Thank you for taking your time to write these kind words!
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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).
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
I am voting for this motion, but just wanted to point out that there is no front running occurring. Front running occurs when an entity with privileged information acts ahead of the market for its own financial gain. An example would be an exchange operator who automatically sells his own BTC a fraction of a second before a large BTC sell order is placed, because he knows the price will be decreasing.
Anyone who is purchasing NSR right now with the hopes of selling it back at a higher price later in the week is simply gambling. As soon as a large shareholder or two decide that the buyback price is high enough for them to liquidate, they may start selling into our discounted buy walls from Monday to Thursday, which could trigger more potential sellers entering if they believe the price of NSR has peaked.
Very good news!
A dynamic adjustment of the T4 buy side to the amount of circulating NBT (or future products) is important to make attacks on the peg harder compared to static T4 buy side.
Volatility of the T4 buy side funds (for now only BTC, in the future maybe additional types like PPC) is something that needs to be taken care of next.
I’m already drafting a proposal
