Supply, Reserves, and Equilibrium (superseded by automation)

[cryptog]

how many nubits sold?

[Cybnate]

We’ve sold a lot of US NuBits recently,

Just hope it is not one trader, we have seen the issues with that before.

[ConfusedObserver]

Just hope it is not one trader, we have seen the issues with that before.

What are you afraid of? The system is designed to work like this.
If there’s too much money (BTC) in reserve, the next step will be NSR buyback.
All is good according to the grand scheme of things.
No?

[DavidMc0]

What are you afraid of? The system is designed to work like this.
If there’s too much money (BTC) in reserve, the next step will be NSR buyback.

Indeed I think it would be foolish to begin NSR buybacks with such low levels of confidence in the system, and low turnover of Nubits.

Perhaps it’d be sensible to enact a temporary freeze on NSR buy backs with new NuBit sales only raising reserves higher. This could boost confidence, and NSR holders would be rewarded in the short term by a drop in new NSR coming to the market.

NSR buybacks / other rewards for shareholders could be held until sufficient confidence and volume has returned to make gaming the system improbable, and perhaps only once a clear profitable, and robust model for Nu has been laid out for everyone to see.

While I’m not a significant holder / trader, I’d be more likely to buy NSR if there were action to shore up reserves rather than if NSR buybacks restarted in an easily game-able situation.

[ConfusedObserver]

I’m interested to hear @Phoenix’ view on that matter.
Freezing buybacks would be a big shift from what was preached as the right thing to do before many NBT were recently sold.
Would changing the rules not impede gaining confidence in the system?
I mean, what can you rely on, if it’s today full speed ahead and next day fully throttled.
What’s the way out of this?

Oh and btw. a NAV calculation of the Nu exchange activites would be most interesting in current times.
NBT were sold to customers at BTC close to its all time high.
I bet those customers will sell the NBT back to Nu, after a significant BTC drop.
The question is: will BTC drop?
But in that case I can tell you the trend of the NAV if BTC drops while the NBT are still in circulation. I don’t require any trade data and need no crystal sphere for that.

In such times it’s just more obvious than in less volatile times, but I’m damn sure, the trend of NAV is always the same just with a different gradient.
That’s why a NV of the trading would be so important.
Without that NSR buyers buy a black box. It’s not transparent what happens at exchanges and exchanges are since the beginning of Nu the main business area. It’s completely opaque what happens there and the data that’s published is just trying to hide that.

[MaVo]

@jooize? I assume you have something to say about this, too, don’t you? May the Vice Chief of Liquidity Operations speak up to enlighten us.

[DavidMc0]

Freezing buybacks would be a big shift from what was preached as the right thing to do before many NBT were recently sold.
Would changing the rules not impede gaining confidence in the system?
I mean, what can you rely on, if it’s today full speed ahead and next day fully throttled.
What’s the way out of this?

That’s a good point. I feel protecting the peg must be the number 1 priority for Nu, and when a specific threat appears (very cheap NSR, small NBT liquidity creating a highly gamable situation), perhaps it’s better to respond. Any response would need to be agreed by Nushare holders, and as I haven’t heard any other suggestions of a change / response, that’s perhaps unlikely.

I’m just throwing it out there due to a potential risk I currently see.

Right now, if someone had loaded up on cheap NSR, then bought $50k of NuBits, they may cause a pump of NSR price due to buybacks, then dump NSR at a significant profit before dumping NuBits, possibly leaving Nu in a very weak position if only 40% of income from NuBits sales were kept as reserves. The same move would be harder after a period of stable, higher NSR prices and larger market for NuBits.

Whether a measure to halt or reduce buybacks at this time would increase or decrease people’s confidence in NSR I don’t know - I can only speak personally that I’d be more reassured by accumulating higher reserves from NuBits sales at this time compared to seeing large NSR buybacks.

Question to NSR holders: If reserves exceed equilibrium, would you prefer to see NSR buybacks start as planned, or to increase reserves to a larger degree than planned due to possible threats?

[cryptog]

to increase reserves

let us increase reserves.

[MaVo]

Problem is: who holds the reserves? @Phoenix got hacked two times within a couple of weeks and lost massive amounts of NSR. I think @jooize is the right guy to hold a few $100,000 cash on behalf of Nu. Highly reliable guy, deep knowledge in accounting and finance, and not corruptible at all. The perfect fit. I would blindly hand all my money over to him.
Multi-signature? Not an option, as multi-sig groups are responsible for Nu’s failure.

[DavidMc0]

Multi-signature? Not an option, as multi-sig groups are responsible for Nu’s failure

Multi-sig sounds like a good idea for reserves, as long as the members are available and trustworthy (which probably means non-anonymous). A single signatory isn’t a good option at all.

How was Multi-sig in any way responsible for Nu’s past failure?

If some people took damaging actions and happened to use Multi-sig, that doesn’t make multi-sig the problem.

