Transferring all Nu assets to B&C? - Liquidating or 'archiving' or mini-Nu?

The Plaza
#1

This is very disappointing, but not totally unexpected. I think the only thing left is just tidy things up and close shop.

With the tidying up I meant, what to do with the remaining reserves, burn all NBT within Nu’s control, what with the forum and domain names etc. I suggest to transfer any remaining assets including the Nu software to the B&C shareholders in exchange for settling the debt with B&C minus the other outstanding debts. Nu will be just inactive, however we still need a group of major NSR shareholders to keep on minting or shut down the blockchain entirely to prevent it from being hi-jacked.

When B&C can be released successfully the Nu assets may proof to be useful eventually and Nu can be rebooted to play a supporting a role on the exchange. I believe NU and B&C should always have been in the hand of a single group of Shareholders as they need each other. It is the same with Poloniex and Tether. It may even be possible to settle some remaining Nu debts over time when B&C becomes successful, although no commitments should be made during the transfer.

Just trying to be realistic, without being pessimistic. I don’t see a realistic option to keep the peg other than on a very small scale with a hard fork to sustain $1 peg or keep a peg at $0.10. Both would leave NBT holders in the dark. And we would only be able to defend a peg assuming we can make money from on-exchange transfers. I haven’t seen any other solid revenue proposals which can be implemented right now and without investments upfront.

We will need to pass a motion for both Nu and B&C shareholders I believe. Just abandoning it would be the worst outcome.

My view of the current situation
A paradox in our peg
#2

This is the end?

#3

27th of May was the end of Nu. (https://nulagoon.com/)

So you rather die than doing a hard fork?

#4

I’m fine with a hard fork if we can get a bunch of shareholders believing in this and that it is executed in such way reserves can be sustained by revenues. So a small scale $1 peg hard fork could be viable, but we need a team to run operations, I think this should be a team under B&C to be viable.

#5

Well you are right. A hard fork is way better than dying.
The Nu scale is so small that forking will not impact people perception in any case, i guess.

#6

It will upset current NBT holders. Unlikely they will come back any time soon.
A small scale operation hard forked from Nu is only useful to keep the asset alive until a solid revenue source or buyer/investor has been found.

#7

what is that?

#8

Basically my earlier discussion proposal to run a $1 pegged operation on NBT/fiat pairs only with current reserves with a small 2.5% spread to obtain some revenue for basic infra maintenance awaiting a better revenue model e.g. with B&C listing. Long shot, but I haven’t seen anything better, which can be executed right now. I believe the complete transfer of the assets to B&C needs to be included as I don’t see Nu community standing on its own feet much longer.

We need the fork to remove the sell pressure from the existing NBT on the market, pissing off all current NBT holders. This is a liquidation and trying to retain some value in the remaining assets, never a good look but imo better than just abandon.

2 Likes
#9

Sorry I don’t understand why the protocol needs to be changed to do that. Can you clarify why this is a hard fork?

1 Like
#10

How would you be able to get rid of the existing NBT? We will need to create a NBT2 or something. Open to other suggestions. Creating a second currency on the same blockchain will be even more complex imo.

#11

Oh I see, you want to create another token. A bit like BTER with BTC_B :slight_smile:

Well, as brought up a couple of times including in my very first post when I came back here, I still think that a coinage dependent transaction fee would help you escaping the black swan and maybe even to peg a dollar in short to mid term. If you make the fee large enough, people will have to park their NBT such that the sell order books are empty. The money that remains in the order book is just a question of time.

It could certainly be easier deployed than another token.

3 Likes
#12

I have a hard time to believe that works honestly. There will be initial sell pressures to start with disregarding fees as there wouldn’t be any coinage or people would get rid of it just before. Anyone offering $1 for NBT now would be quickly overwhelmed and need deep pockets. Why would you park if you can sell immediately? Eventually your model could work, but I think it requires a significant investment upfront. How much, your guess is as best as mine’s. But I don’t believe the current reserves are adequate.

#13

Because of the hope that when you unpark you will be able to get 1 USD and not whatever the market offers right now. I would honestly wait until everything is either parked or burned and then start to provide liquidity again, not sooner. Then, even if the parked amount is large, short term hedgers can see in the parking graph that they can use NBT without getting dumped upon.

