When I see a plan for revenue that doesn’t include NSR, I’ll vote for a peg.
2 Likes
The link is broken. I do not see anywhere such a motion. Can you let us know the link please?
My apologies. My attention has been elsewhere investigating e-usd gateways and coding the bones of a burn service api. (nice comforting dev work to keep the mind busy 
)
I can certainly take a look at making a fork of NuBot that pegs to 10¢. I can also have a go at building it although that has always been handled by @desrever in the past.
How much support is there currently for this proposal?
1 Like
Edit: some support
Not supporting this motion as it short changes NBT holders and B&C shareholders, but it appears to have some support of the NuShares minting. And it is better than doing nothing…
However I have a contract with Nu for running a PyBot on behalf of FLOT. So my PyBot is available, but requires changes to make it work with a 0.10 peg. This wouldn’t be too difficult and I might even make an attempt myself possibly with a bit of help from creon or others. This can be done in days.
BTW as FLOT hasn’t advised to withdraw any NBT from the exchanges there is still around 11k sell side at $1,00 on Bittrex and Poloniex.
Besides the above I have also an ALPv2 server instance on stand-by which could support LP NuBot(s) running on Poloniex or any other supported exchange. This way other could run NuBots while we can still have some central server settings and pay for actual uptime and delivery of those running NuBots either with their own money or on behalf of Nu.
Finally I could run a standalone NuBot myself, but this requires a contract.
1 Like
New contracts are needed for operating gateways at a new peg 
@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.
3 Likes
I agree we need to increase drastically the reserve if we want to get back confidence from markets but I do not think it will be necessary for ever to maintain 100%. When do you expect we would be able start lowering the reserves level from 100%?
This. It is very promising.
Currently 10%. Not rising fast now. Only 28 votes in the last 100 blocks.
Well I suspect that Phoenix thinks we can make revenues (dividends for shareholders) if we make NBT sales with a reserve level lower than 100% which is risky at a small scale (as we ve witnessed!) but sustainable at a large scale.
I feel we need to do the following right now:
- increasing the reserve level (100% might be necessary for the next months during our recovery) by selling NSRs.
- finding ways to peg to USD
- finding revenues models
1 Like
if you have 100% you can defend the peg because by definition 100% reserve means you can buy all outstanding nbt back.
There are about 650 k outstanding nubits. To gain 100% reserve for a $0.1 peg we need 65k USD, about 96 btc or 80 million NSR (~ 10% NSR money supply) at current rate. That is not a terrible price to pay, but only for a $0.1 peg. If we exclude nubits in B&C’s hand, only 60 mil NSR needs to be sold/auctioned.
A credible revenue model is imporant to have so shareholders don’t feel they are throwing money into a blackhole.
if the nbt market price refuses to go down at $0.3, we need to sell 240m nsr at 100sat but we can take our time.
1 Like
Conversations about revenues at this moment display an inability to prioritize. What matters is we have had our entire liquidity operations team halt operations in flagrant violation of NuLaw and our core mission.
Liquidity operations needs to start to act like we are supporting a currency. The organization doesn’t take summer holiday on our pegging. Get buy walls up! Now! Has any liquidity provider done anything to support the value of NuBits since they crossed below $0.90? What are you waiting for? A revenue plan? Besides the fact that we have the best revenue plan of any type of business in all of history, it is just the wrong focus. It is like talking about what you will eat next year while being chased by a lion. Wrong priority. Especially when plans about what you are eating next year are very much in place.
But actually, the revenue question seems very silly to me. What does the Federal Reserve do for revenue?
Now back to reality. What are liquidity providers going to do today to support our currency? Do you really not see what needs to be done today?
SELL NSR AND GET BUY WALLS UP. NOW. Same as it has been for some time now. Each day you wait to do what should have been done all along will just harm NSR value more and make it harder to regain confidence. This isn’t that complicated. I am amazed at how our market cap and reputation have been squandered by inaction when it should be quite apparent what we should be doing.
