How much is it now?
Of course.
Well, in this situation, we know who are the dream chaser, and who are just traders.
I am one dream chaser, I’ll spend time in my rest life to chase the dream: crypto good money.
BTW, I like C++ language after reading 1000 pages of textbook, and have another 2000 pages to continue.
4 Likes
Blockheight: 1,220,019
US NuBits (US-NBT)
Existing: 1,141,188.4182
Parked: 7,196.3467
FLOT*: 303,357.4886
Liquidity Operations**: 520,528.7356
Liquidity Operations***: 77,442.6745
Bittrex: 8,094.6230
Poloniex: 61,595.6111
NuLagoon Tube: 27,370.0000
Nu-owned: 998,389.1328
Circulating: 135,602.9387
* BqyRzFtWXDmjxrYpyJD42MLE5xc8FrB4js
** BJLmVRdGFi4q7Zidwzr4CPPsLT6pozR31a
*** B71AkDjzm4S24KoXGoq6W3hynexAyNb9FV
Chinese NuBits (CN-NBT)
Existing: 2,000,000
Parked: 0
Liquidity Operations*: 2,000,000
Circulating: 0
* YhSEw9AGBJ3KtqLrxeQrcsTVk5u57pA88m
Total
Circulating NuBits (*-NBT): 135,602.9387
Reserves
BTC presented as US-NBT.
Tier 1–2
Bittrex: 4539.3683
NuLagoon Tube: 2692.8600
Tier 3
Not in effect.
Tier 4
Nu jooize (Liquidity Operations)*: 10230.7200
* 17owruzTRANDYwCq77bSABQLXBxx3QaCea
Tier 5
Refer to parked amounts for current utilisation.
Tier 6
Montly liquidity of NuShares: $80,517
Total Tier 1–4
17,462.9483
Equilibrium (buybacks/sales)
Circulation: 135,602.9387
Reserve percentage: (50 - 135,602.9387/80,000) / 100 = 0.4830496327
Equilibrium Tier 1–4 reserve: 0.4830496327 * 135,602.9387 = 65,502.9497320756
Current Tier 1–4 reserve: 4539.3683 + 2692.8600 + 10230.7200 = 17,462.9483
Minimum Tier 1–4 reserve: 0.20 * 65,502.9497320756 = 13,100.5899464151
Move to equilibrium: 0.01 * (65,502.9497320756 - 17,462.9483) = 480.4000143208
Equilibrium is 65,502 US-NBT in Tier 1–4 reserves. We have 17,462 US-NBT. When 48,040 US-NBT is raised through NuShare, US NuBit, or Chinese NuBit sales on a combined basis, any additional funds raised can go to NuShare buybacks assuming no updated reserve requirements or funds spent.
Thanks @jooize for producing the latest figures. It is interesting that our money supply is only down very slightly to 135603 in the face of the delisting announcement. On December 17th the money supply was 147111. That is a drop of $11500, which is pretty modest considering the major loss of market that occurred.
If the money supply refuses to collapse, then the major NSR sales are indeed over. The pace of NSR sales have already dramatically lowered in the last month or so.
What we are doing remains a bold experiment. We have had some amazing successes so far and some things that didn’t work the first time. We have discovered an incredibly robust mechanism for a DAO to maintain a stable currency. That is a huge and incredibly remarkable achievement. We have struggled to maintain shareholder control over non-NSR shareholder funds, hence the exchange defaults of February 2015 and the Augeas default of June 2016. It shouldn’t be surprising that the world’s first Decentralized Autonomous Organization would have a little to learn about how to keep control of its funds. It is a difficult and complex problem. I have outlined how to avoid these problems going forward.
This is what remarkable innovation looks like. We try things, observe the results, make conclusions about how to improve, then execute. We do this for the sake of NuShare holders and NuBit holders, but also to reach our lofty ideals of giving humanity a stable private currency.
Bitusd did it better. You basically stole the bts model half way through and implemented it shoddily. Nu, by the white paper, is based on park rates, which failed spectacularly. The asset-debt trade was instituted late in the game in a completely unautomated way.
It is instructive to compare the number of nsr on the chain before nbt were distributed and after they were bought back. You should easily find that Nu is hemmoraging money. This is basically the worst designed and executed asset-debt trading mechanism ever created. It would be a challenge to find a company that burned a larger % of their total funding on sheer asset-debt trades back and forth.
Most funds have been burned to cover the costs of decentralized liquidity providers foolishly and illegally refusing to implement our model. It isn’t reasonable to imply the extraordinary costs to Nu in recent months are a result of the model. Rather, they are the direct result of discarding it 6 months ago, which is when the serious costs began. Our task, then, is not to find a better model, it is to find a better way to ensure the model that has proven to work so well for us is followed reliably.
I mean, bts already provided a way to do what youre doing far more efficiently, followed 100% reliably. I dont understand why you think youve done anything novel here.
