@Phoenix, before I vote for this I need to know some things. How come in all of your posts you have avoided talking about revenue for the network? Lots of people in this thread are asking about it, but you haven’t offered any comments on it at all. Why? All your posts are about what we need to do to get the peg back (which is important I agree), violations of NuLaw in regard to selling NuShares and how liquidity providers messed everything up with $0.95 buy side.
With a lot more people talking about it than before the peg break, why do you continue to avoid the revenue discussion in all your posts? It is very frustrating we get nothing from you on this when the problem seems so obvious. Even if we do peg to $0.10 with a full reserve, how can we possibly prevent the same thing from eventually happening again if we still haven’t done anything about the revenue problem? Liquidity provision is costly and the full reserve will be eaten away slowly until we don’t have anything left as long as we do nothing about revenue. Do you have any comments at all about this? We need to be able to sustain our operation. How can we do that with plenty of costs, but no revenue?
Or do you believe in the basic premise of my article below, that liquidity at a tight spread will naturally increase demand and NuBit sales, resulting in even more liquidity? I explained it as if it were a liquidity generating machine, which naturally attracts more and more of it simply by leaving it running…
You responded in my thread with a long reply, but it was only about the 2nd half of my article about how the liquidity engine failed. You said nothing about the first half in which I tried to decipher how your model is supposed to work in the first place.
Do you believe what I wrote about how the engine is supposed to work in these two chapters?
- A Degraded Peg is Not a Peg, but a Tight Peg is Costly
- How Nu Functions as a Liquidity Engine
Or am I completely wrong in my understanding of your model? If I’m correct, then it can only mean that you believe revenue is not important until much later in the process after we’ve already scaled up the money supply to the point that many people are using NuBits and paying transaction fees. That’s the only reason that comes to mind why you would be ignoring the revenue discussion, because you don’t believe revenue matters until much later in the process when adoption is already at a high level.
If I’m wrong though and high liquidity at a tight spread does not naturally scale up the money supply by attracting more sales and liquidity, then how are we supposed to sustain the peg with no revenue? Please read those two short chapters if you haven’t already and answer these questions if you can. Many people here are waiting to hear your answers.
