Take a look at
Take a look at
Thanks buddy. Is there a motion which demands all NBT held on behalf of shareholders gets burned?
There isn’t. It’s trivial to do. But it doesn’t reduce Nu’s actual liability, which is the outstang Nubits in the calculation (~660k NBT). outstang Nubits doesn’t include NBT held on behalf of shareholders, because these prisoned nbt are not in circulation. Accidental leak is unlikely because they are held in multi-sig addresses controlled by FLOT NBT (except for Jordan Lee’s $65k).
I’d want to be certain no NBT held by shareholders is ever sold for under $1 USD. That’d be brand suicide. This idea that we can just move the peg down 90% is completely unacceptable, please forgive me if that is rude.
The peg is lost. That doesn’t mean we can move the goal posts and have another share buy back.
That seems reasonable and therefore I will add this to my data feed.
But, again, now is the time to have a blockchain-driven transparency so that everybody can audit these accounts in real time –
tier 4/ FLOT/ FSRT/ Jordan Lee
How can you not monitor a known address? I thought that was the point of block chain already?
I changed the motion text to require a buy wall at $0.98 or greater as one of the conditions that can halt NuShare sales, instead of $0.99 in the original draft. Currently, NuLaw requires all shareholder funded liquidity to be $0.99 or higher, so in practice it will be $0.99, unless that regulation is overturned, which it might be.
The motion is finalized and hashed. Passage of the 100% reserve requirement will show shareholders are committed to protecting NuBit holders and helping restore our credibility. Let’s pass it quickly with overwhelming support to send a message to the market showing our united resolve to defend NuBits.
Motion Hash: 1118f2334d0ef45676b38ebe2daaf30a8a345a7f
Voting has begun! Here is the motion.
Right – I meant automatic audit
f8b9e060dc73a97fd28a62ecfdd419114892787a makes sense.
Link on the motion is broken,
What s the hash of this motion: 470ba7bf40099c395b8fb569367d16ce6167c2bd
shall be changed to reserve 100% of outstanding NuBits instead of the current figure of 15%.
A minimum of 0.5% of the total NuShare supply must be sold each week while so long as either one of these two conditions exist:
- There is not a buy wall equal to or greater than $0.98
- The 100% reserve requirement is not met.
But why this sudden change from no-reserve to full reserve policy?
Is there any moratorium to this full reserve?
Reserve in what?
This is not banking anymore
From Jordan Lee in this forum thread: Regarding reserves and fractional reserve
Various members of our community and other communities have at times spoken about reserves and fractional reserve in relation to our network. Some seem to think that 100% reserves are desirable and equate to solvency, while others (including myself) wish to avoid the use of reserves altogether to avoid counterparty risk. Some view reserves as the backing for NuBits, while others see NuShares as the only possible backing for NuBits.
Benjamin contends that reserves cannot be reliably used to back NuBits. I agree. This view implies that solvency and fractional reserve cannot be assessed by the size of any reserve. If there is no reserve, the notion of “fractional reserve” doesn’t even make sense in the context of our network. However, a related concept is the ratio of assets to liabilities as Benjamin pointed out, where NuShares are network assets and currencies issued are liabilities. If the NuShare market cap is 8 million NBT and there are 1 million NBT in circulation, the asset to liability ratio is 8, not counting any reserves that exist. This is a highly solvent state that doesn’t resemble anything like fractional reserve.
It is clear the original design of Nu as articulated in my whitepaper is a network that avoids the use of reserves entirely to eliminate counterparty risk. When a LPC provides their own funding for liquidity operations, they are implementing this zero reserve model. Shortly before our September 2014 release it became clear that NuBot would need to support primarily NBT/crypto pairs instead of just NBT/USD. This was difficult to implement quickly, which means it had some bugs initially and this approach introduces some extra risks which were not well understood and could not be accurately measured at the time. As a result, KTm and Jamie began using shareholder funds to provide liquidity, which may be regarded as reserves in some contexts. It is has been my intention all along that this would be a temporary situation as we would transition back to the original design of LPCs providing their own funds consistent with the zero reserve and zero counterparty risk model. Indeed all custodians besides Jamie and KTm are providing their funds and the transition is well underway.”
This is an important change from the “maximum 0.5%” in the OP as it imposes no maximum of NSR sales per week. There is no consideration to how much the sales will disturb the NSR market.
Good point. I have not added a proposal on 100% reserve yet.
Same here, not part of the datafeed. Selling without caps is a bit rough on the market. It does allow for some flexibility though. All comes down to trusting Phoenix.
But this one didn’t yet.
I own Nubits and NuShare…I don’t want to lose anymore value. My Nubits are parked and my NuShare are voting, I think. I have the data feed and I came here to look at the proposals that I found in the datafeed. What can I do, and how can a contribute?
If you are minting you are contributing. If you vote by subscribing from one of the active datafeeds you are doing very well.
Must I actually click on any of the proposals in the wallet that the datafeed provides or are my votes automated by simply subcribing to the feed? I’ve been holding NSR for quite awhile and they’ve lost a considerable amount of value since I purchased them…but, I’m not sure if I am responsibly voting with the datafeed…This is the feed I am subscribed to: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Cybnate/NuNet-datafeed/master/Cybnate-datafeed.json