Also, if you scrap every bit of data and call it invalid, you arent running much of an experiment are you?
2 Likes
Is coinmarketcap.com wrong then? http://coinmarketcap.com/assets/bitusd/
Tether is by far the most successful pegged coin: http://coinmarketcap.com/assets/tether/ Exactly what you’d expect considering it’s actually backed by real dollars.
Good catch, didnt notice tether bumped their supply 3 days ago. Until then they were below bts, looks like they’ve surpassed it now.
The total number of NuShares in circulation: 2,581,198,940
Blockchain NSR total 3,331,999,860 at block height 1221539
Shareholder controlled US-NBT
-
Bonus Snf4uyshit1fj8dWKVxHsKTgTrNR61RskY: 1999225
-
Liquidity Operations SiyWZ1WCedKRXLg7u8fmVkUtF3JRC9QATv: 500000000
-
Liquidity Operations SrorKQgYvwzbtzxKwofjSeUntzTbDQf26m: 100000000
-
FLOT 1 SvtGbNjWE49pTM2TiUZrYKSNkxTJx75mmC: 64344685
-
FLOT 2 Snvrc5q82wfe2NjEjaQAyStpPKseWrsNqn: 5940000
-
Liquidity Operations at Poloniex: 58517010
The weakness of Tether are its single point of failure and strong KYC requirements. But turns out to be still more robust and utilized than what we got ourselves in.
@dysconnect wouldn’t you agree it is past time to burn the funds you have a key to as a member of FLOT, as it is clear FLOT is no longer functioning? This combined with my request that, as shareholder appointed Chief of Liquidity Operations,all FLOT funds be burned should be enough. However, if you would like me to advance a shareholder motion specifically requiring FLOT to burn all US-NBT and NSR, I will do that.
So, my question to @dysconnect and others who have FLOT keys (@Dhume, @ttutdxh, @cryptog, @jooize , @woodstockmerkle and @masterOfDisaster) is: will you sign transactions to burn all the FLOT funds you have keys to? If not, why not? Secondarily, if the answer is no, would you burn funds if specifically instructed to do so in a passed shareholder motion?
We can beat Tether! As long as we use F A Hayek’s model.
I’m not @dysconnect, but I agree that having funds at FLOT doesn’t provide Nu with much use recently.
Wouldn’t you, @Phoenix, agree in turn, that it’s past time you answer some justified questions that have been asked repeatedly?
It will be harder to implement Hayek’s model than just running a pegged token.
You need a way to compensate the increasing spending power of the tokens.
That means you either have to sell even more tokens or NSR to continuously increase the reserve (continuing the ponzi scheme) compared to just running a pegged token.
Or you have to make even more revenue to increase the reserve.
As Nu can’t even run a pegged token without embedding it in a ponzi scheme I wonder how a Hayek token shall work.
i am fine with burning the funds if it is the will of shareholders.
The answer is extremely simple: if our share market captical is a constant, then we issue a little few coins every year,
E.g. Assume USD inflation is 3% every year, we then issue 97% HYK IN circulation of last year.
Year 1: we have 100,000 USD value of shares, in circulation 25,000 HYK pegged to $1.
Year 2: we still have 100,000 USD value of shares, in circulation 24250 HYK, pegged to $1.03
…
Year 10, in circulation 18435 HYK pegged to $1.35
Year 20: incirculation 13600 HYK, pegged to $1.8
You are smart, why not understand my idea? Lol
In fact, if we manage to peg well to buy power for 3-5 years, our share price will probably goes up, so will our HYK coin market cap. In my model, all the liquidity providing reward is paid by customers, and official community don’t need to pay anything to LP.
Nu is unlikely to become succesful because nu hasn’t followed a correct theory while Hayek’s theory is the most suitable for us.
How are you reducing hyk supply without spending share money? Or are you saying hyk supply nearly doubles each year? We have to assume that hyk demand is constant, meaning to increase the price from $1 to $1.03 you have to reduce the circulating supply.
Btw, if you want anyone to take your propositions seriously you need to write a whitepaper or at least a basic writeup document.
Have you noticed that shareholders(LPs) pledge $100,000 value shares to protocol and borrow $ 25,000 HYK from protocol in year 1? It is because shareholders vote for a 4:1 pledge ratio. So any LP candidate need to pledge $4 value share to borrow $1 coin with a SHORT TERM(such as one month) contract with protocol.
If shareholders vote for a ratio of 4:0, ''shut off the valve". then all the HYK in circulation will return to protocol within one month as long as our customers agree to sell HYK back to LPs, otherwise, HYK price may become $3 becasue LP will buy HYK back desperately to avoid heavy loss— pledged share lost to protocol. In one month, we can shrink HYK in circulation to Zero, ie, there is no single HYK in this world. Of course, shareholders won’t be such mad to vote a 4:0 ratio in real operation.
This is the mechanism which F A Hayek suggested in 1976.