I appreciate these 2 statements because Nu needs to create demand for NBT
1 Like
Will add this to my data feed – want to give it a try
2 Likes
So you are convinced that the $38,500 are well-spent?
I’m interested in your reasoning, because I tried to wrap my head around that and have had a hard time trying to understand it.
I don’t want to base my assessment on the expected increase of demand, especially as this only generates temporary revenue.
Where’s the key to more tx and final revenue?
1 Like
So primarily this increases txn volume rather than nbt supply. Are you asking to make $40k off of 1 cent txn fees? That would require 4 million txns… I could see 10 thousand txns on this project over 5 years.
ETP can increase both demand and consumption of NuBits. However, the two goals should be achieved by different strategies and different time-line.
Increasing NuBits demand: will see significant amount in a short or mid-term, allowing us to have more money in liquidity operation and NuShare buyback, Once NuShare price is doubled or tripled, we will have more space to fund profitable initiatives, thus entering a positive feedback loop.
Increasing NuBits consumption: It is not practical to expect ETP could generate 40 thousands of NuBits consumption in short or mid term. We should do our best to promote trade of BearBTC and BullBTC by the low fee now and in the mid future. Once the market is well established and have notable trading volume, we can collect exchange trade fee to generate revenue. There will be many ways to do this in future, one way is, as describled in the motion, NuLagoon collect fee and burn half of them for NuShareholders. Another way is to let users submit trade order with a NuBits fee greater than 0.01, for example, 0.1% fee of trade size.
1 Like
Right, why not requesting 0.1%-0.2% fee?
I mean, other exchanges have fees in percent - why not when trading your ETFs?
1 Like
Yes. We can. Just added it in the previous reply.
Gotta catch users before you start increasing fees.
1 Like
Of course!
But would you really shy away users with a fee of 0.1%?
Anyway, it might indeed be better to start with a very low fee.
Proof of concept first, imo. I wouldnt shy from 0.1%, but would that really make anything worthwhile? What if you did 0.2% halfway through, you’d get the same revenue but i bet you’d have a lot more momentum.
1 Like
That would make it easier to include it in my data feed.
It’s a really big amount of money that’s requested to deliver this product.
Any kind of proof of concept or prototype would be helpful.
To be honest: I understand too little of how it will work to have voted for it.
How many tx per day do you expect reasonablly compared with existing exchanges (bitfinex, polo, xbtce.cc, some Chinese ones)?
That would be great.
1 Like
I think it could be a valuable bet to fund the development of this exchange-traded pool but I have the feeling that we should first focus on the improvement of Nu code and work on increasing liquidity.
But that should not prevent Nu from increasing demand for NuBits.
I think it would be more compelling business wirse to develop a NuLagoon for ETH/NBT since the buzz of TheDAO and Ethereum is expected to keep going for a few months, I feel.
Is this quote relevant? 
Not arbitrage specifically, but a service for traders that utilises NuBits.
2 Likes
Good question.
This proposal seems that it could create a substantial demand for NuBits among hedgers, which could be our sole market right now.
So in that sense we should vote for that proposal.
But should we do it after replenishing the buy side liquidity or even before?
1 Like