I think FLOT needs to consider reasonableness here, and if we have no reasonable suspicion that the peg is in danger then proceed as written in motion. So there’s about a 10% difference in btc price, which gives about $20,000 less dollars, translating into a $2,000 reduction in buyback or about 5 btc. I propose that our ability to keep the peg does not depend on that 5 btc and therefore we should operate according to motion and the future reduction of buybacks by spending the money now will in effect smooth out even moderately sized differences, as long as they are stochastic and not systemic.
3 Likes
Thanks for your thoughts. I will sleep on it.
@Nagalim already beat me to it.
I’d like to answer in a more general way:
The peg is considered safe, if at least 15% if the NBT in circulation are in reserve.
We are way above that - otherwise no buyback would happen.
With numbers:
If you calculate with $370 per BTC, there are 204 BTC in the buyback pool. 10% of that equals 20.4 BTC.
So we are discussing about 3.6 BTC.
And finally:
the calculation doesn’t consider that 30,000 NBT have been deposited (in 2 deposits) by FLOT to the Poloniex gateway for which the proceeds haven’t been withdrawn to FLOT BTC address before end of Friday UTC (the deposits happened on Friday).
15% of these equal 4,500 NBT which have been considered in the calculation to be mirrored by reserves.
The BTC proceeds from the NBT sale should be in the order of magnitude of 75 BTC (assuming they have been traded at an average sale price of 400 USD per BTC; I can’t look that up from my mobile phone).
These 75 BTC are effectively reserve, but haven’t been included in the calculation (as they were on exchange and not on FLOT BTC multisig address).
That brings the buyback pool close to 300 BTC of which 10% would be 30 BTC instead of 24 BTC.
Unless I made some mistake, I’d like to ask:
do we still need to discuss about 3.6 BTC or can we execute the transcaction (following the NSR buyback motion) and deposit 24 BTC to the buyback now that @Nagalim verified, that the test deposits were credited.
@Nagalim, please keep them - it’s only dust 
3 Likes
I am fine with the proposed tx. Basically it takes out less bitcoins from t4 than if we were considering the current price of btc, leaving more reserve to protect the peg.
Edit: i ve made a mistake. A higher btc price actually causes a higher reserve depletion than a lower price but this time as pointed out by nagalim the diff is tolerable.
1 Like
Seeing as there is still an considerable amount of BTC not yet withdrawn to the FLOT multisig address I agree to stick to protocol and your original calculation. BTC seems to be recovering a bit as well.
Theoretically.
Practically I (ab)used the BTC on the NBT entry gateway to support the peg. Even with a spread of 0.005 the BTC were traded within hours. Currently there are no BTC to be withdrawn and over 34 grand NBT instead.
NSR holders might release me from my duties for repeated violations of terms of operating the gateways. More than once I used BTC that were meant to be withdrawn to support the buy side or NBT that were meant to be withdrawn to support the sell side.
Then again that made me realize, that a Nu funded dual side NuBot might be necessary to introduce a variable buffer in addition to the ALP and in addition or as replacement for the gateways.
The motion draft is here:
You should hurry with releasing me from my duties, though - if you’re not fast enough I’m confident that I will break down before.
3 Likes
This is of prime importance indeed, given the 24/7 activity of mOD
1 Like
I’m not really 24/7 on, although it almost feels like it.
Nu might be close to a breakthrough.
The recent BTC volatility will bring focus on stable crypto coins and NBT is just the most successful product in terms of peg.
On the other hand there’s still much friction between the tiers, liquidity flows need improvement.
That’s what brought Nu close to losing the peg for several times in the last weeks and the last few days were especially bad.
Only the very fast and resolute action of FLOT members could prevent that. There have been FLOT multisig NBT transactions broadcast in roughly 30 miniutes after the need was identified.
This is tiring for all who are involved in it. I experience an outstanding responsibility as gateway operator.