[MaVo]

I was being sarcastic. @Phoenix and @jooize say that multi-sig groups have Nu caused to fail. That is among the most ridiculous stuff these guys have said in their scammer career. If @jooize now shows up to maintain the contrary, then please, @jooize, provide your reasoning why you didn’t stand up against @Phoenix to tell him that multi-sig is by no means bad and certainly the way to go if large amounts of stakeholder funds are at risk? @Phoenix failed to secure shareholder funds at such a scale that it simply can’t be accepted in my opinion. Not only did @Phoenix fail at securing the funds, but also embezzled a lot of the funds. Correct me if I am wrong, but no numbers as for the loss of the last “hack” have been provided until today, right? Don’t you think that such an approach is a slap in shareholders’ face as they all have a right to know what’s going on with their money? Oh man, @jooize, you got some special views on things… But I know, freshly printed NSR bonuses are part of @Phoenix smoke grenade arsenal. You are just an extreme form of the homo oeconomicus, it’s ok. At least in this unregulated environment

[jooize]

The multisig group FLOT caused problems, not multisig in itself. There are risks with both approaches. A multisig group is upcoming.

I haven’t investigated the loss because the current block explorer displays negative values for some addresses.

[ConfusedObserver]

The multisig group FLOT caused problems, not multisig in itself. There are risks with both approaches. A multisig group is upcoming.

I know that the narrative goes like this, but can you please explain in what way the multisig group FLOT caused problems?
I learned that they were signing transactions just like they ought to and very often much faster than they were obliged to.
I learned that they were selling NSR when the reserves ran dry.
So please tell me, in what way did FLOT fail and how will you avoid that in the upcoming multisig group.

I haven’t investigated the loss because the current block explorer displays negative values for some addresses.

You need a block explorer to know how much money you have?

[MaVo]

^^

[MaVo]

Well, a block explorer helps indeed to find out how much money you have. If someone moves 100k NBT to an exchange faster than you move your NBT to an exchange, you know that your NBT is going to be worth less than it used to be

Given that you have a clue that a big transaction might be heading towards an exchange.

[DavidMc0]

Putting aside other issues & assuming a safe way to handle reserves, would you prefer to see NSR buybacks start as planned, or to increase reserves to a larger degree than planned due to possible threats?

It’d be good to hear your constructive thoughts as well as your abrasively communicated but somewhat valuable critique.

[jooize]

FLOT didn’t release funds to NuBit holders. Read from here. Part of the problem was devaluing of NuBits down to 10% of their value and ineffective use of tier 6.

I need the block explorer to show how many funds were moved to addresses we later blocked, and how much escaped those addresses. If you can tell me how to do it anyway, I’d be happy to hear because it should be a high priority. The block explorer can be somewhat unwieldy as well.

[MaVo]

Jesus, in no case would I want to see NSR buybacks any time soon. It is the biggest bullshit move that NU as a startup can make. The only way to earn trust is by having sufficient reserves in the hands of a sufficiently decentralized control group. It will take years from now to reach that scale that @jooize and @Phoenix dream of, if ever. And I doubt it will reach that scale unless NU really finds a way to earn some money.

If I want to buy a large amount of stable currency, do you really think I would consider putting my money into NBT, which currently is under the control of an anonymous scammer and an incapable wannabe Vice Chief? This is ridiculous. As soon as you put a good amount of money into NBT, they hold a gun to your head. @jooize has proven that he is corruptible, and he will remain corruptible in the future. He would do anything for a bonus.

Generally, any “additional” funds (which basically do not exist as every NBT is a liability and not revenue, but who cares…) should be spent on development, if anything. B&C has been trapped smartly by @Phoenix. As B&C is now a reasonable shareholder, and very likely many NSR holders are also BKS holders, why wouldn’t additional funds be spent on B&C development? @Phoenix is always talking about the “synergy” between the two ventures. Now I think that the only synergy he refers to is the potential for him to significantly exploit both companies by sophisticatedly tying them together, and he played that well once. Maybe it’s time to get both projects back on track by using funds for development. I know this keeps him from dumping into buyback money, but hey, @Phoenix, can’t you just be a good person from now on? Maybe the great lead architect should step forward and show his face. I like how he is saying that he is afraid of being prosecuted by authorities because he issues a stable cryptocurrency. You have a lot of good reasons to not show your face @Phoenix, but the one you mention is not among them.

[Phoenix]

I’m interested to hear @Phoenix’ view on that matter.

I honestly didn’t read your post because the only matter I am interested in discussing with you is the return of 13 BTC everyone agrees (even people who wish to destroy Nu agree) you stole from shareholders.

There is broad consensus you have committed felony theft against NuShare holders and that you are a Chinese authoritarian who is quite fond of hyperinflation, like the pathetic authoritarians that lead China in a century of humiliation. Your time is over. You and your kind lost. Deal with your defeat.

[MaVo]

Hey Chiefbird, prove that he stole it. Otherwise, he didn’t steal it. Nobody else on this forum builds his operations on that paradigm better than you do. Prove it, or apologize for wrongly accusing him of theft. Let me make the first step: I apologize I have ever put forward that @jooize and @Phoenix are scammers. In fact, I believe that they are the most sincere, honest, competent and social personalities out there in the crypto space!