How about putting it to two motions? See which one passes 50% first, or which one has the highest votes after N days.
Perhaps we can find some people who were discouraged by what they saw as a high buy in price to come together and cover @dongshan’s non-paying bid. I mean we are trying to raise as much money as possible, right?
1 Like
I’d be quite keen to participate in another auction or to fill @dongshans order. If it would benefit the Nu network that is.
That may be true, but at what price. So I agree, if anything another auction or just burn them to save JL the hassle
I think the remaining shares should be burnt or another auction should be set up.
Giving them to lower bidders would imply taking the risk to give them almost for free.
Imagine someone bid 5m NSR for 0.1 BTC.
1 Like
This would violate rule number 5 stipulated by Jordan above.
If any individual shareholder would like to make a bid for additional NSR, it seems as though motions & NSR custodial grants are the way to go. Anyone is free to propose one. If it passes before NSR grants are enabled, Jordan has indicated a willingness to simulate the effect with undistributed NuShares.
1 Like
With those “NSR custodial grants” you mean the burning grants? I haven’t thought about another use of this NSR printing. Is it planned to give NSR grants also under other circumstances that don’t involve burning an equivalent amount of NBT?
EDIT: E.g. for my running LPC operation I initially asked for NSR but was told that this isn’t possible anymore so I switched to NBT.
It’s ultimately up to shareholders to decide when NSR grants are appropriate. Because they dilute shareholder equity, it’s unlikely they will be used often.
Besides NBT burning, one alternative scenario that might lead to a successful NSR grant would be a parallel equity offering. As a purely hypothetical example, let’s pretend Teehe asked for a 10,000,000 NSR grant from shareholders, and in exchange promised 50% of their available Teehe shares to all NuShareholders.
At current supply levels 10M NSR would be a dilution of about 1.25%.
As long as shareholders believed that the future value of 50% of Teehe was worth more than that 1.25% dilution, an NSR grant might be provided. Teehe would gain access to a reliable asset to use as capital, and more importantly gain access to the considerable network effect of Nu by encouraging NuShareholders to also hold Teehe shares. As a reward, NuShareholders would potentially significantly increase the overall value of their crypto portfolio through the future projected worth of Teehe shares.
Now, of course Teehe doesn’t do this, but it’s possible we might see another Peershare implementation propose this in the future. It would be much like traditional VC - a Peershare startup reduces its future potential profitability by “selling” its shares to NuShareholders, but gains working capital and a user base to get its idea off the ground.
2 Likes
I agree that this a wonderful feature of being a DAO, but why couldn’t Teehe ask for a NBT grant? If this funding would be required as capital, then NBT should be much more attractive than NSR, due to the better liquidity and the peg of course.
If someone asks for a grant just to transform these funds into something that can be used to pay bills (which is required at a startup like Teehe), then an NBT grant would be more appropriate in my opinion, from both perspectives.
2 Likes
I agree, NBT is far more appropriate, stable, and liquid as a working asset. I was just thinking about alternative uses of NSR grants. I suspect we’ll see other variations on the idea of NSR grants in the future that make use of the existing network effects of NuShareholders.
Absolutely.
I just outlined why I think tier 4 buy support should be expanded and that an NSR dilution is an excellent way to do this. If you would like to advance a motion to purchase NSR in exchange for an NBT burn you can do so with a brand new forum account for privacy. I can verify you are an active participant in the network while maintaining your privacy, so long as you don’t clearly violate any contract you have with shareholders.
1 Like
I wish these NSR grants were only to be used when the peg is in trouble. I think having a steady and predictable rate of increase in NSR supply was a feature that will be missed.
3 Likes
I agree, and how your phrased this sentence made me think if it could be wise to offer parking rate payouts in form of NSR instead of NBT. It always bites me a bit that we offer parking rates to temporarily fight NBT inflation, although we know that in the long term it will inflate NBT even more.
If we would offer parking rates in form of NSR, then we would actively decide to use the share market cap in order to safe the peg. This would also be more analog to burning.
3 Likes
I think if you scale it up, though, the public would prefer a stable currency instead of getting interest in a volatile asset. Especially considering the circumstances where it would be attractive to park NBT for the NSR reward. The rewards would get priced in to the NSR market as NBT gets parked and the system may lose faith quickly in parking as a whole. Also, those NBT would still be in circulation to sell or park again.
This was particularly true before there was nubits burning. Now with nubits burning working, one could argue that increading parking rate is a tactic tool in the full tool box, and the shareholders have means to create and remove nubits at all rates with the full set of tools. Nevertheless it takes shareholders’ decision to burn nubits. So paying parking interest in NSR seems a very clever way to shift some trust to code from human.
That’s right, although if I am parking my NBT for one month then I am also implicitly betting that the NuBit peg will still exist in one month (otherwise also the NBT reward will be worthless). So you could argue that you are taking a similar risk regardless if it is NSR or NBT, as NSR probably is worth something if and only if the peg is safe.
One problem I could see is that if someone proposes (by motion) to burn a large quantity of NBT for NSR, then the incentive to park for NSR immediately will drop (probably already on the proposal) because people who park NBT for NSR speculate on the future NSR price. One possible solution would be to pay the NSR reward upfront once the NBT got parked, such that the person who parks the NBT speculates on the present NSR price.
And as I see it burning is not something shareholders should consider as day-to-day tool. As I understand JLs description, burning is clearly a tool to counteract an emergency. Parking should still be the method of choice in nearly all cases.
Encouraging - Now, why does the NSR purchase have to be mapped with a NBT burn, if I just want to advance a NSR purchase/bid plan motion for investment (not a NBT liquidity control motion)? As @tomjoad suggested, there are alternative schemes like the parallel/crosses equity offering.
My suggestions were geared towards new Peershares/DAO groups that could propose share swaps to capture the network effects of an existing (NuShareholder) userbase. That hypothetical concept is entirely unrelated to NBT-for-NSR burning for the purposes of maintaining the $1.00 US peg, as Jordan Lee outlined above.
1 Like
It doesn’t. You just need to pass a motion for whatever you would like to do.
1 Like
I think this is a very interesting concept