Not sure I agree. I don’t think we can reasonably deal with fiat without all the of the things you’re mentioning here (KYC, AML, bank accounts, etc…). If that’s the direction we’re going to go, I’d be even more worried.
My worry about going between USD <-> NBT is really about switching between something that is known to have the same value and less about “cashing out” of the crypto-currency ecosystem.
If I want to get out of the system, I recognize that there will be some hurdles, specifically focused on money laundering and friends. What I really want is the ability to say “I want off of the BTC roller coaster”.
NBT has been letting people do that, and paying pretty dearly for it. USDT has been recently letting people do that, but without the same losses.
The big differences IMO are:
USDT is likely to be compromised all at once (“Someone robbed our bank”) whereas NBT value will erode slowly (as it has…)
USDT suffers from the same throughput and confirmation time problems as BTC whereas NBT has it’s own chain with much faster confirmation times and higher overall throughput.
Going back to the comment… Is anyone interested in doing a NBT <-> USD peg? Can we get Poloniex to start one? I’d consider putting up some NBT and USDT to kick it off…
My understanding of why Nu gave up on supporting USD/NBT is due to the fact that the only exchange that listed said trading pair received $XX (double digit) in exchange-wide trade volume per day. This lead people to give up on the idea of fiat liquidity almost completely. I have thought about using Tether as a tier of emergency reserve liquidity recently, but I don’t think our customers would desire another step between NBT and a bank account as part of standard procedure.
We certainly should not have PPC anywhere in our reserve liquidity. I think that is another serious issue with Nu, that it has no problem passing risk of the PPC market onto our customers, because many shareholders came from the PPC community.
Why bother with NuTether, then? Is the question I leave myself asking. The only useful purpose for Tether in Nu would be an emergency tier of liquidity. I almost wrote up a proposal for NuPit. It is a website similar to Shapeshift where you send your NBT to an address and receive $0.95 worth of Tether. The NBT would get burned, and for running NuPit I would be granted a predetermined number of NSR as laid out in the motion, based on how many NBT were burnt or how much Tether was spent. It would only be a one way valve in times of peg stress.
At the end of my thinking on the topic, I decided I would need to ask for too much NSR to make it worth my while. And with the hyperinflation of NSR already underway, it is unpredictable how much NSR I should ask for. And is the NSR really that desirable anymore?
NBT pegged to USDT would be valuable (to me at least) because I can use the Nu chain to execute transactions – and it’s pretty zippy.
When I’m standing next to someone and want to pay, I really don’t want to have to find a bench and make small-talk while I wait for a single confirmation.
BTC is great for distant transactions (ie, when I’m buying something that then has to be shipped to me… minutes don’t matter), but it kind of sucks when you’re standing next to the recipient.
There is a/has always been a fear of centralization with Tether. That is why I joined Nu. What do you do when that fear comes to realization and Tether’s bank accounts are robbed?
I just do not think tx confirmation time is innovative enough to start a new DAC.
Many don’t realize these two market compete with each other. Although it’s true that there is little speculation space in the nbt/usd market so there is not as much activity.
I remember in 2014, after @desrever temperorily designed the NBT/BTC pair before NBT trade on exchanges, Jordan made the decision to accept NBT/BTC pair, and I was astonished, this means Nu company becomes a BTC reverse speculation company.
Now Tether is trading on various crypto/Tether pairs, this is the beginning of their bankcrupt if no enough revenue.
Take a look at Tether. They do not, and have never, provided BTC market liquidity. But the result of that has brought them to a level of volume in the BTC market that we couldn’t achieve even when subsidizing it with large and expensive walls on a tight spread.
They don’t even have to pay anybody for liquidity!
Adding additional crypto markets doesn’t harm tether’s bottom line since they only support the fiat/tether peg. The rest of the markets just fall into line.
Their bankruptcy will come when governments raid the Tether bank accounts or they confiscate funds from a ‘bad actor’.
Some bot has consistently provided very good liquidity on the Poloniex BTC/USDT at less than a 1% spread. I don’t know who is running the bot, but most likely Tether is offering the liquidity.
It appears Tether followed our lead in regard to providing liquidity on BTC pairs, and for good reason.
You could run a 1% bot on polo and make a small profit thanks to tether being listed on BitFinex. They did not follow our lead, as you say. And like we can’t prove you are Jordan Lee, you cannot prove Tether did what you allege.
If you buy something at $1 and sell it at 1$, you have no profit, so what’s the point of your business? In real world, how many businessmen dare to do business without proper revenue model?
Or Tether has a long term plan: they just provide free service to cultivate customers habit, and after many years they will harvest.
I’m not familiar with tether, just a glance of their white paper a year ago, so I agree with you that tether also has the revenue problem.
To build up a stable currency, the proceed from selling USD token should be invested to somewhere to get profit to support company’s operation. I believe this is a common view of the majority forum members. After 1.5 year Nu operation, we should feel it more than any other crypto.