We probably don’t need to modify NuBot to proceed today @woolly_sammoth, I have realized. What we need to do is either not put sell walls up at all or put them up slightly above $1.00. The buy wall can be set low using a very large buy offset. That is an asymmetrical offset, which is normally forbidden, as it is a peg break. However, we are all on the same page that a peg break is a part of our reality today.
@woolly_sammoth do you agree the existing NuBot software will be sufficient for beginning liquidity operations now by using a very large buy side offset?
I don’t see any reason we shouldn’t have Tube and a Poloniex gateway placing low buy orders within hours of now.
We need NSR FLOT to increase our reserves by selling NSR and transferring this to Tube and a Poloniex gateway. Who will run the gateway? @masterOfDisaster? @Cybnate? @zoro?
@henry we need to talk about how to make the trades between FLOT and Tube fair in terms of pricing.
Go!
1 Like
On the topic of how to move the peg up going forward, I think I have arrived at some insight on that in recent hours. The problem is that speculators who see where things are moving can take advantage of liquidity providers who are sticking to the official prices.
Assuming we have the motion pass that regulates a $0.10 buy price, we move it up to say $0.15 by advancing a motion to do so. As the motion gains support, we will see the market price move to the new peg level in advance of any formally decided date. If speculators believe the peg is going up and we can keep it, they will buy all the cheap NBT in advance.
Let’s move with urgency. The situation is very fluid right now. The faster we move today the faster we can have our $1.00 peg back.
3 Likes
interesting.
not sure if it is true
"The Fed’s income comes primarily from the interest on government securities that it has acquired through open market operations. Other sources of income are the interest on foreign currency investments held by the Federal Reserve System; fees received for services provided to depository institutions, such as check clearing, funds transfers, and automated clearinghouse operations; and interest on loans to depository institutions. After paying its expenses, the Federal Reserve turns the rest of its earnings over to the U.S. Treasury. "
https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_12799.htm
So if the list is prioritized, then interest on assets held is the biggest earner (which Nu does not have, and I’m not aware of any Crypto assets offering interest other than NBT), followed by “operations” which I would analog to the transaction fees.
(Way off topic, but with so much NIRP around the globe, does the Fed have a problem in that which was once income is now an expense?)
1 Like
So you are really telling me that you design a currency issuing DAO and yet you don’t know how the monetary strategy of the biggest issuer in the world works? The fed makes no revenue? That’s what you think?
Oh please, yes.
(I know that I haven’t participated in this community for very long, so this comment may seem out of place. But I’ve been lurking here for over a year, and have a stake in Nu and feel I have a stake in this community.)
A person who cannot listen cannot lead. In fact, if a person does not feel like another person listens to them, no amount of speaking out arguing will have any effect, regardless of the quality of the content. This is why effective leaders prioritize listening over being heard. They occupy the space that needs to be heard, and thus, the space that needs to listen first.
The fundamental problem with the community, is that the alleged leader won’t listen. He has instead, ignored the fundamental issue that the community has been hungry for, for the better part of a week, then claimed it was not the issue. Will he let us eat cake?
People will not listen to those who don’t earn their ear, it’s that simple. You had the community’s ear, you are losing it. It’s not economics that are the biggest worry here, it’s much more basic.
Owning up to the roll you played, apologizing for the witch hunt, hearing the community and their ideas to avoid the same problem in the future. These are the big obstacles. The peg is just not nearly as important.
2 Likes
Let us have a look at this link:
A rising buy-side-only"peg" is not a peg. It is essentially what I proposed here as how to gradually close the spread, except that at the time I proposed it the market bottom was $0.95.
Maybe @Cybnate will feel better to see that the “$0.1 peg” is a misnomer and is not purposed to short change our customers.
@Phoenix It’s best to change the title of the motion from its current form to “Re-establishing a $1.00 peg gradually from a fully reserved $0.10 buywall” , and remove the part that the “peg” is moving one direction only. These changes reflect the nature of the operation, make it harder to game, and have better PR effect.
4 Likes
I think this would help.
1 Like
It does not seem that any of the motions will pass any time soon.
No overall support from shareholders.