Motion content is being stored and managed here.
Here is the content for convenience:
And they are usually expensive to maintain due to mitigation of that risk.
Reserves are mitigation when running out of liquidity, e.g. by big NBT sells or exchange defaults.
Reserves in our world are liquidity off-exchange, currently not exposed to exchange default risk.
So this will still need to be held in multi-sig accounts to reduce the single point of failure risks.
I think this is reasonable for USNBT. However an eye may need to be kept on the distribution of sold USNBT especially high sales in relative short amount of time could be tricky. And when there are a handful of people each buying 250k USNBT then I would hesitate to lower the reserves and maybe even consider holding a higher reserve temporarily. So it would be good to be somewhat flexible in holding reserves/additional liquidity while maintaining the minimum percentages you propose.
What if that man wanted to sell 200,000 but found that the peg was broken so he stopped selling NBT? You like patial reserve, so would you start another NSR buyback to eliminate the extra reserve?
Most nushareholders get heavily diluted by extra NSR, and with very low price level I believe they are suffering great loss now. You are not volunteer, and will charge fee for being the Chief of Liquidity Operations, so I guess NSR holders will be diluted further.
IMO, we have not found a good model to build up a sustainable business.
My assessment concurs with yours.
But that attitude isn’t wanted among those who say what to do. It’s regarded as pessimistic, although it’s just dealing with the facts.
Having restored the peg (at least for the moment) is getting hyped and the question how to make money is yet to be answered.
Spread trading is being treated like witch craft, although it’s in terms of revenue a low hanging fruit and can be implemented without changes in code and merely a change of business conduct.
I raise stern warnings for the upcoming sale of currency units:
Failing to deal with these important points will disqualify Nu as sustainable, trustworthy, decentralized currency provider and reduce it to a ponzi scheme.
Nu will have a hard time to build a sustainable business with revenue, if it shies away from sale uplifts or spread trading, respectively.
The only source of revenue would be speculating with the currencies Nu received in exchange for NBT.
Don’t tell me that’s a sustainable, reliable business!
Tx fees won’t be a sufficient source of revenue anytime soon.
Think hard about spread trading or other sources of revenue or prepare to fail.
Lending - especially together with Blocks&Chains Exchange - should be on your radar. But that’s one for the future.
Off the cuff there’s no source of revenue that can be had instantly - or do I miss something obvious?
Do you realize how lending could profit from sales by Nu at an uplift?
It would provide an incentive for traders to lend them from Nu at a certain rate and sell them at an offset below Nu’s offset - if money can be made from it.
That would close the spread/offset, provide a source of revenue, etc.
Better keep ignoring me…
Spread trading seems not bad, and when I travelling aross different countries, I usually change some foreign money and the spread is there, very natural.
In real world, exchange dealers are very interesting, they earn their livings by spread trading, they are self sustainable liquidity provider.
The Nu’s dilemma is that if we pay for those LP with high reward as we did in last year, we are running out of money while share buying back in order to keep low reserve ratio makes situation even worse. Without revenue we are reversly speculating the BTC price; if we don’t pay decetralized LP or Phoenix, no one will serve.
The key problem is LP activity itself is not beneficial and we can solve this by spread trading and let many shareholders naturally become LPs.
This has been hashed for voting: