[Passed] Temporarily cap NBT supply with full reserve

[Sabreiib]

I bet here and now 1 BTC with you that B&C will never reach this amount of trading volume. Again, you don’t understand how B&C works, you think it can be used like Poloniex but it can’t.

Could you elaborate it? Why couldn’t B&C achieve one million USD trade volume per day??

[Sabreiib]

In both proposals your effective balance will be decreased if you sell your NBT in near future. Here you just get 10 cent on the dollar you originally paid, in our proposal you lose 5 cent on the dollar every month as long as you don’t park. It takes over a year to reduce your balance to 10% like in this proposal (compound interest, elementary school).

After your “burn” motion passed, If I just keep 100NBT in my local wallet and don’t park, 1 year later, how many NBT do I have? Only 10NBT??

[Mark]

@Sabreiib, when @creon appeared here on our forum for the first time we had troubles and he developed a solution that works until now and even he did this without any compensation.

@creon will save Nu for the second time.

@Sabreiib, what did you did for Nu?

Edit:typo

[Sabreiib]

I suggested Nu to find a decent revenue from 2014, and I had given out some model to avoid high expenditure, but seldom are interested in it, and after nearly 2years, you return to the original point with tons of debts.

BtW, could you image BTC miners vote to decrease BTC holders’ balance? This kind of motion cross the red line. Just my two cents.

[Mark]

@creon’s proposal is simple, brilliant and works.

What is your proposal? Please, explain something that works. (Without suggestions to find … and bla, bla, bla.)

[Sabreiib]

My proposal was there in Sep. 2014 :

Feasible profit model discuss

He said NuBits is a ponzi, we need to clarify our profit model. This is really important. I'll tell out one of mine 1) Custodians provide 100% reseve by puting all his/their FIAT income from selling NBT into building up buy walls. 2) Make profit from charging transfer fee. For instance, custodians sell wall is 1.02$ and buy wall at 0.96$, this assures Nu has profit after exchanges taking off their own transaction fee. 3)If profit is enough, we peg NuBits or other unit to 1$ buying p…

Have you ever noticed?

[Mark]

My proposal was there in Sep. 2014 : https://discuss.nubits.com/t/feasible-profit-model-discuss/272 Have you ever noticed?

I don’t see big difference from current model?

And most important, I like automation. I hate to be dependent of people’s decisions.

[Sabreiib]

My proposal was “100% reserve, spread pegging and pledge NSR to borrow NBT”. That was in 2014.

Of course if B&C’s revenue is quite big, 60-80% reserve is also OK.

[crypto_coiner]

@creon will save Nu for the second time.

Thats all relative.
That s certrainly not the kind of wording I will use
Even if @Sabreiib might not be as clear as others I appreciate his participation in the discussion.

[Sentinelrv]

I bet here and now 1 BTC with you that B&C will never reach this amount of trading volume. Again, you don’t understand how B&C works, you think it can be used like Poloniex but it can’t.

Could you elaborate it? Why couldn’t B&C achieve one million USD trade volume per day??

I believe Creon is talking about the fact that B&C is much slower than a normal exchange due to the use of a blockchain. That may be true, but it’s really built for people who prefer security of funds over speed of trades.

@Sabreiib also believes there may be a way to make B&C use off-chain instant trading, but I don’t completely understand how it works.

[creon]

Could you elaborate it? Why couldn’t B&C achieve one million USD trade volume per day??

Because it is too slow for hedging or even moderate frequency trading, which is where most volume is produced. That plus the cumbersome actions that are required to use it (e.g. buying BKC beforehand on an actual exchange).

If I just keep 100NBT in my local wallet and don’t park, 1 year later, how many NBT do I have?

Really? You can’t do the math? Its 100 * (1 - X)^12 with X being the burn rate. So assuming the burn rate to be 10% per month, then after one year you would have 28.24 USD left if you never parked them. With JLs proposal you will have 10 USD at day one. Its really surprising that you have no issue with denominating 1 NBT to 10 cent (which mean decreasing the balance of all holders by 90%) but see a big problem with asking for a fee for usage time (now 10% per month, ideally around 1% at most).

My proposal was “100% reserve, spread pegging and pledge NSR to borrow NBT”.

Spread is not a revenue model because your own customers will compete with you (i.e. if you provide NBT at 3% spread then people will come and offer a lower spread as long as it is profitable).

Borrowing is exactly what a coinage dependent fee realizes. Borrowing without any blockchain relation will require a lot of legal work and risk assessment and your post there clearly didn’t give any of those and further doesn’t describe any method to actually do it.

That s certrainly not the kind of wording I will use

me neither and I also don’t want to play anyones Commander of Liquidity.

[Phoenix]

When I see a plan for revenue that doesn’t include NSR, I’ll vote for a peg.

So your plan is to defraud NuBit holders of their value unless some one else comes up with a plan you are unable to characterize except to say that it has to make money? You think this is helpful?

