I have made the grant into a motion. NuPond can continue to perform at the stated parameters without any additional funding. I am willing to wait for my payment, I want to see which way the shareholders will vote.
@tomjoad I hope you will vote for my motion; I understand if you will not vote for the NSR grant.
Oh, sorry if that wasn’t clear. I love the work NuPond is doing and your overall contributions to pool operations. I will be voting for your motion but not the NSR custodial grant in the hopes shareholders decide to continue with NBT pool fees.
I agree with tomjoad, at the moment is best to continue with NBT rewards instead of NSR.
Because the Nu network has no proper ways to calculate costs for one or the other way?
Because the Nu networks hopes not to have to buy the NBT back anytime soon (and issue and sell NSR for that)?
…it’s not that easy.
I understand that NBT seems to be the cheaper way. All I want to say is: we don’t know.
But one thing is sure: issued NSR don’t threaten the peg, because they create no NBT sell pressure 
…the liquidity situation will change and NSR holders don’t regret having granted at least the pool operator compensation in NSR?
So the custodial fee requested is 1250NBTs?
Voting for your motion, worth NBT1250 from remaining funds. Also adding to my datafeed.
Not that keen on those high offsets on the NBT/BTC pair. That is double dipping as discussed before, the reward should therefore be lower I believe. Next time I might hold my vote if that doesn’t change.
Also not sure about the timing of NSR grant, might be too early. Liquidity is low, demand is low, not great. Although getting slightly better recently, but not where we should be. So until that changes further in the right direction, I’m holding my vote for the NSR grant.
There is no NBT grant. You’ll notice I did not put up an NBT address. This is a motion and an NSR grant. The grant is solely payment for me, the motion is for continued operation as I have the nbt I need.
The high offsets are supported by a motion that was passed. I am slowly lowering my btc rates. I believe I have shareholder support on the offsets. If the offsets are so good, we’d have more providers and the rate would be driven down by competition. That is not occurring, so the offsets can’t be that great. I’d argue that bter is riskier than poloniex and if I am forced to lower my offsets I will increase my btc rates to something like 0.4%/day.
@Cybnate why is 0.85% ok but 1% is not? Is 0.9% ok? How about 0.95%? Or are you saying that no pool should be higher than your 0.85%? If that is the case, you are asking for defacto having the largest offset of all the pools, and I am afraid I will not oblige to that. Competition is everything.
The block explorer doesn’t seem to be displaying votes for NSR grants at the moment. They can, however be viewed using the getcustodianvotes RPC.
Tks for the clarification.
45f6e4d5f503528e4258859b143f603b51bcfb7f verified and voted.
However, I would vote only for the NBT grant at this stage. Sorry for that.
It is the combination of the offset and the rates. The higher the offset the lower the rate should be as the offset compensates the LPC for BTC volatility on top of the rate of 0.3%. I don’t have a rationale for how much lower it should be. It is hard to quantify and really depends on the trading volumes of a particular exchange pair.
I really think target and exchange risk make a huge difference. When compared to poloniex, nupond has more risk and 1/10 of the target. With the same tolerance, I would therefore expect the rate to be higher. Instead of having a higher rate, I am making up for it with spread.
I am offering the equivalent of 0.35%/day rates. I believe that if I offer exactly the same product as nupool, but on a shady exchange with 1/10 of the target, people will decide its not worth their time.
If I brought my tolerance down to 0.85% but my rate up to 0.35%, would that be better? I’d rather generate competition the way I’ve been doing.
Disclaimer: spread is more complicated than this model, this is just to give a rough idea of the numbers involved.
@Nagalim IMO there are a lot of factors here.
So long story short…I think if you lower allowed spread and raise rate you would get more interest. Because we advertise rate more. Just go to raw and you see rate very prominently displayed but not a word about allowed spread.
I make a point about using a high spread, and I am of the opinion that my providers notice. You’re telling me to increase rates on btc yet other threads are talking about the exact opposite, and I am inclined to agree that btc rates should be lower. I can’t help but think as much as you’re happy to talk about increasing shareholder expense when we discuss spread, when shareholders actually go to vote they scoff at high btc provision rates. I know I do. Why should the lowest liquidity markets (I.e. the lowest volume markets) be providing the strictest peg? If we really want to go that route I’ll drop the tolerance by 0.5% and shoot the rate up to 0.4 or 0.5%/day. I think the shareholders will scoff at such rates, but they are the logical consequence of this train of thought. Why is 0.85% such a special tolerance number that we want all pools to have it? Y’all realize that number was chosen somewhat at random by creon during initial alpha testing right? Like, there are other numbers in the world.
It’s really a question of philosophy about the quality of our peg. That’s why we passed a philosophical motion that defined our ideal btc peg to have 1% spread beyond fees. That is what I have been doing. If y’all want something different, pass a different motion.
Please forgive me. I’m just giving you my viewpoint as a provider. I thought you were asking why you were’t seeing your pools fill up.
I actually think we are in “violent agreement.” I don’t like voting for high rates and I think we need to provide more emphasis and focus on allowed spread.
I made a post where I propose some motions that I would like to refer this discussion to. I appreciate the strong support I’m seeing for the NuPond 4 motion. It’s also nice to see Nu 2.0’s NSR voting in action on http://blockexplorer.nu/votes, thank you Nu Team.
I dont understand very clearly that for which we are voting here - not voted yet
Its a motion that is just about to pass. I’m also asking for an nsr operator fee which has little support.
What good is a pool without an operator and why would an operator work without being paid?