In fact with this little change Nu can fuck up forever, again and again, because after a certain amount of time the sell order books will always be empty. Or of course, nobody will buy your token anymore :wink:

1 Like
#14

I am interested in taking them.
Can i propose a price?

#15

Right, you won’t offer a peg to start with, missed that part. Now it makes more sense.

So what stops me from holding my NBT until a peg is established. Without a transaction nothing get burned, right. But your approach basically burns those NBT as soon as they move because they will have a high coinage and next to nothing will arrive at its destination. Parking is my only ‘safe’ heaven. So far so good…

However as soon as you establish the peg. Because all NBT holders will wait for that and then sell their NBT. How would your proposal resolve that? With large amounts parked you, it may take a very long time to establish a peg.

Besides remaining NBT on exchanges will also quickly piss off exchanges because thye won’t be able to be transferred without losing their value as the coinage accumulates on the NBT the exchange holds. Unless they also park, which would be too complicated for them. Practically you would loose the trading pairs on centralised exchanges. Not great, but would reduce the market significantly and trading would only happen on decentralised exchanges like B&C.

#16

Sure, what about 0.0001 being the minimum auction price. You could raise a motion for that and I will support it.
When you want to buy for less I bet there are more candidates and you will have to run another auction :slight_smile:

#17

Their NBT are locked up. You could always park for the minimal time, but if you adjust park rates relative to this fee then you can make them loose money if they don’t park for at least 1 month or something, and get something back for more. The parked NBT won’t hit your buy wall, which is all that counts to hold the peg.

Its just not ponzi anymore because those people who use NBT for hedging and short term holding where liquid access is required will continuously burn NBT.

This is the biggest problem with the hard fork proposal. Exchanges will need to hand over the fee to the users, and this requires development effort on their side which they absolutely don’t like especially for a non hyped coin. I have no answer to this. Maybe a smaller one with encouraged dev team would see it as opportunity and offer NBT markets in the hope that the liquidity operations will attract volume. Poloniex? not so sure.

#18

I think the NBT have to be accumulated at pennies on the dollar by way of BTC open market purchases, smartly. This will amplify what remaining reserves Nu has.

Eventually, once a significant amount has been accumulated, and price is on the rise, one could introduce a wall that is substantially less than $1.00 (as in, closer to $0.01). This wall should be a fraction of reserves, so if it gets hit, a new wall can be set. If it gets hit, lower the wall. If the wall stands for days or weeks, move it up.

This action may bring other non-Nu actors who may benefit from the arbitrage. However, we need to assume they will be sellers at some point.

This needs to be done opaquely, which is counter to Nu’s philosophy, otherwise the malevolant actors can overwhelm the funds.

Another thing, the longer we wait, potentially the easier it gets, since NBT holders will lose interest and move away from active selling. However this is a huge disservice to the developers, whose commitment Nu needs.

With all the above, it is not clear if Nu will recover. Yeah, dump those NBT hard … so the price is driven down and we can buy them back at pennies on the dollar, lol.

Lastly, I think future auctions should be done in BTC to bring in funds external to Nu. We need to get NBT off the markets, not out of wallets.

3 Likes
#19

They will most likely ask you to significantly contribute to the development up front. They won’t take the risk unless significantly hyped as you said. I don’t see that happening.

I still like this proposal over a Nu 2.0 fork where NBT holders are basically loose it all without a chance to see anything back ever. And it provides a revenue model going forward, however on a shrinking market (no Poloniex). The bet would still be on B&C being successful. Start of B&C will need to coincide with restoring the peg.

What would be you best estimate how much time that would take? If we would aim for say 3 months, how aggressive would we need to set coinage assuming X amount NBT left on sell side?[quote=“woodstockmerkle, post:18, topic:4175”]
Lastly, I think future auctions should be done in BTC to bring in funds external to Nu. We need to get NBT off the markets, not out of wallets.
[/quote]
Not convinced about that right now, but with creon’s proposal in place, I agree.

#20

Exactly –