I would highly appreciate finding more community members willing to support the peg by operating NuBots on important exchanges, of which Poloniex seems to be of paramount importance.
Until the liquidity flow issues have been resolved, there’s nothing but the gateways, which allow the FLOT supporting a side on Poloniex directly.
Trading with an LP introduces just one more dependency, but dealing with that might sometimes take too long.
I’m really looking forward to an improved liquidity scheme.
4 Likes
With the OP still being no wiki post, this might be used as template:
[code]
NSR Buyback #17 - Week of January 18, 2016
To calculate the NuBits in circulation, I will start with all 3,215,399 blockchain NuBits - which is the amount at the time of writing.
I don’t how to determine the moneysupply at block 703,043
Excluding tier 4 funds, because these aren’t circulating:
3,215,399 (Total NBT)
-2,000,000 (FSRT multisig)
-103,104 (FSRT singlesig)
-150,000 (JordanLee singlesig)
-140,827 (FLOT multisig)
=821,468
Using this method I arrive at 821,468 NBT in circulation.
15% of that sets the reserved tier 4 buy side funds at $123,220.
The BTC/USD exchange rate as of the end of Friday UTC was $427.66.
Tier 4 buy side funds controlled by FLOT consisted of 119.3 BTC
Tier 4 buy side funds controlled by JordanLee consisted of 417.7 BTC
Tier 4 buy side funds total 537 BTC (valued $229,653).
$123,220 excluded from the share buyback calculation equals 288 BTC.
537 - 288 = 249 BTC sits in the share buyback pool.
10% of this (24 BTC) will be used for share buyback next week.
That is equivalent to approximately $10,643.
It is my understanding that FLOT will provide @Nagalim with the 24 BTC.
@Nagalim’s exchange addresses related to the NSR buyback:
Bter: 1CWYRjQe7FqemhXuS38ExfPwG2TajDzrpp
Polo: 1PfP4MNz1EHfEnr1YaYXSDdXwFGZYR4Aei
As both addresses haven’t been used so far, I sent small amounts to them for testing purposes before the FLOT executes a transaction of 24 BTC in total.
@Nagalim, please verify that the transactions to
1CWYRjQe7FqemhXuS38ExfPwG2TajDzrpp and
1PfP4MNz1EHfEnr1YaYXSDdXwFGZYR4Aei
have been credited to your accounts before the FLOT deposits the 24 BTC there.
@Nagalim suggested a split of funds: 50/50.
The transaction to transfer funds from FLOT to @Nagalim has been created and signed by me.
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 members, please wait for @Nagalim’s confirmation and check the transaction thoroughly before signing it!
edit: you might wonder about the amount of BTC for buyback, because it’s significantly lower than the recent buybacks.
This is mainly due to two factors:
- the BTC price declined and the reserves are worth less in USD
- the FLOT deposited NBT to the Poloniex gateways but didn’t receive all proceeds back, so far[/code]
1 Like
have a edit please …
NSR Buyback #18 - Week of January 25, 2016
To calculate the NuBits in circulation, I will start with all 3,218,298 blockchain NuBits - which is the amount at the time of writing.
Excluding tier 4 funds, because these aren’t circulating:
3,218,298 (Total NBT)
-2,000,000 (FSRT multisig)
-103,104 (FSRT singlesig)
-150,000 (JordanLee singlesig)
-162,628 (FLOT multisig)
=802,566
Using this method I arrive at 802,566 NBT in circulation.
15% of that sets the reserved tier 4 buy side funds at $120,385.
The BTC/USD exchange rate as of the end of Friday UTC was $387.40.
Funds at end of Friday UTC
- Tier 4 buy side funds controlled by FLOT consisted of 232.8 BTC
- Tier 4 buy side funds temporarily used for peg support at Poloniex consisted of 49.7 BTC
- Tier 4 buy side funds temporarily handed over to T3 custodian @Naglim consisted of 5.5 BTC
- Tier 4 buy side funds controlled by JordanLee consisted of 213.7 (417.7 - 40 - 40 - 124) BTC
- Tier 4 buy side funds total 501.7 BTC (valued $194,359).
