So if someone makes a motion to burn x nbts for y nsrs and passes it, and if that person actually burns the x nbts, there is no guarantee that he or she will get the y nsrs although it is highly likely that he or she will according to

even shareholders who were opposed to the motion (which would necessarily be a minority) would vote to approve the custodial grant of NSR to preserve the credibility of the network. NS…

The issue that i see is that once the motion is passed, the nsr custodian grant could take a long time to pass and the burner might have to wait a long time but it is probably tolerable since such a need for burning would not arise often times, only under an emergency situation.
However under an emergency situation, we need to act quick…
So perhaps we would need to amend quickly the protocol in order to make automatic the process of burning nbt for nsr by combining the motion with the custodial proposal into one step.

[Cybnate]

I am glad this proposal enables the scenario Jordan described to happen. Were not for this proposal I was going to make a proposal to create a custodian of NSR (from existing undistributed NSRs) just for rewarding LPCs. Without easily rewarding with NSR, LPCs are rewarded with printed nubits which is not good.

LPCs rewarded with printed NBT may not sound great, but they provide a service to the network. The created NBT are collective assets Jordan mentions in another thread. I also think that we should use NBT by default if we believe in our own stable coin as a token to exchange value. When we think there are too many NBT we can always burn some NBT for NSR. That is where this motion comes in in my opinion.

Two Approaches to Collateralization of Cryptoassets: Paired and Collective

In the collective approach, when assets are created and spent, it does not reduce collateral, so long as the market perceives that the spending adds value. If newly created assets were used to feed hungry children, that would presumably reduce the market cap because a network liability is being created without an offsetting increase in network value. However, if newly created assets are spent wisely and efficiently on core software development, such expenditures can add more to the market cap or collateral than they add to network liabilities. Even dividends, in reasonable amounts, may create more collateral (via increased share price) than the additional liabilities they create.

The approach to collateralizing assets in the Nu network is collective, permitting us to use newly created assets to fund initiatives that add value to the network.

[mhps]

The created NBT are collective assets

NBTs in circulation are liabilities, not assets. More printed NBTs just push the burning day (supposed to be emergency meansure) closer.

Paying out NSR is good in that it gives more transparent pain to shareholders. The shareholders will be more disciplined.

[Cybnate]

NBT can be used to create new value for the network. So it is a kind of potential collective asset when it is created for a purpose, but indeed a liability if it is not used as such. NSR are shares not a primary means to transfer value.

I’m with you with the transparent pain when there is no value for the network created. I don’t see a problem when there is adequate value created.

[sigmike]

I only wonder how it will be prevented selling those NSR that will not be counted in dividend distribution to enter the market. How can they be told apart from “regular” NSR?

These NSR are just not spendable. It’s enforced by the protocol: nobody can sell them. They are burned.

Mr Burn burns some NuBits using the new RPC (and proves it?)

If he does all the operation under the same username and nobody else claims the burning it’s not really needed unless there’s a possibility his forum account may have been compromised.
He can prove it by signing a specific message (for example something containing his username and his NSR custodian address) with the private key of one of the inputs of the burning transaction(s).

There are N persons submitting a proposal in step 2? I can think several different scenarios of things that can happen. I guess we just created a competition/market, where the fastest/best proposal can pass fast(er). Unless N persons get together under a single motion.

Shareholders are responsible for not allowing too much burning. When new proposals appear they can adjust their vote if that changed their mind.

[mhps]

masterOfDisaster:
I only wonder how it will be prevented selling those NSR that will not be counted in dividend distribution to enter the market. How can they be told apart from “regular” NSR?

These NSR are just not spendable. It’s enforced by the protocol: nobody can sell them. They are burned.

I have been thinking the “NuShares” in the “Burned NuShares will not be counted …” clause is a typo for “NuBits”, because it is the currency (NuBits) that is going to be destroyed (burnt), not the share. The shares involved are going to be created by the protocol to dilute the share base. Am I totally wrong?

[sigmike]

I have been thinking the “NuShares” in the “Burned NuShares will not be counted …” clause is a typo for “NuBits”, because it is the currency (NuBits) that is going to be destroyed (burnt), not the share. The shares involved are going to be created by the protocol to dilute the share base.

It’s not a typo but indeed this is confusing.

While writing the motion I had to consider whether the new burn RPC (which is intended to burn NBT) would also be allowed to burn NSR. Since burning NSR is already allowed by the protocol (even if there’s no easy way to do it), I assumed the RPC should allow it. And it can be useful tool for shareholders too if they ever want to reduce the total NSR supply. The fact the NSR supply can be reduced has some implications though, that I formalized in the motion. One of them was making explicit the fact that burned NSR would not count in dividend distributions.

[mhps]

Oh OK. You are only asking technical protocol questions to enable currency burning in general.

[cryptog]

i vote for bda115840291067ba0814032f0c93d4d5900a5cf

[crypto_coiner]

The mint reward will be adjusted according to the total number of NuShares in the network. Specifically, each time the supply of NuShares reaches 50% and 100% of its original base (1 billion), the mint reward will also increase by 50% and 100%. For example, when NSR supply reaches 1.5 billion, the reward should be 60 NSR. At 2 billion, 80 NSR, at 3 billion, 120 NSR, at 4 billion, 160 NSR, and so on.
If the total supply goes below one of these thresholds (because of burning for example) the reward will be reduced accordingly.

The Number of total share is inflated - How will it impact price (or perceived value) per share?

[JordanLee]

This passed in less than 8400 blocks, indicating that shareholders are quickly responding to newly proposed motions and grants. Passage in this short window also indicates there is broad support for the action.

Let’s implement this motion in the 0.6.0 version of the client.

[masterOfDisaster]

Hooray!
One of the quite important steps has been taken!

edit: I was close to creating a topic at reddit, but hesitated, because I didn’t want to interfere with any planned activity to promote this very, very important motion there (and at other forums).
I know that it will be hard to place the information there in a beneficial way as it can be expected to attract bashing just because it’s related to NuBits.
I’d be glad if @tomjoad would do this as I believe he can do it more professionally than I could.

If it’s not planned to “advertise” this motion, I’m going to try

[desrever]

this was fast!

[tomjoad]

I’d be glad if @tomjoad would do this as I believe he can do it more professionally than I could.

Great to see this motion pass. I’ll be advertising it on social media within the hour once I figure out messaging, and I’m going to also add a mention of it somewhere in the NuShares section of nubits.com. Thanks for the reminder @masterOfDisaster!

[desrever]

@sigmike: I was taking a look at the RPC documentation of the burn method : how is the [comment] field used?

[sigmike]

how is the [comment] field used?

Like in the send commands: it’s associated as meta data to the wallet transaction. You can get it back in the transaction details in the GUI or in the listtransactions RPC. It’s not put into the blockchain.