It has been discussed regularly by shareholders over the year –
Most recently on that thread.
Nu is in the business of keeping the value of a given token, stable and pegged to a benchmark.
With its ability to cover multiple currencies or multiple pegs, which peg or currency do you think is of the highest priority (for a potentially wide range of reasons) following the successful 1 year old NuBits?
Does anyone think we should hold off on adding a new currency until we see how shareholders are able to handle dramatically increasing the supply due to large demand? Just in the other thread we were talking about what would have happened if Ethereum had put millions into NuBits and slowly cashed out over time.
So far we’ve only decreased the supply from 1.8 million NuBits down to just under 600k, with only small increases because of pool fees and development costs. We haven’t yet experienced how a large demand increase will affect us, to the point where we have to print a large number of NuBits. I lean more on the side of caution with this and rather we wait until we’re tested to see how we do. That test will come once B&C is released and trades have been ramped up to larger amounts.
B&C is different from the Ethereum example in that demand is increasing by lots of exchange users, rather than one large organization. Ethereum was guaranteed to sell most of their NuBits over time as they pay out for development costs. B&C exchange users wouldn’t necessarily put as much sell pressure on the peg as Ethereum would. Does anyone else have a concern about this, or do you think we’ve got it handled?
The FSRT will be able to supply the market on short notice with up to 4 million NBT before one single NBT grant needs to pass voting. How the proceeds from selling the NBT will be incorporated into Nu is another topic. A mixture between dividends and NSR buybacks seems to be viable.
…in many ways.
In a nutshell - if everything pans out nicely BCE will put sell pressure on the NBT market by releasing funds to pay BCE development. BCE will at the same time increase NBT demand and hence NBT buy pressure though people who want to trade on BCE’s NBT pairs.
I hope to see lots of independent liquidity operations until then which are well connected to tier 6 liquidity (where I’d locate the FSRT). That will help getting the liquidity situation under control.
The LPs can then get NBT from Nu in case the sell side runs dry and sell NBT to Nu in case the sell side gets too big.
Tier 6 will absorb or release the NBT and release or absorb NSR to do that.
@masterOfDisaster I don’t want to get into details in here, its is a large and complex debate for one reply . We can open a new thread.
@Nagalim I am not sure what you wanted to say honestly, I perceive sarcasm but might be a medium+language barrier because I do not think that someone who talks quantum mechanics can claim that a weighted average is a complex product.
M0 isn’t just a weighted average is it? I thought it was about alllowing the traders of the currency to vote on the inflation rate for the currency, such that it stabilizes over the long term.
If you meant basket, that’s simple and should be added as an option. We shouldn’t specify it, just “Basket of Prices” or something. See if people would rather a basket than traditional single priced currencies.
I completely agree with @Sentinelrv. Nubits should be singularly focused on the $1 peg until it proves to the financial and crypto world that it can handle anything thrown at it. Current volumes do not allow it to make that claim. This will take time. Yes there is reason for optimism, but the community should not become overconfident when the experiment is still in its infancy. Further, adding new pegged assets dilutes the message…when people think of NuBits, they should think 1 USD. At least for now.
I know what the FSRT is and understand they would release NuBits to the sell side if we couldn’t pass a grant fast enough. Having the NuBits ready to go on the sell side in case of a sharp demand increase isn’t my concern.
My main concern is what happens afterward. I fear some situation where a single large trader or group of traders sell Bitcoin for NuBits in the millions of dollars, overwhelming us. This would cause the FSRT to kick in and provide immediate sell side liquidity. But then let’s say they trade it all back into Bitcoin later.
So that’s an example of traders blowing through our current supply, forcing us to raise it, and then selling everything back into Bitcoin shortly after. Would Nu be able to handle this? I think a situation like this is more likely with B&C than it is with regular exchanges. With centralized exchanges most people will use BTC/USD, but with B&C the only option for large traders to escape into stable value will be NuBits.
If it happens quick enough, shareholders will still have the money to buy the NuBits back when they trade back into Bitcoin, but what if they buy millions of NuBits and then wait a week or half a month after shareholders have already distributed the proceeds as dividends or bought back and burned shares before unloading the whole lot of NuBits back on us? This is why I brought up the Ethereum example. With Ethereum they at least would sell NuBits slowly over years. With my example, the buy and sell may happen fast. Are we prepared to handle a situation like this if it arises once B&C is operational?