yeah i know it wasnt well thought through will go back to school
Currently no rates for the 1.5 month duration only has 9% support. This means 91% of minters (by share days destroyed) have configured their vote either manually or by data feed.
Shareholders minting with unconfigured votes is a small problem very much under control at the present.
I’m glad to see that it was possible to awake them.
I’m not going to rant, that this shouldn’t be necessary at all etc.
It’s reassuring to see that it still works.
Surprised that there are so less takers, but I’m happy minting with that return.
True, just a bit concerned about the network security with this low amount of participation. I rather see more than 25% of Shareholders minting.
No, you are doing excellent work here,
At the present indeed, but we clearly have to make it sustainable. Default datafeeds would help, just hoping there would be more providers to choose from. Frequency voting would be even better.
Hope you stick around for a while
Default data feeds are good, but frequency voting is superior in so many ways.
It doesn’t need to be configured, you’re not at risk of registering a data feed that is poorly maintained (how to decommissin data feeds and based on what rules?), etc.
Shareholders acting more reponsibly would make it easier.
…sometimes I find it harder than usual to convince myself of carrying on.
As a shareholder of both B&C and Nu. These last few days have been quite concerning. I’m not very active with either but I check on B&C everyday and Nu every other day. Can everyone just please take a deep breath. I don’t like the amount of hostility and panic. This has always been a level-headed community, let’s keep it that way. Thanks everyone.
Also… I will be getting out of Nu and B&C if this dilution talk happens. It’s all emotional and sets a precedent. It brings too much risk into my investments.
Thank you for chiming in.
I don’t know where you found hostility and panic, but I can point you to discussion and alertness.
I agree that the expression “dilution” has a bad connotation. We should use “sell shares to improve cash flow” next time.
In the end it’s playing on words and the measure as well as why and how to use it, aren’t even slightly emotional.
The T4 reserves were getting low through balancing activities.
The park rates didn’t rise, although that was recommended for some time.
Planning to sell NSR from T6 funds was the rational move.
As a (spare time!) contributor of both B&C and Nu I care for those and want to do what little I can to keep them working.
What would be your advice how to deal with such a situation?
I know that the park rates are rising. 10 NBT are already parked:
nud -unit=B getinfo | grep totalparked "totalparked" : 10.0,
It looks like it finally worked to wake shareholders up.
But what should we do, if the park rates were not rising and the reserves getting even lower?
If you don’t want to have this financial responsibility for the products the coproration of which you are a shareholder, offers, well, do it…
…because you might need to face not only talk about selling shares, but the a sale eventually.
You don’t need to leave B&C. The dilution being talked about is because there seems to be too little reserve to support the peg of Nu. Dilution of shares has been an integral part of the design that is free from counterparty-risk. It has been approved and happened before and I think it’s no big deal if used judiciously. It is the opposite process of share buyback that to be used in different situations.
Ignoring the problem and speaking in hushed tones is the ponzi scheme model of recovering the peg and is the weakest network defence at our disposal by far.
So few words and so wise - the essence of a lot of discussions!
If people seem to be emotional it’s because shareholders weren’t doing what they were supposed to be doing. We have a multi-tier liquidity system. Tier 4 reserves are used to rebalance the peg on exchanges using Bitcoin and Peercoin securely held by our multisignature group FLOT. If demand drops and people start selling NuBits, then our tier 4 reserves will run low. That is the point where shareholders are supposed to activate tier 5 parking rates to add temporary buy support until demand returns.
If shareholders failed to activate park rates because they simply weren’t paying attention, then we would be forced to skip tier 5 and go directly to tier 6, where FLOT would sell NuShares in order to buy NuBits back and burn them. Nobody here wants to dilute NuShares, but there would be no choice if tier 5 wasn’t activated. Luckily, it seems shareholders have gotten the message, but it shouldn’t have come to the point where I needed to make a thread like this.
I’d say they have separate meaning. FLOT is in control of an amount of NuShares available for selling before (further) actual dilution is required.
Exactly that. Then the title of this topic can be changed in a more “friendly” one
And perhaps it is more profitable for an ALP to just use his/her BTC to buy NSR than use
them at buy walls. Only time will tell.
I tried to make it sound better. How about now? The main reason for titling it the way I did was to gain attention to the issue.
Apparently drawing attention worked
You do not want every shareholder in the boardroom. Those who want to be in the boardroom are on this form. Those who do not want to vote I do not want to vote. It wouldn’t be a vote if it was obligatory, it would be a gun to the head.
Minting “without” voting is voting against all. That’s the main problem…
Configuring votes (manually or by data feed) is necessary if you don’t want to mess the voting up.
Hopefully setting the default voting behavior on new installations to abstain will solve this problem, so apathetic voters no longer have a negative influence on the network. They can continue to mint and provide security for the network without causing harm by not setting votes. Those who do configure their own votes or set data feeds will end up having a much larger influence. I’m sure it will also cause motions and grants to pass much faster, since apathetic voters will no longer be dragging the motion/grant down by unknowingly voting no…
Why not allow a shareholder to have an active and inactive status on voting? or even/also delegate votes…
Abstaining from voting while minting might be available for Nu in the future.
For Blocks & Chains Exchange it seems to be on the agenda.
At the moment a vote for a grant or hash or whatever is counted as “for the cause”, not finding a vote in a block is counted as “against the cause”.
If you don’t configure votes, you vote against all grants, motions, etc.
Delegating votes to specific people is available through data feeds.
Delegating votes to “the mainstream” would be possible with frequency voting, which unfortunately isn’t on the agenda.