[Passed] T4 Circulating NBT Threshold

[dysconnect]

I agree there should be more shareholder participation; even if it’s just about dealing with motions, subscribers of @cryptog’s and @Cybnate’s datafeed probably account for more than 50% of minting shares. But saying it’s a perfect parallel to the state of real-world democracies is way too far. What I’ve seen is that even the regular contributors are too busy to think through FLOT beyond Jordan’s motion. I’m sure yours will get more attention later; I still encourage you to aim for building a framework to assemble FLOT motions and that effort will not be wasted.

…Although if I spent more time on your motion rather typing this you probably won’t be complaining as much (guilty).

Regarding the imbalance of efforts and general inaction, what we really need is a way to get shareholders to fund projects and expand the scope of merit-based compensation. While reasonable I don’t think it can be justified on all grounds that those who have invested more should work more - they’ve already put more of their hard-earned money into the project and are arguably taking more risks.

For that reason I’m having high hopes on the establishment of FLOT, which is a gateway for cultivating more doers in the community. I also hope our community could breed more standalone business projects that have positive effects on Nubits (like BCE), as that is the ultimate source of organic growth for our ecosystem.

Frequency voting: Given JL’s recent complaint on the voting activity of shareholders, if there’s a real demand at some point it will be noticed and acted on. The main reason it’s not pushed for is that the threat is not yet imminent and we want developers to speed up progress on BCE. The culprit is still the lack of manpower. I’ve been studying the codebase and should be able to take up development work on this later; if that happens I’ll come up with a proposal to get paid for it.

Seeded auctions: I agree that the reaction of the community has been lukewarm, but the issue is more on getting shareholders to fund the project. And also there’s only one @Nagalim, who’s spending a lot of his time on ALP at the moment (and if he’s really working on auctions he probably won’t have so much time to talk about FLOT like he did)

[masterOfDisaster]

I agree there should be more shareholder participation; even if it’s just about dealing with motions, subscribers of @cryptog’s and @Cybnate’s datafeed probably account for more than 50% of minting shares. But saying it’s a perfect parallel to the state of real-world democracies is way too far.

It’s maybe a little bit exaggerated, but not way too far if I assume (and although we can’t know for sure due to the anonymity) there are way over a hundred shareholders, and only a fraction of them contribute.
The contribution is higher than in other democracies (speaking of politics now), but in difference to them this is no kind of democracy in which you participate by chance. You participate by decision instead. This is not a state you are born in which offers voting rights to adult residents. You need to buy NSR to be a part of the democratic body of Nu.
And that’s the reason why I’d expect more participation.

What I’ve seen is that even the regular contributors are too busy to think through FLOT beyond Jordan’s motion. I’m sure yours will get more attention later; I still encourage you to aim for building a framework to assemble FLOT motions and that effort will not be wasted.

Just to make this clear: my frustration was not spawned by the lack of interest in the motion I drafted - this was just the last straw after I’ve experienced lack of interest in a lot of areas which are of importance for Nu.
I’m glad that @Nagalim took the initiative to pick the maybe most important part of my draft and put it into a separate motion.
I would have done the same after I had sufficiently recovered from my frustration.
I understand that digesting small bites is easier. I try to remember that the next time I start writing text walls

…Although if I spent more time on your motion rather typing this you probably won’t be complaining as much (guilty).

You are a free person and I need to respect that you do whatever you find worthwhile as long as you don’t step on the someone’s toes.

While reasonable I don’t think it can be justified on all grounds that those who have invested more should work more - they’ve already put more of their hard-earned money into the project and are arguably taking more risks.

Indeed it seems reasonable if investors try steering the way Nu goes according to their hopes. Having put (more) money in it makes them (more) vulnerable and more responsible - they have more (at) stake!

I tried to define a scope for FLOT because I might become an elected member of the FLOT and would appreciate having a mandate that is more precise than what’s available now.
I thought about what the FLOT needs to do and when (time, circumstances) and the support by NSR holders.
And I thought that the average NSR holders should be interested in defining that was well. That was obviously wrong. I started to realize that.

For that reason I’m having high hopes on the establishment of FLOT, which is a gateway for cultivating more doers in the community.

