I agree that there are more classical ways to implement method 3 options, but still see Coinffeine as one of them. Everything happens between the traders and on the blockchain, you cannot shut it down and there is no deposit to seize. It requires LockTime, but we said so often now that we want this, that I think a motion to implement this would pass.
In fact every LPC could provide several options for the service, a centralized website or this. This would be just the method getting the coins from A to B, not how to be able to provide this offer in the first place.
With liquidity provision project efforts oriented towards trading market places (nupool, nulagoon, liiquidbits etc…), LPCs are mostly certainly not going to make any money and this is not due to the exchange being hacked because it is centralized. This is due to the nature of the business. You just cant make any money when you are being used as hedge by an ultra volatile token.
Now question: Are PEGs going to make money for certain (figures needed in the draft) by being NBT LPCs?
If so, this is a no brainer and shareholders should support the draft as we should pivot.
All LPC can make money if the fee they get exceeds their expenses and exchange rate loss. It doesn’t matter if it is a PEG that becomes an LPC. The burning question is if the shareholders want to foot the bill for the NBT/BTC LPCs. As @Benjaminpointed out, subsidized NBT/BTC could inhibit NBT/USD peg growth. That is why i think a total cap of LPC fee per month should be in place to stimulate market competition for lower fees.
In that case, B&C could not be as much profitable as expected. There would be a conflict of interests between Nu sharesholders that want to cap lpc fees, therefore the liquidity provided into B&C and the B&C shareholders that want to maximize trade fees, therefore liquidity, therefore lpc fees overall.
But both shareholders are the same group…Oops.
There would be a dilemma leading to a balanced middle?
We ll see.
That s a good point but if we assume that most of the volume would be generated by NBT/BTC at a ratio of 10:1 (like we have in centralized exchanges), that means that most of the revenues should come from NBT/BTC trades…
Maybe another solution for hedging against volatility on BTC/NBT is to track a volatility index.
When the volatility is high, the fee for exchanging nbt or btc (from the perspective of a trader) with a lpc is high, when the volatility is low, the fee for exchanging nbt or btc with a lpc is low, relatively.
The thing is that Nu cannot keep forever on providing cheap liquidity when volatility is high.
It is basically giving away money.
Sorry for insisting, but I believe this is the major reason why we have seen so fews lpc in 8 months of history…
I like this motion very much, my only concern is as mentioned earlier that I am not exactly sure about its consequences. Its more or less the basic question: Who will do what?
If “who” is just the community, then there is no motion required for this, because it doesn’t result in any responsibility. I would really like to see names in the motion.
The email/messages will be sent by official PR/marketing and if PEGs come to ask technical questions on installing Nu then developers in Nu team will be needed to help. That is the minimum the motion is asking the Nu team to do.
I think the Nu team manager will answer to the motion if it passes and see to that this gets done by the responsible member, given various constraints. If the requested tasks cannot be done or the progress is too slow we will demand explanations. I think it’s better done this way or everyone will be forced to grab the steering wheel and step on gas and brake.
I had the same response as Creon initially and I prefer to see someone tasked or agreeing to the work. Knowing that Jordan has said before that he would follow passed motion within his power and abilities it is likely that he will answer.
My problem is that you might be asking something which is not possible within the current priorities we don’t know about, but are likely to finish of the next release of the client (v2.0?). I’m interested to hear at what cost you want JL to proceed with this motion and what kind of action/response would be acceptable. A counter motion from JL confirming the priorities as they are and nullifying your motion, which I would expect?
I agree that the current liquidity provisioning model is not sustainable without strong growth, so steps towards a better system are certainly useful, but at what priority. Dropping everything at hand and focussing on this?
Hope you can elaborate a bit on this as I struggle to vote for it in its current form. You may blame me coming late to the discussion though
@tomjoad (Sorry tom, they have to see names ) will spend 3 days maximum to polish up the installation guide, take a look at the site list, draft the message, let the community comment on it, and send them out to the PEGs. Another 1 day total replying general questions or direct them to the appropriate sources / forums. Another 1 day for step 4.
some developers (@Ben, @woolly_sammoth, @desrever ?) spending 2 day total maximum answering technical questions from PEG technical staff.
(edit: correct me if I made this sound too easy.)
What is acceptable? Messages sent. Feed back from PESs received. Questions answered. Or, problem understood if we get no response from any of the PEGs.
You really like chains of motions
You have the perfect excuse since you’ve got a lot of things going.
I think things need to be done gradually.
So Nu should not give up supporting the peg via liquidity pools = providing liquidity to traders 1), right now in any case but that does not prevent us from starting to sell nubits through PEGs = selling nbts to Internet consumers 2) since ultimately 2) is the goal, at least from my perspective.
Not really, waste of time… Prefer to get it right the first time.
That’s why you get my questions
Sounds like we have some people identified who may respond and some tasks and success factors identified.
That is a good start. Can I assume this motion as a question from the Shareholders to the people you mentioned and Jordan as the lead? Normally I’m not keen to coerce people into something they might not be willing to do, although they are getting paid by the Shareholders so they are answerable I suppose. And I still think that what you propose is worth doing.