$120,385 excluded from the share buyback calculation equals 310.75 BTC.
501.7 - 310.75 = 190.95 BTC sits in the share buyback pool.
10% of this (19 BTC) will be used for share buyback next week.
That is equivalent to approximately $7,397.
It is my understanding that FLOT will provide @Nagalim with the 19 BTC.
@Nagalim’s exchange addresses related to the NSR buyback:
Bter: 1CWYRjQe7FqemhXuS38ExfPwG2TajDzrpp
Polo: 1PfP4MNz1EHfEnr1YaYXSDdXwFGZYR4Aei
@Nagalim suggested a split of funds: 50/50.
The transaction to transfer funds from FLOT to @Nagalim has been created and signed by me
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 is no rocket science, but takes time.
I’d appreciate it, if an NSR holder did the next calculation - and I’m not speaking necessarily of somebody who is already having a role or roles.
If nobody steps up to do it, I will include an operation fee in the next calculation I do.
I won’t sign other transactions related to the buyback that don’t include that fee. If the transaction I create gets replaced, signed and broadcast without that fee, I won’t do any more calculations.
I have come to the conclusion that NSR holders need incentives to start contributing. I’m just trying to motivate the so far passive shareholders
…and please: don’t step up and from the beginning start doing calculations that include a fee for you - you owe many in this forum.
There’s a lot of work which needs to be distributed between more contributers.
3 Likes
I was unable to verify the mhps’s signature – the link doesn’t work for me.
I moved the transaction into the FLOT/BTC thread and signed it.
never mind. post deleted. I made a mistake and will sign again in the FLOT thread
Will the buyback funds tend to decrease actually?
Of course - they get consumed.
And the amount of BTC used for buybacks depends on BTC rate; the T4 reserves need to back 15% of NBT in circulation.
Lower BTC price 
more BTC in reserve required to back the NBT.
A pity, I liked the tone
Last week I did have 417.7 BTC. Since then I reported these withdrawals:
417.7 - 204 - 26 - 12.9038 = 174.8 BTC
I hold 174.8 BTC instead of 213.7 BTC as suggested above.
I don’t think you should count the T3 reserves as T4 reserves. That was not my intention with that operation. But we can discuss this further elsewhere, it is negligible.
I’m also very wary of counting the 50 BTC that’s in a gateway and not in multisig.
I received 9.5 BTC in each account. If y’all want me to send some back from the bter account, just let me know. It’s a difference of at least 3 BTC. My calculation would go:
232.8 BTC in multisig
174.8 BTC held by JL
total = 407.6 BTC = $157,904.24
That gives overflow of $37,519.24, 10% of which is $3,751.92
Buyback = 9.7 BTC
So I would suggest I send back everything in the Bter account and only perform the buyback with the stuff in the poloniex account.
The 26 BTC were transferred after end of Friday UTC, right?
If so, my calculation is ok.
But they are reserves (albeit currently active ones). They are temporarily down at T3 (my NuBots even T2 or T1.2), but are no liability.
Putting them back to T4 won’t cause move of funds from T4 in turn.
They need to be accounted as T4 in my opinion.
Clearly we need to establish consensus about this, but my interpretation was that we are using BTC to buy NSR because we have too much BTC and it’s a risk, not out of a driving need to buy NSR. If BTC is not in the multisig account (or in JL’s because he was grandfathered in) then it is in use. Because it is in use, we cannot count it towards overflow or we may end up in a situation where we need to ask T3 custodians to give back money in order to do our weekly buybacks, which inverts the whole system and causes it to knot. The only exception to this that I know of is NuSafe, because it does not require a stream of funds due to its stable nature.
This is a valid point. I’m inclined to agree.
Including it in the next calculation should suffice.