[Passed] NuPond 4

[nmei]

I have no problem granting NSR.

I can’t say I’m happy seeing the CNY targets reduced when I was planning on increasing my own allocations this month. But those are selfish reasons.

[Nagalim]

You get a higher rate out of it this way. Fill up the 5 kNBT targets for a term and I’d be happy to increase. It just seems wasteful as there has been rarely more than 1 kNBT on either side.

Also, by decreasing the target I’m able to do a pure NSR grant this month. Next month we can do NBT again and we can reassess. Of course, if shareholders would rather keep the 10 kNBT CNY pool targets and pay me in NBT instead, I can easily just buy the shares I want on the open market. A grant of that nature would be 782 NBT to keep the 0.2%/day rate increase.

Keeping all NuPond parameters the same as NuPond 3 would be a grant of 527 NBT.

[mhps]

Since NBT/USD is 0.2%ppm , I think NBT/CNY should be 0.22ppm to compensate volatility (half of the fund caught in 1.2% per month devaluation)

[cryptog]

The NBT/BTC reward looks low compared to NBT/CNYm only 50% higher.
Especially current BTC’s volatility is high, exposing NBT/BTC providers to a relatively high risk.

I understand your desire to get NSRs instead of NBTs but I think it would be good for NSR’s market price if you can buy NSRs from a NBT’s reward. Therefore I would be more in favor of a NBT grant.

[dysconnect]

Personally, if low interests cause liquidity providers to stop holding BTC for its volatility then let it be. We shouldn’t force ourselves to hold the bag for BTC.

A better strategy would be to expand fiat/NBT pegging, so those who decide to escape BTC risk by buying fiat can join the pool.

[masterOfDisaster]

I’m advocating for focussing on NBT/USD operations for some time due to the associated cost for Nu.
Nu doesn’t promise to keep a peg of NBT in NBT/BTC or other trading pairs.
Still Nu does offer liquidity and keep the peg in these pairs.
It seems that here’s not yet (if ever) consensus for focussing on NBT/USD.
Otherwise liquidity operations providing liquidity in NBT/BTC would have a harder time to pass.

Looking at the future of Nu with exchanges like B&C Exchange it will be necessary to continue NBT/BTC operations.

Development progress like the parametric order book will make it much less risky/expansive to provide liquidity in the NBT/BTC pair.

[Nagalim]

I got some mixed messages, so I’m going to go ahead as planned because it’s convenient for me.

Assistant bot doesn’t work for the custodian hash for nsr.

[tomjoad]

Copy/pasting my feedback in the NuPool thread:

I don’t support providing NSR as compensation because the liquidity in that market is so low. A small NSR sell-off can damage the share price considerably. If NuPool users prefer receiving NSR as compensation, I would hope that they choose to sell their NBT and purchase NSR on the open market. As a shareholder I also oppose further dilution to my shares for any purpose other than emergency peg maintenance. In my view NBT are the most appropriate asset to pay liquidity providers with because it has a stable value, which is desirable when calculating monthly network expenses.

I don’t support NSR grants for liquidity providers (edit: and pool operators) and won’t vote for them.

[Nagalim]

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.

[tomjoad]

@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.

[tomjoad]

[GLock]

I agree with tomjoad, at the moment is best to continue with NBT rewards instead of NSR.

[masterOfDisaster]

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

[masterOfDisaster]

I will be voting for your motion but not the NSR custodial grant in the hopes

…the liquidity situation will change and NSR holders don’t regret having granted at least the pool operator compensation in NSR?

Current Liquidity

Hi @cryptog The recent Liquidity in the Nu network was: “blocks” : 499928, “buy” : 37697.9996, “sell” : 56645.1755 “blocks” : 499929, “buy” : 37682.3996, “sell” : 56645.1755 “blocks” : 499930, “buy” : 37652.0035, “sell” : 56678.9198 “blocks” : 499931, “buy” : 36885.8296, “sell” : 58843.1471 “blocks” : 499932, “buy” : 36882.0836, “sell” : 58827.4252 “blocks” : 499933, “buy” : 37364…

[cryptog]

1250 NBT

So the custodial fee requested is 1250NBTs?

[Cybnate]

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.

[Nagalim]

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.

[JordanLee]

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.

[cryptog]

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.

Tks for the clarification.

45f6e4d5f503528e4258859b143f603b51bcfb7f verified and voted.

However, I would vote only for the NBT grant at this stage. Sorry for that.

[Cybnate]

@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.

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.