You have missed my point.
edit:
Do not use filler answers in this topic, we all know what Nu is and can repeat “1% of total supply per day” in our sleep.
Most of the NuShare price decline has occurred after shareholders passed a motion moving dividends to the back burner. I am not saying that this is the sole reason, but to say that allowing for NSR burning is the only thing that can save Nu is just inaccurate.
1 Like
Not true, decline has occurred after initial hype was over. Which is classic for all cryptocurrencies.
Most of decline has come after Nu experienced those hacks and thefts.
The point is, we already have NSR burning and it is not helping anything at this moment. It is not the answer you are looking for.
Burning is not related to this.
This is the answer we are looking for.
Furthermore, speculation of future dividends have an effect on the current market price. This is a fact. It will be much more complicated to speculate on NuShares now as buybacks are the preferred method of returning value to shareholders as nobody knows how low the NSR price will go before a buyback is a possibility.
This is quoted from Jordan’s plan when there is a big demand for nbits:
It is quite possible that there is so little NSR liquidity it’s not possible to buy NSR with the proceeds at any sane prices in a reasonable short period. We expect shareholder to sell share to absorb the price surge. But people tend to hold when the price goes up! Now this is when dividends in PPC could come to the rescue. The proceeds could be used to purchase PPC which has a much deeper liquidity pool, and distribute the PPC as dividends.
There you go, buyback and dividend are both needed in different situation.
4 Likes
This is precisely the problem I envision happening. People will panic sell when the buy back program is over, including outside investors who only got into NuShares to attempt exploit the buy back program.
I still see no reason that buy backs should take preference over dividends.
Unnecessarily diluting such a small market with too many unbacked NuBits is a reason. Quite frankly, the case has been well made for why we really need to see additional market growth before more dividends are issued.
I liked your OP because I appreciate the discussion and I disagree with some of the language that I have seen that suggests dividends should be completely replaced with buy back. I am not voting for your motion because I disagree with the language that says dividends are the preferred method. I would like to see both used and I would like to see a more tangible decision about what criteria would need to be met for dividends to be a healthy choice. Presenting a reasonable idea of when to expect this is something I believe potential investors need to see.
3 Likes
Please elaborate what market will be diluted with NuBits if shareholders prefer dividends.
I am not proposing dividends any time in the near future. I am saying once we figure out how to make a profit, it will be distributed as dividends. That is unless a motion calls for share buy backs for some reason. I do not think the case has been made to have share buybacks be the default position.
Every NuBit sold for Peercoin is a NuBit that is no longer controlled by the shareholders. This is dangerous in a market as small as the Nubits market because we need to be a solvent as possible until this thing really catches on.
Cool. Me too.
I was little concerned about this too but it seem that most of the opinions expressed in this thread do not believe this to be the case. I’m glad to see the conversation.
1 Like
Judging by a few of the comments about this issue that bring up “helping Peercoin”, I think the Peercoin price fall may be a large motivator for, seemingly, nobody taking the side of dividends anymore. It was a pretty big deal the first few months of NuBits that dividends were a brilliant and efficient way of returning value to shareholders. I remember the tweet about the first dividend transaction and it was indeed an amazing thing for DACs and Nu. It was said that Peercoin was chosen because PoS is more secure, not because NuBits had a lot of Peercoin holders.
If this is the case, and the Peercoin market is affecting your decisions on this, then you just do not understand how volatile markets work. The only thing you are trying to do to NSR is what you tried to do for PPC, albeit not very long. I must say that I feel it is pretty disingenuous on a couple levels. I do not come from the Peercoin community and I did not invest in NuBits so that it will benefit seemingly unrelated investments of mine. You should not be making decisions about Nu based on what happens with other volatile markets. And NuBits customers should not have to rely an any volatile market, be it Peercoin or NuShares (Tier 7 liquidity).
[quote=“GreatScott, post:41, topic:1822, full:true”]
I think the Peercoin price fall may be a large motivator for, seemingly, nobody taking the side of dividends anymore.[/quote]
This at least isn’t the case for me. I’m still buying Peercoin, especially now that it’s cheap.
1 Like
So when dividends were being distributed, the PPC was purchased on PPC/NBT? What is the difference between that and distributing NBT as dividends, which we were trying to avoid?
A majority wasn’t, according to @KTm’s comments at the time. Peercoin from the CCEDK PPC/NBT market did account for some of the funds used for the distribution but a large proportion were purchased on PPC/BTC markets on CCEDK and other exchanges.
I agree on that.
I totally disagree. Whatever the monetary value is, NSR enable you to vote, which is huge.
Peercoin and Nu are different projects.
I did not invest in Nu because I wanted Peercoin to succeed.
And Nu can always change later on the instrument used to distribute dividends from Peercoin to something else.
2 Likes
Do you think NSR buybacks are better than dividends and should take preference?
In the situation I described above, dividends will be purchased with proceeds selling printed NBT. So PPC will be bought with BTC or USD.
Right, that was my impression as well. It appears it was not completely the case, though.
There have been a lot of ad hoc action at the front line. I am mainly concerned with what would happen when Jordan’s vision (partly quote in my post above) is to be realized.