That’s a very kind offer!
The main reason for the request for new NSR is the timescales we are working to. BarterTrade are eager for the NSR and USNBT to be in place when their exchange begins operation. We may be abe to Crowdfund the 700,000,000 NSR but I fear it would take much longer to raise them and we would risk the whole deal falling through.
I may be wrong though. If there is community support for this proposal, please let the Nu team know either here or by PM. If there is enough interest in raising even a portion of the NSR needed for the trade in this way we could offset the total amount for sale and airdrop the remainder. It would be interesting to see what support that method has. I think we need to keep this proposal in place for now though in order to fulfill the trade.
That’s a very kind offer!
Print more and raise funds for regaining and supporting the peg!
If there were a way for me to categorically prove that I’m telling the truth I would do so. It’s true that the Nu team is vastly reduced in number and the effort that can be bought to Nu. Loosing the peg hurt us hard. Work has been continuing in the background but, again, at a reduced rate. Myself, I’ve been working on swapping the peg bots over to spread trading to try and put in place a method by which funds can be raised in a sustainable manner when the peg is regained.
This trade with BarterTrade would increase the ability of the Nu to buy back USNBT, increase the value and regain the peg.
It saddens me that you feel there has been deception. I agree that the situation has been far from ideal but we now have an opportunity to put that right. The Nu team in place currently isn’t going anywhere and with a new partnership with BarterTrade and their representative here @torjusg in place, should be able to devote more time and effort to Nu once more.
What will be done with the proceeds from the sale?
Mentioned in Woolly’s post above yours:
When peg restore ?? … do you have any plan ?
When no one sells their Nubits for less than US$1
Can’t talk for the liquidity team, but the funds will gradually be used to buyback as per Wooly’s earlier post. It is probably not very smart to publicize a detailed buyback plan and then spend a lot of money on buying out speculators.
When you read the forum you will find out many strategies the team might use to restore the peg.
raise funds for regaining and supporting the peg funds for regaining and supporting the peg … Can’t talk for the liquidity team, but the funds will gradually be used to buyback
That’s very nice but it should surprise no one that there is a significant trust and transparency deficit when it comes to the “liquidity team”.
I would suggest that if said team is proposing to make a very significant issuance (dilution) of NSR in exchange for payment that represents a very significant portion of the entire market cap, that a more detailed accounting be made of the proceeds, where it will be held, what processes will be put in place to control its custody and disbursement and so forth.
It saddens me that you feel there has been deception. I agree that the situation has been far from ideal but we now have an opportunity to put that right
‘Putting it right’ means more than yet more secrecy and non-transparency. Please incorporate significant process and governance improvements in this proposal not only in light of the perceived or actual past deception but to better ensure and demonstrate not only that such deception does not and will not continue, but that the affairs are placed above suspicion of deception.
With that said, I do support the concept being proposed.
Thank you for the reply and for raising good points.
I have updated the original post with some details of the intention for the funds and the outline of the plan to both support USNBT and regain the peg.
Making Nu less opaque has long been a goal of mine. I think I got some of the way with the data made available at https://grafana.crypto-daio.co.uk. There is always more that can be done though and I would welcome suggestions as to what data you and others would like to see there.
I feel this partnership with BarterTrade is worth pursuing even if it means diluting NSR. The other option is to carry out the plan as outlined above but with a vastly reduced fund meaning a much longer recovery time. The BarterTrade deal can kick start this recovery plan with the huge bonus that we will have equally strong USNBT and NSR pairs. The lack of a strong NSR pair was, I believe, a contributing factor to the loss of the peg. With the plan above we will also have an income from trading activities. Lack of an income to assist the “liquidity engine” has long been a criticism of the Nu model.
As mentioned by @torjusg, BarterTrade intends to utilise USNBT as a stable USD analogue on their exchange. Their model relies on USNBT being a stable $1 coin once more. As a partner, I don’t think Nu could do any better.
With the input of funds, a fruitful partnership with BarterTrade, strong and supported trading pairs for USNBT and NSR and a sustainable income we will be in a much stronger position to get USNBT back to trading at $1 and be more confident in the strength of the peg.
Is the intent to bring the peg back as soon as possible or a slow gradual restoration? “meaning a daily buyback and burn of $516” - This sounds like it would take months if not years to restore the peg.
As mentioned in the Original post, the numbers used for those calculations are provisional and were based on conversations had before the partnership with BarterTrade was known about. Those conversations within the Liquidity Team concluded that regular smaller buy-backs are the preferred method to regain the peg rather than a large singular buy-back.
I think that with the partnership in place and the other benefits I spoke about in my last post, Nu will be in a better position to open this talk out to Shareholders to decide how to approach the restoration of the peg and the amount of funds to use in buybacks and how quickly.
I have opened this custodial grant for voting. Could voting share holders please add the amount and address from the original post to their clients and begin voting for this grant please.
In looking at the Block Explorer I realised that the address listed in the original post has been previously used for an NSR grant so cannot be used again. A new Multisig address will be created by the team and posted when ready. apologies for the oversight.
I think it will be best to buyback ASAP with the funds from the Bartertrade deal.
It’s more likely that BTC goes up in the next months,
therefore it would be wise not to concentrate too much on Nubit.
Better invest these funds now into BTC or Nushares until BTC
and Nushare market is saturated.
Soon after market saturation, sell BTC and Nushares and shift
these funds into Nubit.
This would be the strategic better procedure, what likely bring
Nubit back to 1 U$.
Probably this method is more time-consuming but in the end
much more effective.
Also try to get major investors involved for a common strategy.
I have to disagree with you on this,it’s already been a year now and there is no point in waiting months again.And BTC might fall back to 3k zones and only after that correction it will go up.The team has a good opportunity here to fix the peg shortly and Bittrex might avoid the delisting.
As mentioned above I think it’s actually a good thing that Bittrex delists NBT before attempting to fix the peg. Have a conversation later on after the peg is restored with Bittrex to relist nbt AND add nsr then after it’s been proven to be stable again. At that time it should also be requested to add usdt,tusd,pax,usds and usdc pairs as well.
Once you get delisted it’s really hard to get relisted in Bittrex.It’s best to get this sorted out before it get’s delisted.The sell book is currently not much big and if they act now to fix the peg,it will really work.
I don’t see anything wrong with a gradual buying program to restore the peg. It does no good to restore the peg for one day only to have it collapse the next. I might quibble with 0.1% per day (approximately a three-year spend-out rate), but that’s probably not so important, assuming that the funds don’t end up somehow disappearing over the course of three years.
Who are these four people holding the keys to the multisig? I’m going to assume they are all existing members of the ‘liquidity team’, which happens to be the exact same actors for which there is a significant trust deficit (whether deserved or not).
Confidence (and therefore prospects for outside investment and recovery) would be improved significantly by recruiting some better-trusted key holders, at least in addition to the existing team if not in place of.
@XRomeoX, @Ghaleon . Part of the deal with BarterTrade was to request a de-listing from Bittrex (as mentioned here. They do not feel that they would be able to compete with a strong pair at Bittrex during their first few months of operation. Their model is to try and attract USNBT holders to the BarterTrade exchange from Bittrex.
The announcement from Bittrex was double edged sword. It meant we lost the Bittrex pair but it meant that we fulfill the criteria for the deal.
The upshot of this portion of the deal is that to get the funds from BarterTrade, we won’t be chasing the listing at Bittrex now or in the foreseeable future.
@smooth. The 4 holders of the multisig keys for the original address posted were myself, @Phoenix, @Cybnate and @jooize. I posted a message to the Liquidity Team chat room on Matrix last night regarding generating a new Multisig address. I have yet to have any response. This is a pattern that has become fairly common in recent months as team members (myself included) have other draws on their time. The team is widely distributed so disparate timezones also play a part in that.
I for one would welcome new members to the team and especially the multisig key holders. If it meant that the team became more dynamic I don’t think it could hurt Nu at all. The issues for multisig key holders has always been that they should be reachable and able to quickly debate and agree on an outcome for funds. We have suffered in the past from a multisig teams inability to decide on a course of action and that is something that should be avoided if possible. Would you put yourself forward for such a key holder position?
The concern in all of this is that it takes time to organise. BarterTrade are working to fairly short timescales with the launch of their exchange and would ideally like to have the NSR and USNBT in place for the launch. Given that, are there any objections to me utilising a single signature address for this Grant if the other Nu team members remain unreachable for the next 24 hours or so?
@woolly_sammoth I won’t be able to serve as a key holder at this time as I’m already fully committed to other projects, and my ability to consistently respond to issues in a timely manner may be inferior even to what you describe to be the status quo.
While it may have looked that way, my comments were not at all intended to be positioning for personal involvement. My interest here is as an observer and long-time crypto enthusiast who would very much like to see a decentralized stable cryptocurrency succeed. So far they have all stumbled in various ways, so I would submit that despite its own obvious stumbles, Nu still has a shot (albeit a long shot) at this potentially enormous market.
But to do that requires restoring trust, and restoring trust requires not only words, but substantive changes. I take it from reading some of the past forum posts that these issues have been discussed many times before with no real action ever taken, so perhaps it is a lost cause. If you want it not to be, then I still strongly suggest recruiting some reputable outsiders and vesting them with real power and authority to serve as a check on the existing team (as well as reforming the governing rules and transparency processes such that the situation of a poorly-trusted team can not recur).