"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. "
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?)
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?
(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.
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.
This motion to require 100% reserve is getting 27% over the last week and is trending at 38% currently, so it has a real chance of passing. We ought to discuss it more. Those who do not support the motion, what is the nature of your objection? Would you support a motion to “substantially increase reserves” if nothing specific (like 100%) is included?
This motion needs to be passed to create confidence in our product at this point. While it will cost quite a bit, confidence in our product is what is most valuable, and we need much higher reserves to create it given the poor performance of our liquidity engine recently. Having 100% reserve will give us the luxury of not having our liquidity engine perform well. We won’t be relying on it to keep the peg. Note that the full reserve requirement is phased in by capping NSR sales at 0.5% of total supply per week.
We need to show consensus about how to respond to our recent problems. This is perhaps the best message we could send to our customers. It demonstrates a tremendous commitment to maintaining the value of our currency.
This motion is also getting 27% for the week and trending at 38%.
This seem very basic to me. To get the peg back, we need to make NBT scarce. We need to burn it. Just as important, we need to not create more of it until the peg is restored. To those who are opposed, what purpose would you like to grant NBT for while the peg break persists?
@cybnate, @creon 's “you lose 20% if you don’t park, 10% if you park for 1 week, 5% if you park for 1 month, nothing if you park for 2 months and you gain 5% if you park for more time”???
So this is direct weath confiscate, wow, you guys are insane, I guess seldom customers will ever come back to buy your NBT any more. Cryptocurrency is good at anonymity and freedom, but you guys directly decrease the balance of your customers?!
I believe Jordan’s new pegging at 0.1$ is 100 times better than this proposal, wow, I cannot believe it. Who do you think you are? The big brother? In customer’s opinions, Nu is just a Rogue company if this “weath confiscate” motion passed.
Another important thing is : could you gather 350,000$ within 3 months by selling NSR? I highly doubt about that. Since you have insufficient revenue, the parking is totally a lie, you’ll probably force customers to park again and again. Why not completely discard NBT and introduce NBTEuro at all? Since you don’t care about the reputation.
@creon@Cybnate proposal sends out the information to freemarket that Nu can change anyone’s wealth as wish, while Jordan’s proposal impies that although Nu may make mistakes, but we are trying best to recover customers’ wealth, totally different, and this is serious business, not a naughty game! Jordan’s is obvious more responsible and healthy.
You are proving yet again that you neither completely read nor understand the concepts you are talking shit about or which you endorse and in your case I am also not sad about the money you wasted because of that (see B&C, or your idea that BKC would be good Hayek money, just so narrow thinking … in another thread you write about 1000USD daily income for B&C, this is just crazy).
Anyways, here you lose money if you don’t park. This is a way to escape the black swan. If it would have been chosen early on in Nu’s life then a moderate fee would have allowed you to run it with a competitive business.
And btw, I just bring this idea up, I don’t own a single NSR and I also didn’t own any NSR when you threw all your customers funds out of the window, so I don’t feel responsible in any way to bring this back to life.
Honestly, for you and some others here in the forum I would just love to see you further following JL into his rabbit hole, it almost became boring reading now that some of you in fact doubt the holy JL. So just do your 10 cent NBT and let him rip you off even more, I am watching from the sidelines and eat my popcorn.
Narrow thinking is copying bitcoin simulating gold, with 1000 alt coins mimicing btc, “narrow thinking” is perfectly defined.
For a small-medium exchange, one million USD trade volume per day is natual, and charging fee 0.1% of it is also ok. With 1000$ profit a day, an traditional exchange boss can only hire several employees in western countries , but thanks for the low cost of the B&C, we can make profit.
Sir creon, next time bring your nobel prize here to criticise Hayek.
You rather prefer to have 100 NBT and with this proposal you end up having 10 NBT and given no certain revenue stream has been provided it will likely be 1 NBT in another 6 months. Bumping into the same wall twice? I have a problem with that and I haven’t even started talking about the promise to increase the peg without a revenue stream. Who do you think is going to pay for this?
Besides I have never heard of the alias presenting this proposal before Nu had problems. So you are believing a random forum poster?
Jordan is not perfect, but still much better than you, the only thing Nu lack of is revenue, pegging to 0.1$ not bad at all, as long as it lasts for many years.
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.
I am not criticizing Hayek but your application proposals. You really have no clue what you are talking about in your posts and therefore you will get separated from your money sooner or later if you keep investing in this stuff, that’s a very basic rule in these waters here.
Then I also strongly suggest you don’t comment on any NSR related issue anymore since you don’t own any NSR. If you would do at least some research on the stuff you post, then you would figure out quickly that I contributed a lot to this community and this for free instead of taking an unknown architect salary.
You don’t even understand that there is no difference in this proposal and our proposal with respect to this. In both proposals your balance won’t be decreased as long as you wait long enough. 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).
