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.
I have the same basic concerns about that 50 BTC that’s in the gateway.
Absolutely right!
We really need BCE to change that
2 Likes
I agree with @Nagalim, with BTC price declining or at the very least not going up, combined with no significant increase in Nubit demand our overflow on top of reserves is declining. Being more conservative with money we spend is smart business in my opinion, would be surprised if shareholders would not agree.
We can always buyback more NSR later. 
So that’s 2 of 5 FLOT say send back the 9.5 BTC in the Bter account? Or is your vote to just do the buyback as is @masterOfDisaster?
Edit: Forgot about this
Maybe we should just make sure we do stuff right next week? Thoughts @dhume? Should I send some back?
I second that!
I already wrote about stopping NSR buybacks and creating diversified reserves first.
Once I’m back at my PC, I can provide a status of the BTC funds at Poloniex.
Or you have a look at the liquidity they broadcast.
There might be more than 50 BTC at Poloniex.
I say, do the next buyback like planned.
Use the next week to find improve it, find consensus where necessary, develop alternatives.
so at the very least, everyone agrees that only three things count for T4 buy side?
- FLOT multisig
- JL’s grandfathered BTC
- NuSafe
We take the balance of each of these on friday. (NuSafe is of course assumed to have stable balance)
3 Likes
I find this proposal reasonable and agree.
I would favor reducing the ammount of this week’s buyback. I would also support slowing down or putting buybacks on hold, especially if the PPC reserve gets shareholder approval.
The funds at Poloniex’ NuBot operations are at the moment:
Sun Jan 24 20:41:42 UTC 2016
status of (former) sell side gateway:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep BETwD8nSjtj9ADSvej2na34xmsMYwPRymv -A 2
"BETwD8nSjtj9ADSvej2na34xmsMYwPRymv" : {
"buy" : 13082.98,
"sell" : 5127.7376
status of (former) buy side gateway:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep BFGMPykfKxXZ1otrCZcsbnTwJjKHPP9dsP -A 2
"BFGMPykfKxXZ1otrCZcsbnTwJjKHPP9dsP" : {
"buy" : 20070.39,
"sell" : 10187.1611
$(13,082 + 20,070) / 402 $/BTC = 82 BTC.
Does that change your mind?
Well it’s reassuring to say the least! I guess it’s also the feeling that we’ve done so many buybacks already. Feels like we’re spending so much every week.
Edit: Also MoD dont kill yourself taking up so many tasks, we need you! Maybe we should make a sticky with a list of small tasks that shareholders could volunteer for?(like calculating the sharebuybacks, weekly liquidity report, etcetc).
3 Likes
Because at the time it seemed to be a good way to incorporate the value from the sold NBT.
With the illiquid NSR markets, diversification might mean less loss in case money is needed.
NuSafe needs to be pushed!
Alternative reserves need to be created. We need to be able to keep more than just 15% of the NBT in circulation in reserve without increasing the associated risk over having 15% in BTC.
edit:
thank you for caring! I will survive. I already stepped back to be able to recover and started to provide incentives to increase participation
Plus I write less behemoth posts, right?
The reports, calculations, etc. are nothing, really nothing compared to the last week.
In my current shape it’s still too much to continue that all.
But hey, I’ve started to sleep again
I need some time to digest all this, as well as the community might need that time…
3 Likes
With a lack of consensus, i will be performing buybacks with the full 19 BTC.
1 Like