There are advantages and disadvantages. The blind auction allows for an arbitrary large price in theory, while the price decreasing method naturally has an upper bound which must be picked carefully. On the other hand, the auction model also allows all NSR to be sold at the minimum bid (again, at least in theory). It allows for more speculation and market manipulation, because suppressing the price might lead to an overall lower auction bid and could give me an advantage. This all is not possible if the price is adjusted top down.
I was thinking I was calling it ‘fishing’ because we’re slowly lowering the price, waiting for a bite. Funny that you were referencing your childhood though.
How about 1mil lowered from .004 to .002 over 4 days, hourly? How are you imagining prices are announced? Were you imagining this taking place on exchange?
We should wait for some other opinions on that, but yes in general this sounds reasonable to me personally. The price announcement actually could be made one time, because its determined by your protocol. If, how, and with what accuracy the remaining amount of NSR that will be sold during the current epoch will be announced is an important questions, because this is the random variable people mostly need to speculate on.
An exchange would provide us with all the infrastructure needed to do this. Looking at the NSR market movements I think Poloniex would be the only option. Maybe we can get into contact with them and ask to give Jordans API key a discount for NSR, it would be a nice compensation for the hours I spent to make their API nonce work
We can also do both, Bitmessage/email bids + exchange.
I have updated the motion and await additional feedback from other members of the community.
Also, I don’t know how to notate a bitmessage address or what it should be.
At first sight the cycle of different ways to sell the NSR seems complicated, but in the end it’s quite simple from buyer’s perspective.
It looks like the different ways aim to maximize the income and try to keep the impact on the market capitalization as small as possible.
I wonder whether selling the 5 million NSR should be advertized in any way beyond the motion here in the forum.
On the one hand it might look desperate, on the other hand it creates awareness for Nu and how Nu evolved.
I bet a lot people didn’t follow how Nu was improved and might still perceive it as the ponzi it was called by Dan L. - built on nothing else but parking rates.
But the NBT burning changed the game radically.
By voting for the burn motion the NSR holders already declared that they rather take a hit in the value of their property than let the whole Nu fail.
But that was only a declaration of intent.
Now it’s happening (assuming that the final version of this motion passes) and not only a lip service.
In combination with the public burn transaction of the NBT it can very well be marketed as “NSR holders taking appropriate steps to keep the peg in a sustainable way” or something like that. I bet @tomjoad could find the right words.
And now to something completely different - Bitmessage offers a way to communicate end-to-end encrypted in a quite convenient way.
Funny enough, this is the classical definition of a “Dutch Auction”.
It’s also worth pointing out that the expected revenues in Dutch auctions (with risk neutral bidders who do not have access to other bidders’ information, as would be the case in a NuShare auction) would be exactly equal to Jordan’s original “First-Price, Sealed-Bid” auction. This is the basis of the revenue equivalence theorem verified at different points in time by economists Vickrey, Riley & Samuelson, and Myerson.
I would favor making the auction as simple as possible for Jordan or the elected representative, and sticking with “First-Price, Sealed-Bid” as we’ve done in the past. There is no financial advantage to shareholders to make the auction process more complex than required.
I really do think sell orders act as advertisements in and of themselves. Forcing a small window with a high bid minimum for blind auction gets everyone that’s serious about it. Then, slowly lowering a sell order catches any opportunists who think they can make a quick buck as well as those who watch nsr via no channel other than the order books (I did this for a while, so I know those people are out there). The final selloff day insures that the nsr are sold and we put our shares where our mouth is.
The most complicated part is binning the orders and bids by the hour. I’d be willing to bin by a larger time (I was originally considering semi-hourly) if the technical challenges are too difficult. Note that someone could give a standing bid early to trigger if the sell order makes it to a certain point, or just put up a buy order on poloniex, they are equivalent (other than the exchange fee).
Last requests for parameter changes before hashing?
The hourly sell price reduction requires a lot of effort from Jordan, and I don’t see it as necessary. I think a daily reduction would be sufficient.
Except from that see this motion as a very good way to support our buy side in short term such that people start parking to help us achieving our long term liquidity goal.
I agree. Adding overhead to the effort without a verifiable ROI doesn’t make sense. The easier, the better, because it makes reporting the end results that much more transparent.
Daily means changes of $.0005, which is over 10%. I changed it to 12 hours.
Other changes? Is anyone insistent about using 24 hours instead of 12? Or changing the minimum or maximum of any days? Or creating a minimum for day 6?
This NBT burn would be the first of its kind. So it is likely that the protocol will be modified.
Therefore, it is important not to risk too many NSRs.
The question is: is 5m NSRs too much?
Personally, I do not think so.
Voting on this motion has begun.
Assistant bot should be back up, you can hash the motion now. What I just noticed is that you did not specify in which currencies the bids are allowed to be made. Do we allow NBT bids? PPC?
EDIT: Ah nevermind, you hashed it Not so important.
Well we cannot expect Jordan to play the altcoin converter, but I think that it will be fine for the shareholders if he restricts the accepted coins later on. Thanks for writing the motion!
Should be NBT only. We want to have people buying NBT or releasing them from the sell side after all.
Or did I miss something?
At least BTC must be accepted since also the market on Poloniex is BTC. Maybe BTC bids would even be better for us because Jordan will be able to use the funds strategically in order to improve liquidity.
I think you underestimate the importance of all the falling dollar. Nobody buys NBT, if he accepts that the Bitcoinprice will rise. If the dollar price as now fall by 7% (within 2 weeks), the Bitcoin in the purchasing power remains the same, then the Bitcoinpreis increases by 7%. Apart from the pumps and dumps.
If I buy now NBT and assume that the dollar continues to fall, perhaps again by 10% within one month, then I would do as Europeans also loss when I get 15% interest per year for parking of Nubits. Besides the fact that I can miss the upward trend of Bitcoins.
Therefore: Let to - in certain situations - an imbalance of sales and buyers to. An absolute balance is unnecessary and expensive.
It is normal that when the dollar falls, the purchasing demand of NBT also falls.
What the interest on NBT desperately trying is to support the dollar price. The interest would be as high as the dollar falls. This is not feasible.
For such cases, we need a second currency to strengthen the demand for NBT. For example nbteuro. Anyway.
My old Amateur proposal was to hold for this reason a mixture of currencies in the NBT.
I would always NBT sell when the dollar falls more than the interest rates for parking NBT are high.