[Passed] Standard and Core

[Nagalim]

This is now completely independent of the outstanding nubits motion (I’m assuming that an explicit outstanding motion will replace the circulating terminology here even if this is passed later) and up for voting.

[Cybnate]

I’m aware that shareholders don’t like seeing NSR being sold, causing dilution.After so many weeks of NSR buybacks it wouldn’t be a disaster to try an NSR sale as well The thing is: the development of Nu and BCE requires payment.The NBT in the development funds are considered “in circulation”, which in fact they aren’t.They are in the development funds.As they are used for payments they really get into circulation over time.If they are traded for BTC (to be further traded to USD or other fiat), the hit the reserves as well.

Maybe it is time to show the balance in more detail. When the burn rate of the development funds threaten to exceed the reserves and NBT sales are stable or slowing than it should trigger a response as this motion suggests.

Other networks talk about another IPO and new investments which basically an NSR sale is, to cover developments and we talk about dilutions but it is basically the same. Maybe we need to market things a bit better without deluding people of course.

To prevent dilutions of your shares one will have to invest in buying a similar share as your current holding in the new NSR brought to market. Maybe we shouldn’t bring shares just to market but provide existing shareholders with the opportunity to buy new shares equivalent of their holdings before bring them to market? I appreciate the complication of having anonymous shareholders, but I’m sure there are ways around that at protocol level and an executor.

[cryptog]

How would that motion compare to previous monetary policies in terms of triggering T6 when T4 fails?

[Nagalim]

There is only one policy in place right now and it takes effect after 1 month of setting park rates and is basically unresponsive to any network parameters. Essentially, without this motion we will be dead in the water as far as recovering the peg with T6 reserves. Kinda like what’s happening right now.

Im actually super disillusioned with the lack of comments or voter participation in this motion considering how low our standard is.

[masterOfDisaster]

without this motion we will be dead in the water as far as recovering the peg with T6 reserve

We’re not totally dead in the water.
But we’re bound to the discretion of FLOT, which is in terms of accounting worse than having a set of rules.
Somebody can pick up what I tried to start here:

FLOT NSR Operations (buy side)

Dear fellow NSR FLOT group members, as the recent balancing efforts drained the BTC reserves to 82 BTC and considering the next balancing transaction I proposed will reduce the reserves 35 BTC, I want to start discussing an NSR sale. I’m aware that there’s $30k in NuSafe. I intend to use some of those funds as well for two reasons: it’s was NuSafe was made for - being a stable reserve; let’s use it as such to test the process of releasing funds from NuSafe I’d like to convert half of NuSa…

Alas I won’t be pushing any further

FLOT NSR Operations (buy side)

For the record: I won't push the NSR sale any further, nor will I monitor the liquidity situation closely. I will - of course! - be available to sign FLOT tx or explain why I refuse to do that.

Because I’m fed up with doing work for lazy shareholders:

Park Rate Voting

I seriously consider retiring from my FLOT roles.This is not what the deal when proposing for a FLOT role was supposed to be.

Or should I just quote you and edit small parts?

Im actually super disillusioned with the lack of comments or voter participation in this motion considering how low our standard is. at all

[cryptog]

All right. I ll be probably voting for it at my next update, hopefully today.

[Sentinelrv]

All right. I ll be probably voting for it at my next update, hopefully today.

I’m interested to see how your one data feed affects the number of votes.

[Cybnate]

I’m interested to see how your one data feed affects the number of votes.

You will have to wait for another opportunity
This one is on my shortlist, will also add this to my datafeed. It is just the complexity and a number of changes to the proposal that I kept it on hold. It took me a while to get my head around while being distracted by operational issues.

[Nagalim]

There’s a slight typo that i want to head off at the pass. When I say ‘sell ST’ and the standard is negative, i really mean ‘sell absolutevalue(ST)’. I think this should be somewhat obvious and dont think it’s worth a rehash.

[cryptog]

voting.

[Sentinelrv]

Almost there, currently 45% voting, but SDD is 22%. How long you think until that hits 50%?

[Nagalim]

I think shareholders are holding intentionally. It’s a dangerous game, but I agree that it would be better if this motion were implemented while the standard is within the band rather than doing a hard transition to dilutions.

Eventually, if we keep park rates for another couple weeks there will be a dilution either way. I’m hoping that’s when this will pass.

[crypto_coiner]

Would like to give it a try – will add this to my data feed

[Sentinelrv]

Now over 55% and 33.65% SDD.

[Cybnate]

This motion passed.

[mhps]

For example, if the standard were $1,500 then no NSR buybacks would occur but $1,000 would be given to the PPC executor.

what if it’s not $1500 but an amount that will result more than filling PPC reserve to its target? Will the extra fund be used to buy NSR ? If yes this makes things complicated.

[Nagalim]

If a reserve is over target, the surplus will be sold similarly to bitcoin overflow using the target, velocity, and threshold to determine the rate of market action.

So yes. Why is that complicated? Also, totally a problem for the future, lol.

[mhps]

Why is that complicated?

The complication comes when sell (F x ST) amount of PPC is an unexecutable action when there isn’t F x ST amount in the reserve. The motion should have qualified the sell by “as much as the reserve allows.” so the calculator will code the cases.

Also, totally a problem for the future, lol.

You think any motion is not for the future? This motion is for the future. The calculator is for the future. A sloppy motion has to be patched to avoid being broken the first time it is applied because it didn’t try hard enough to be rigorous. The whole idea of trying to codify what to do will be seen as a dubious exercise if sloppiness is shown everywhere.

How about a motion to require any proposer of passed motion that is relevant to buyback to do a line-by-line calculation by hand, correctly, before that particular case is coded into the calculator? Any other case won’t be coded until the proposer does the above in the future?

[ConfusedObserver]

Isn’t it about time to pause this motion or replace it by an alternative one?
Wouldn’t it make more sense to restock reserves by the revenue schemes that are under construction?
As the peg is lost, it makes no sense dumping NSR on the market to restock reserves.

[mhps]

Wouldn’t it make more sense to restock reserves by the revenue schemes that are under construction?

It;s a parameterised motion. There is no need to suspend for the reason you said above – Just adjust the parameters and it still works.
Major change of calculation is not free – historically it takes 10 -20 hours work to get the changes corrected expressed in mathematical forms including all the edge cases, and implemented in the buyback calculator.