Sheer stupidity. You betray NuBit holders. Some shareholders and even more liquidity providers thought they could betray and destroy NuBit holders and emerge in fine shape. The stupidity of this attitude amazes me. The system was well designed to place NuShare holders and NuBit users in the same boat. If NuBit holders sink to the depths, so will NuShare holders. NuShare holders, you have lost 85% of your equity value as you have abandoned NuBit holders. The only way up is to start supporting your currency while boldly rejecting all who wish to destroy NuBit holders.

Have you had enough of experimenting with destroying NuBit holders, or would you like to continue sending the NuShare price to zero? Can you not see the effort has been disastrous?

[creon]

JL, nobody gives a shit anymore about anything you say. Better post those fund addresses and pass the coins over to someone responsible.

Also, you should know that officials are already looking for you.

[cryptog]

@creon @Phoenix , the negativity in your comments only worsens the situation. I think anonymity should not justify disrespect. I hope you understand that.

[Phoenix]

There is a growing consensus that this liquidity engine is not efficient and people are getting interested in @Cybnate new proposal

The notion that the liquidity engine is not efficient compared to holding reserves is plainly false. Reserves are incredibly costly. One excellent way of explaining the new low NuShare price is that it is an adjustment taking into account the tremendous expenses Nu now faces in the form of building and maintaining a reserve. A liquidity engine, when used, functions at a small fraction of the cost of maintaining reserves. Cost savings is the most compelling reason to use a liquidity engine. It is very efficient. However, it is worth noting that there are decentralized liquidity engines and more centralized ones. Decentralized liquidity engines are not only much more expensive than somewhat centralized ones, but also lack the ability to make competent decisions at this scale (less than 1 million NuBits). It appeared to some observers that our underpaid and highly distracted decentralized liquidity providers (distracted by things like real jobs) could understand and manage the basic operational principles of the liquidity. Chief among these principles are that the peg must be maintained and that NuShares must be sold if the buy wall gets thin at all. Apparently notions like these were too much for our amateur liquidity providers. So, we need expert management of liquidity operations. This is all very awkward because most active forum participants are these amateur liquidity providers. So the community doesn’t like to hear that our decentralized liquidity operations demonstrated profound incompetence, but yet those are facts and we must face them in order to provide an appropriate remedy. If don’t define the problem accurately, the solution prescribed will be inappropriate.

I don’t see a consensus emerging that the liquidity engine is inefficient. This seems improbable considering the clear facts that it is much more efficient than holding reserves.

[mhps]

about the promise to increase the peg without a revenue stream. Who do you think is going to pay for this?

To raise a100% reserved peg, the reserve has to increase at the same rate.

[Chronos]

The notion that the liquidity engine is not efficient compared to holding reserves is plainly false. Reserves are incredibly costly. One excellent way of explaining the new low NuShare price is that it is an adjustment taking into account the tremendous expenses Nu now faces in the form of building and maintaining a reserve.

Plainly false? Not with this evidence. The low NSR price is because it’s difficult to build a reserve, because that means earning Actual Money™. Maintaining a reserve is a completely different task.

You’re saying this is the same:

• Trying to earn $100 when you only have $5
• Trying to keep $100 in your pocket after it has arrived there

Not quite the same.

[Phoenix]

Who gives you the power to decrease my balance? The last government doing such thing is Cyprus or Greek? What’s the response from the public?

I would not bump into the same wall twice, I"ll sell all my NBT and never come back if this motion passed.

Thank you @Sabreiib for sharing this perspective. I think it represents how a typical NuBit holder feels.

The NuShare price is low because we have shown a very poor commitment to the value of NuBits. Finding fancy ways to defraud NuBits holders in a way that appeals to the nerd in you is no way to build a customer base.

We have to promote the narrative that we discovered we do not have the expertise sufficiently distributed to operate a decentralized liquidity engine at this scale. There is good reason to think we could do that with 100 million NBT in circulation, but not with less than million NBT, as is our current situation. What we can do at this scale is have Tube and gateways operate under the guidance of a liquidity operations expert. I am confident this is the proper direction for us to move in our current situation.

[Phoenix]

The low NSR price is because it’s difficult to build a reserve

It is difficult to build a reserve when NSR FLOT refuses to sell any NSR, which was the case as the crisis emerged. That doesn’t mean it can’t be done, it just means the lack of action was incompetent, as well as a clear violation of multiple passed motions that regulate NSR sales.

[crypto_coiner]

That doesn’t mean it can’t be done, it just means the lack of action was incompetent, as well as a clear violation of multiple passed motions that regulate NSR sales.

OK
Supposing it is true.
Constructive and interesting to know is this in a kaizen approach:

• why incompetent lpc were chosen
• how to select competent lpc
• why was this nsr sale motion violated?

If one does not ask the good questions there s no way good answers will come out.
Notwithstanding witchhunting.