FLOT is valuable to free @JordanLee from being highly involved in liquidity operations. This not only wastes JL’s precious time, but poses a centralized risk for Nu.
Whether FLOT can cultivate more doers is partly up to the members of the FLOT. The (future) FLOT members are already quite active. The FLOT might (need to) be able to cultivate doers outside the FLOT!

[JordanLee]

Just to make this clear: my frustration was not spawned by the lack of interest in the motion I drafted - this was just the last straw after I’ve experienced lack of interest in a lot of areas which are of importance for Nu.

I just wanted to say I love your work and the ideas you have promoted even when I don’t have time to properly digest all the details. Everyone is just very busy with diverse endeavors.

My advice would be don’t underestimate the value of hashing proposals and beginning voting as a means of getting attention. Once it gets a few percent of the vote and begins to show prominently in the block explorer then people are more willing to spend time to become familiar with it.

You are a very valuable member of the community and I would hate to see you get discouraged.

[cryptog]

Sorry if my participation was almost non existent regarding your ideas. I was having a hard time to grasp all the details. I needed much more time. I would suggest to unpack to say 5 main ideas and discuss each in a specific thread.
Nevertheless, you are extremely valuable for Nu, i feel. One of the most active and important shareholders.

[masterOfDisaster]

I just wanted to say I love your work and the ideas you have promoted even when I don’t have time to properly digest all the details.

Thank you for taking your time to write these kind words!

Everyone is just very busy with diverse endeavors.

That is absolutely true for those who work tireless for the success of Nu - but I really wish it were everyone and not “only” the usual suspects

You are a very valuable member of the community and I would hate to see you get discouraged.

I’m not discouraged easily at least not in a sense of “final discouragement”. A lot came together and I was quite exhausted when I seemed to be discouraged.

Sorry if my participation was almost non existent regarding your ideas.

A part of that is going off-topic, but I want to make it really clear:
it was not the participation regarding my ideas. It was the lack of participation in ideas that might be of great importance for Nu that left me exhausted. Real life issues had another part in that.
If you see important parts of the world fall apart or at least not all done to prevent it from falling apart, it leaves you in a helpless and desperate state.
I’m seeing Nu at the brink of a success for which Nu is not yet in the right shape.
I’ll do my best to help bringing Nu in the right shape, because this success poses new risks to Nu.

I know that a part of me is naive and I’m well aware that a lot of people are invested in Nu because they simply want to make money.
Nevertheless I sense a power in Nu to be so much more than just a source of profit. Nu can be a disruptive new way of issuing a currency if it stays successful and gets improved to handle so much more NBT in circulation and so much more liquidity.
Nu can create currencies that can be used almost immune to regulation - at least to regulation by governments.
The times in which “traditional” slavery was all over the world are over. I fear that parts of it are still left, but it has been reduced to a minimum.
These days slavery is cloaked, but it’s still present in the form of countries and governments that enslave other countries by trading agreements, military force, economical oppression, forcing them into subjection.
Money, issued currencies play a “vital” role in the mechanisms to do that.
Ever since central banks have been invented they were used to foster the prosperity of the countries that control the central banks at the disadvantage of the rest of the world that was susceptible for this kind of attack.
Nu can break that circle because it doesn’t answer to a single country or government. The decentralized nature of Nu prevents countries ripping of other countries or at least Nu vastly limits it compared to what the traditional central banks still do.
The more decentralized Nu is and the more countries NSR holders reside in, the more of the world has “representatives” that can voice concerns if Nu is planning to do unethical things at the disadvantage of the home countries of the NSR holders.
I desperately want Nu to succeed. For that I want Nu to be at least one, better two steps ahead of bad guys, attackers, people who want to exploit weaknesses, who only think of their own profit and would sacrifice Nu for that.
Nu must succeed.
It is one of the most important inventions since Bitcoin and Peercoin!

[Nagalim]

I have not seen any real opposition to this yet it’s only being voted 30%. Therefore bump!

[cryptog]

How many btcs are there now in T4?

Edit: i d like to know the current amount of T4 buy side and the current number of nubits in circulation as an example for the proposed motion.

[Cybnate]

I have not seen any real opposition to this yet it’s only being voted 30%. Therefore bump!

It is in my datafeed!

[masterOfDisaster]

With a lot more NBT in circulation it gets important to adjust the T4 buffer, before too much of it has been spent for NSR buybacks or other stuff.
The NSR buybacks take time to reduce the T4 size, but at some point it will bee too late.
Please start voting for this motion now or please explain why you don’t consider it good or necessary.

