Thanks @Phoenix for bringing this up. I also support this motion.
Edit: by the way, what is the point of this if voting is already happening on the blockchain?
This is dark comedy.
Of course this too shall pass…
Hopefully @nmei will tell us the point after the poll is complete.
@Phoenix Are you voting for the 100M NSR grant with your stake? That would be a big step toward 100% reserves.
I believe this is appropriate…
I refuse to tolerate this @Sentinelrv. We all know how important privacy is to those backing a DAO. Exactly for that reason I would kindly ask you to remove that picture.
It’s ok, I didn’t reveal your actor name.
I wonder who decided the 15% in the past, 15%… In 1971 US gold reserve was 15% compared with its debts, and that was a turning point when US failed to manage USD pegged to gold.
What a black humor! Nu shareholders were astonishing amateurish in economics.
If you have profit, the reserve ratio dosen’t have to be 100%, maybe 70% is enough according to your revenue level.
But if you have little profit, 100% is impossible even you try to achieve, BTW, if the reserve is partially BTC, you cannot control the reserve ratio on you own because of BTC price volatility. You may get 120% reserve if lucky enough, or vice versa.
Your conclusion is that USA was “amateurish” in economics, too?
I assume you agree with this?
The Standard and Core motion requires to sell -ST worth of NSR, which is controlled by the “reserve velocity” in this calculation illusitrative example which the buyback calculator follows. I think the clause “A maximum of 0.5% of the total NuShare supply may be sold each week,” is added on top of existing Standard and Core motion (and patches). Although the 0.5% number could be folded into the “reserve velocity” to reduce redundant parameters.
Without this understanding, there is no condition or a logical end to the selling, and no guide to determin exactly how much to sell. Without it one can only sell 1 nsr a week for example.
I think it is nagalim here.
EDIT: shareholders decided, not nagalim.
c’mon if you can’t find this
you should at least quote this which sits at the top of the buyback cakcukation thread
The 15% number increased from 80k, was indeed from motion [Passed] T4 Circulating NBT Threshold by @Nagalim . The motion thread recorded people’s doubt and discussion of it. This low reserve problem was pointed out in the beginning period of Nu. There were long discussions recently in
The last proof that came from US “astonishing amateurish in economics” is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_housing_bubble
BTW the weapons of mass destruction are all set for the next possible mistake:
(I’m sure they’re gonna say: “We know what we’re doing this time!”. ← OMG we never learn anything…)
Just one more note talking about this thread: I’d like to suggest adding at least two more options to this poll → 2.5x (150%) and 3x (200%) reserves. Reason: Bitcoin is too damn volatile against USD (much more than gold vs USD). p.s. USD/XBT pair in Forex would be chaotic.
There are ways to keep most part of the reserve in USD or tokens pegged to USD in a distributed way: NuSafe, and gateway-with-reserve.. These reserves are insulated from btc volatility.
When Bretton Woods System founded in late 1940s, US had majority gold reserve on this planet, so that was a proffesional behavoir with sincere.
But when US lost more gold reserve in 1960s by huge expenditure on war and others. This system is neither feasible nor sincere. Then in 1971 it came to end with merely 15% reserve ratio.
If Nu choose 15% reserve ratio just after initial launch, there are 2 options:
This rule also applies on the nushare buy back
- a conspiracy
I believe the word “amateurish” is a flatter compared with other possibility.
I have the feeling that whoever play with economics on this planet, are just like kids playing with fire
The point is that tonly the blockchain can reveal the real consensus.
Clearly shareholders are not supporting yet the corresponding motion.
I agree we need to increase drastically the reserves but not necessarily to 100%. Maybe 50% is enough.
Also, equally important is finding new markets
We cannot continue, I believe, supporting for free the hedgers market, only.
Doing so for 20 months was good from a marketing perspective.
We could show the reliability of NuBits.
Any duration and terms of termination for that requirement?
I can support such a 100% reserve at the on-start to induce trust and confidence – then confidence should suffice and take over the 100% reserve, otherwise it is not banking
When do you think Nu will be able to decrease the reserve ratio?
Or in your view should it be 100% for ever?