[Passed] Temporarily cap NBT supply with full reserve

MaVo 2016-06-13 14:35:15 UTC #61

I guess the discussion between @Phoenix and @JordanLee was only possible, if my advise from above hasn’t been followed yet.

Sabreiib 2016-06-13 15:44:05 UTC #62

I criticized Nu’s weakness such as lack of profit(ponzi), no anti-inflation, ignorance of accounting etc from as early as 2014 when we translated the white paper into chinese, but I still have hope on peershare.

I am writing an article to summarize my idea, only a portion finished. I welcome all of you to criticize and improve my writing before I put it on bitcointalk forum to attract some Hayek fans into our community. This is the only way I can help because my invest stuck in B&C.

Do you know how Hayek evaluate the gold? Very vividly, I guess we can also throw this bomb to bitcoin forum.

It may be that, with free competition between different kinds of money, gold coins might at first prove to be the most popular. But this very fact, the increasing demand for gold, would probably lead to such a rise (and perhaps also violent fluctuations) of the price of gold that, though it might still be widely used for hoarding, it would soon cease to be convenient as the unit for business transactions and accounting. There should certainly be the same freedom for its use, but I should not expect this to lead to its victory over other forms of privately issued money, the demand for which rested on its quantity being successfully regulated so as to keep its purchasing power constant. The very same fact which at present makes gold more trusted than government-controlled paper money, namely that its total quantity cannot be manipulated at will in the service of political aims, would in the long run make it appear inferior to token money used by competing institutions whose business rested on successfully so regulating the quantity of their issues as to keep the value of the units approximately constant.”

–F. A. Hayek

nmei 2016-06-13 19:18:44 UTC #63

I like this. We need to increase transaction fees.

armagedom1986 2016-06-13 19:46:25 UTC #64

Hi guys! I’am new here and I’m very concerned about the falling of NBT, I’ve readed about, for trying to understand what is happening, and my first question is!

Whats is a peg???

Sorry if the question is too dumb…

nmei 2016-06-13 19:47:45 UTC #65

The peg is when we use Nu provided software to keep the value of Nu = $1.
The software uses buy and sell orders on exchanges to accomplish this.

armagedom1986 2016-06-13 19:52:38 UTC #66

Ohh thank you!! I will read more about it!

dysconnect 2016-06-13 20:28:10 UTC #67

We should separate old debt from new. JL should make sure BCE can launch, and decide early what the API should look like.

Nu should consider adapting NuBot for BCE, utilize NuSafe etc. to loosely peg a new coin. BCE should strike a deal with Nu to share trading profits. Promise that old debts will be settled using Nu’s profits, and generate revenue. Then there’s hope that NSR recovers enough to settle old debts soon, and start to be financially healthy.

To begin with, see if Nu’s intangible assets are worth all the trouble above, with the alternative of starting an entirely new blockchain. I believe it is, especially if those who side with BCE join forces together with those who still support Nu to make things work.

creon 2016-06-14 01:35:13 UTC #68

Sending from an exchange account is not supported by all APIs, and of course would also then still require the 2 factor authentication, so an automatic way to do the second part is only possible in very special cases.

The first part sounds to me like you want that 90% of BTC funds are converted to another USD token as long as the remaining 10% have a value of at least 1000 NBT. That’s very achievable, probably around 6 hours to 12 hours of development time for the Nubot if someone doesn’t know the code, @woolly_sammoth or @desrever can probably do it in less.

mhps 2016-06-14 03:05:18 UTC #69

Thanks for the input.

This part is not supposed to happen often and I think it would be acceptable to just let the operator do it manually once a week, if needed.

Phoenix 2016-06-14 19:08:39 UTC #72

Shareholders are currently supporting my motion to cap the NBT supply and establish a full reserve. Support is growing to re-peg at $0.10 USD. In our DAO, anyone can propose an idea. If it has support, you can quickly change the direction of the entire organization, as I am. It is about ideas and principles here, not about authority and obedience.

