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.
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?
3 Likes
That still supposes we are still working on the former liquidity engine –
There is a growing consensus that this liquidity engine is not efficient and people are getting interested in @Cybnate new proposal [Withdrawn] Think big, act small and establish revenue stream
@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.
1 Like
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.
So if I have 100NBT and refuse to park, my balance will decrease to somthing like 95NBT?
Have you guys considered using something like Proof-Of-Stake-Velocity as an algorithm?
Essentially an negative tax on all NuBits that aren’t parked or recently transferred.
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?
So I suggest you go since you have no NSR/BKS.
Is it funny for you to watch this movie?
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.
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.
Your response here point in a different direction…
However I assumed that you refer to phoenix proposal in the thread. I’m not aware of a proposal from the alias JordanLee.
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).
I hope you like the current price.
I am afraid – that statement is not verifiable, but humans are moved by economical incentives –
What is your incentive to hang in here then?
not all humans. I agree that greed is the strongest driving force in crypto publicity but these algorithms only exist because of people with entirely different motivations, so I am not alone.
To see what happens in those very unique game theoretical situations here.
I have BKS, need to communicate with my debtors because BKS holders have 120,000NBT.
I think 100% reserve is too much.
I would be much more comfortable with 50% reserve.
As for the temporary cap on the NuBits money supply, I understand why you d want to set it. Because you want to limit Nu’s liabilities as long as the peg is not restored.
But in any case, the reserve ratio question’s answer depends on the following question, I believe: Do we really want to still peg via NBT/BTC only?
I think this time we really need to develop ways to peg via NBT/USD too.
Maybe we can start with 50% peg via NBT/BTC 1), 50% peg via NBT/USD 2).
In each case, the necessary ratio of reserve should be different.
2) ratio should be typically much lower than 1) ratio since 2) is not exposed to BTC volatility.
As for the cap, in case we find ways to get revenues (and I think this time we must do so) (ex: NuCost API, some kind of burning mechanism to make NuBits holders pay for the privilege of using NuBits), probably we would not need to set a cap because the NuBits destruction would counterbalance the inflation, though I feel it would be safer to do so at the beginning, in any case.