I think it s difficult to understand for most shareholders, including me…
Then ask! 
Did you read the “TL;DR” part?
It boils down to:
do you think it’s more efficient to start selling NSR in times when the peg is alredy broken (T4 buy side depleted) or in times of a still intact peg (but with a trend to depleting T4 buy side)?
This proposal is especially intended to refill T4 buy side if being consumed by the need to decrease NBT supply.
But it’s also able to help to some degree mitigating BTC (or other asset if part of T4 buy side) volatility.
I very much hope that Nu will rather sooner than later be able to avoid T4 fund volatility risks to some degree.
Until it is able to do so, Nu should be prepared to deal with e.g. BTC volatility.
Especially after crashes of BTCUSD, people might want to trade NBT for BTC.
That can be a problem for T4 buy side if not treated by a proposal like this one.
1 Like
I understand the purpose of the motion and i agree on its main idea but the terms should be more specific in order for shareholders to vote for it, i feel.
Such as ex:t4 must be increased by selling nsr when total value falls below 5% till total value reaches x% of circulating nubits supply .
What do u think,@masterOfDisaster ?
I’m eager for adjusting it this way, but thought NSR holders might want to prefer some discretion to strict thresholds and actions.
With the given discretion it would allow NSR sale as soon as the T4 buy side value would fall below 10% of NBT in circulation, but would only force an NSR sale if the funds fall below 5%.
The idea is to make it harder to game the system, because no attacker can know in advance (and steer) what will happen when (e.g. there’s no reaction time for the NSR sale to start)
No one knows how many NSR will be sold and when exactly.
It’s not explicitly stated, but implicitly meant that the NSR sale is not aiming at pushing the T4 buy side value above 15% of NBT in circulation.
Currently there’s no way except for a motion to initialize such an NSR sale.
I tried to anticipate that.
I think your statement makes sense. I will probably add it to my feeds very soon.
685bcc7211db2536734042c65d78d150348a3ec5 verified and voted.
I would like to see us start NSR sales when we drop below 15%, not as a hard limit but in the way you worded so:
I feel with DR being discussed and @Nagalim’s T4 Zoology proposal we will soon start voting in favor of reserves on top the current 15% one. It would be weird to have an additional 15-25% reserve but when its depleted not start refilling the 15% reserve until it drops to 10%
You are right. This motion would work best when being connected to motions that change values like the 15% of circulating NBT being held in T4.
But how can you know what will happen?
Should we use variables? That would be even more confusing than having more and more motions.
What about having motions that adjust T4 treat that?
This actually goes along well with the zoology stuff, at least. Basically, at ~10% zoology will start selling off altcoins and get NSR signers ready. At 5%, we start selling NSR for real. Zoology point 4 is to define the minimum T4 BTC % for each altcoin to start selling off, just like this motion is doing for NSR.
1 Like
It depends on what the NSR holders prefer.
I suppose that most will prefer selling BTC, PPC, etc. to selling NSR - especially as long as there’s only little volume on NSR markets!
Selling NSR late, but not too late, is what I had in mind when creating this motion.
And I think it still makes sense to have motions, that change anything at the T4 value, treat the levels at which NSR sales happen.
I would like to see this motion ingrained into a bigger motion (combined with the T4 Zoology proposal and DR maybe) so we can define our reserve system in 1 big motion instead of numerous little additions. Would this be possible?
I once tried to create a comprehensive motion that would have dealt with T4 and T6.
I had the impression smaller motions would be preferred and didn’t follow that road.
It’s a complex issue making it harder to read and vote on the fly so the speak. But if we can find consensus for 1 big overhaul of T4 reserve mechanisms and when T6 needs to come in to restock T4 it will be easier to understand I think.
I’m with you on that, although with BTC fluctuating it might create some flip-flopping. Buybacks one week, selling NSR the other week.
Having said that combined with the proposal to replace some BTC with USD to negate that effect somewhat and Nagalim’s Zoology proposal assuming it comes on on top of the current 15% I think the risk of the flip-flopping is actually minimal.
Selling even later wouldn’t increase volume and we would get even less value for our NSRs. The question is more what is the most effective way to top up T4. That will largely depend on the reason for the T4 going under the defined threshold. When someone just dumps 50k on the peg and it appears to be a anomaly, selling NSR might be better than selling BTC especially when a long period of buybacks have taken place as happens now.
I’m on the fence with this motion, it is probably better than we have which is 100% discretion FLOT, but I trust FLOT with it in the first place. A lot depends on how the Zoology motion is going to look like. Also need to look into DR and how that works out. Defining these models is tricky as a lot of discretion is taken away which could save us when unexpected events occur not covered by the models.
I do believe these discussions are essential and ideally FLOT should report against them anyway, but maybe we should trust them with the ultimate decision based on the situation and require accountability and reporting after when decisions are made outside the parameters of the defined models.
Therefore I will keep this motion on watch and won’t add it to my datafeed right now.
1 Like
@masterOfDisaster If you choose not to withdraw this, I will move it to the cold voting list. I hope you take this as an opportunity to think about redrafting a modified proposal if you think there is still support that can be mobilized.
I’d prefer moving it to the cold voting list.
I don’t think it’s very urgent to get a motion like this passed, but I intend to create a modified proposal that incorporates the posts in this thread.
Having it on the cold voting list makes it easier for me not to forget it
I notice that this motion has recently gained nearly 50% support in the last 100 blocks.
While I supported this motion at the outset, I now believe that we can better define ways to maintain the BTC reserve. I am drafting a motion here:
[Passed] Standard and Core
I urge shareholders to further discuss that draft and to institute a much smarter system than the one proposed here.
Edit: As a side note, I wonder what this says about how many people are using @cryptog’s datafeed as it’s the only datafeed supporting this motion.
1 Like
I wonder how voting for this motion could be revived.
I very much appreciate that shareholders are willing to support a sale of NSR way before the BTC reserves are depleted, though!
…especially as we might be coming closer to such a point.
But I think the “standard” scheme created by @Nagalim is more advanced than this motion here.
If I had to choose between having this motion and none to keep the peg safe and sound by early NSR sale, I’d take this one.
Choosing between this one and @Nagalim’s, I’m in favour of @Nagalim’s!
2 Likes
We have 38% of voting in favor.
Lol, that’s about as much who vote for 3.0 blocks in the BCE upgrade battle.
Yesterday we had approximately 61% 4.0 blocks and effectively 39% 3.0 blocks (measured 96 times across the day, each 15 minutes) at average.
Coincidence? 
This motion is still in my data feed, but I think I need to investigate this motion again.
The “standard and core” motion seems to be more suitable for the job, this motion tried to accomplish.