Here are the results at the moment:

Establish NBT Peg at $0.10 USD
Motion hash: a26f6661ced949166227019f0ee64afe98f7e6b0
% of votes in last 100 blocks: 34%
% of votes in last 10,000 blocks: 7%
This is gaining support faster than most motions that pass. It needs more discussion about whether this is the best number and also discussion about how to implement the mandate, should it pass.

100% Reserve Required For NuBits
Motion Hash: 470ba7bf40099c395b8fb569367d16ce6167c2bd
% of votes in last 100 blocks: 58%
% of votes in last 10,000 blocks: 4%
Voting began less than a day ago, but already shareholder support is at 58%. At Nu, we can rapidly create consensus, even in the case of large and important changes like this. Everyone needs to be thinking about what needs to be done to implement this once it receives formal approval on the 10,000 block span.

Temporary Cap on the NuBit Money Supply
Motion Hash: f8b9e060dc73a97fd28a62ecfdd419114892787a
% of votes in last 100 blocks: 57%
% of votes in last 10,000 blocks: 4%
Voting began less than a day ago, but already shareholder support is at 57%. At Nu, we can rapidly create consensus, even in the case of large and important changes like this. Like with the full reserve motion, everyone needs to be thinking about what needs to be done to implement this once it receives formal approval on the 10,000 block span.

(2nd Version - Expanded) My Interpretation of Jordan Lee's Liquidity Engine Model & Why its First Attempt at Pegging Failed

Phoenix 2016-06-14 19:32:00 UTC #73

Let’s talk more about the peg at $0.10. The number one thing we need in the hours and days that pass before this is implemented (if it does end up getting support) is more reserve. NSR FLOT, can you acquire additional reserves now by selling NSR on Poloniex? Just sell a million or two million NSR, then wait a day for the order book to reconstitute.

We should start the new peg with NuLagoon Tube and Poloniex support. In the case of Tube, FLOT ought to trade about half of its reserve on Tube for NBT at $0.10. The other half of the reserve needs to be placed on Poloniex via gateway. I recommend 1% spreads, but that is a matter at the discretion of the operators of Tube and the gateway.

We need NuBot modified to do this. Can we have an emergency build of NuBot that sets the peg at 10% please? @woolly_sammoth? @desrever? If we can’t get a developer to commit to cutting a new build within a few hours, may I suggest FLOT immediately place a bounty on this?

It is an easy change, but we really do need it right now. Re-establishment of the peg is so urgent that we shouldn’t wait for passage of the motion on a 10,000 block span. Once this has support on a 1,000 block span, we should proceed. Will we be ready with software and reserves?

@henry are you on board to do as I have suggested if the re-peg shows support on a 1,000 block span?

Who will operate the gateway at Poloniex? @masterOfDisaster? @zoro? @Cybnate? @huafei?

Remember, according to the NBT supply cap motion that has support:

This establishes that additional NuBits should not be sold at $0.10. It is the interest of Nu to hold on to as many NuBits as possible to make it easier to get full reserve and increase the peg price as soon as possible. While I should have wrote the motion to specifically include Tube and gateway operators, I think the intent is clear that additional NuBits should not be sold at $0.10. Therefore, I will ask @henry and any Poloniex gateway operator to refrain from placing a sell wall initially. You will develop a sell wall as soon as someone sells their NuBits to you.

nmei 2016-06-14 21:26:27 UTC #74

When I see a plan for revenue that doesn’t include NSR, I’ll vote for a peg.

cryptog 2016-06-15 04:04:06 UTC #79

The link is broken. I do not see anywhere such a motion. Can you let us know the link please?

woolly_sammoth 2016-06-15 06:06:45 UTC #80

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?

Transferring all Nu assets to B&C? - Liquidating or 'archiving' or mini-Nu?

Cybnate 2016-06-15 08:11:59 UTC #81

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.

zoro 2016-06-15 08:20:09 UTC #82

New contracts are needed for operating gateways at a new peg

Sentinelrv 2016-06-15 08:35:42 UTC #83

@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.

cryptog 2016-06-15 11:01:27 UTC #84

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

mhps 2016-06-15 11:31:54 UTC #85

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.

Phoenix 2016-06-15 11:48:32 UTC #86

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.