[mhps]

I am more or less OK with it but if the additional currency part (not necessary for now) can be removed and why the part on 25% threshold is relevant to this motion can be explained then this motion is in better shape.

[Nagalim]

So I’m not going to rehash this motion, it’s at 30% support with a 50% 100 block average. The additional currency part certainly doesn’t hurt anything, is that really preventing you from voting for this? The 25% threshold is only because of the language of the T4 dividend motion which seems to have stalled out at 30% support, so it’s mostly just of academic concern. It was only placed there as a preca in the case that both motions pass (moving from a static to a % threshold on both dividends and buybacks).

[mhps]

is that really preventing you from voting for this?

Did I say I am not voting for it? Christmas tree motions that have unimportant doodads hanging on them don’t tend to get much respect from me, though.

[Nagalim]

I will admit I was attempting to introduce infrastructure in preparation for things that may or may not happen. The things I put in there seemed to me to be related, but perhaps the motion was just fine with the first two paragraphs. I’ll try to slim down more in the future and provide more background for my choices in the OP.

[mhps]

I’ll try to slim down more in the future and provide more background for my choices in the OP.

That would make more effective proposals.

[cryptog]

Tier 4 buy side exceed 15% of the circulating nubit supply.

I have not put it yet into my feeds.
I am comparing it with the current strategy (being used) that says we must use funds in excess of 80k usd.
How the proposed motion would behave right now?
And why 15% and not 20%?
I recognize that i should have asked the same about the 80k in the first place…

[Nagalim]

15% is something like 100k. We had this conversation, I asked for numbers, people said 12% and 15% and people seemed to think 15% was alright. Once we have more information, we might be able to come up with a more rigorous number.

[Nagalim]

I’m guessing this is losing support because we are gaining network apathy with price. I would like to make the case for this motion for shareholders that are simply front-running the nsr price:

You want to vote this motion in because if you’re minting then you’re already over a week invested in nsr. This motion would immediately decrease buyback velocity by ~10%, it’s true, but over a time scale longer than a week this motion contributes to a buyback regiment that is more effective than a pump and dump. This motion is aimed at pumping just enough that we won’t need a dump afterward.

So even if you’re just front-running, if you’re minting then you’ve decided to hold for longer than a week. If you’re holding for longer than a week then this motion will contribute to a more stable buyback so you don’t need to be worried about dumping before the buyback funds run out.

[masterOfDisaster]

I am comparing it with the current strategy (being used) that says we must use funds in excess of 80k usd.

It increases the buffer in case people want to trade large amounts of NBT for BTC, e.g. in case the BTC price declines and they bet on rising BTC rates. A declining BTC price means that the USD value of the funds decreases as well and less NBT can be bought for the BTC from T4 buy side.
This is an important reason for the T4 buy side to be increased if the amount of NBT in circulation increases.

And why 15% and not 20%?

15% is close to what the 80 kUSD were in relation to the NBT in circulation back then. The 15% is just translating that ratio into a variable amount of BTC value on T4 depending in the amount of NBT in circulation.
I expect that this number will be adjusted based on growing experience.

20% would increase the buffer (which is good), but increase the volatility risk as well (which is bad) - the volatility risk is one of the reasons to get rid of BTC in excess of 80 kUSD by using them for NSR buybacks.

I consider not voting for a dynamic T4 buy side irresponsible (needless danger for the peg, NSR need to be sold earlier than with bigger T4 buy side to support the peg) until I’m convinced of the opposite, but I haven’t heard any good arguments so far…

[cryptog]

b1ef96aed5c7f9dec482467b254b40c82bf66d23 verified and voted.

@Nagalim @masterOfDisaster Tks for your help understanding this motion proposal.

By the way, shouldn’t you pass a motion to include the following ?

As a side note for consistency, motion a0a57d12ec67ac6816532f8a0afffd9b7ce14329 will implement a 25% threshold of circulating nubits instead of $120k should both motions pass.

[Nagalim]

I admit that I probably should not have included that in this motion and should have made a separate motion for it. If this motion passes, that clause basically just adjusts the a0 motion to follow a % as well rather than a $. If the a0 motion does not pass, that clause is meaningless. @mhps already scolded me for adding this, I will not be doing a chain clause like that in the future.