Wall Observer - NuShares price movement tracking & discussion

[cryptog]

My understanding is that there is no correlation between nubit and nushare.
Both instruments are independent from each other.
It makes the design very simple and full of possibilities.

[Gilbert]

Seeking a verifiable mathematical basis for nbt and nsr.
The total value of all nbt in dollars. The total value of nsr. The financial consequences of burn. The actual effect of interest. The amount of the applied Nubits. All this currently as a live calculation.
You could present it with a bar chart. A live bar chart. No matter how. In any case, the functionality of the system must be represented.
We’re talking about how gardeners who talk about cloud formations and when the best time is to sow.
I need visible numbers.

[Nagalim]

The burn motion makes a correlation, in addition to public perspective and shareholder/custodian liquidity. The correlation between nsr price and nbt peg support is very real. I’m asking that we realize this and use it to our advantage.

[cryptog]

Sorry for being unclear. I feel you are trying to create an automatic mechanism to create or destroy nbt/nsr depending on the price of nsr/nbt a la bitshares but also feel that it is not something that is in the DNA of Nu. Therefore it would be very difficult to pass a potential motion that tries to introduce such a mechanism.
Please correct me if my interpretation is wrong.

[Nagalim]

Semiautomatic, driven by custodians. I am saying the burn motion already put this mechanism in place, but it did it clumsily and will guarantee that any burn comes at the cost of Nu profitability. I’m saying we need to revisit the burn motion. If we think it’s not in the Nu DNA, fine, but then we need to revoke the burn motion. If we decide it is in the Nu DNA, I just want recognition that the burn motion is not in its final form in the same way that having ktm run all liquidity operations was not the final form of liquidity operations; a more decentralized and continuous approach where risk and profit is shared across many custodians is necessary.
I believe it is in the Nu DNA because liquidity providers and shareholders are often the same people, so NSR price and NBT support are already inextricably linked. Not to mention they have the same branding and developers.

NSR price under $0.001852, how is this even possible?

Both instruments are independent from each other.

I believe that statement is wrong on an economic level, though that can be debated. With the burn motion, however, codependency of the two Nu units is a fact.

[JordanLee]

NSR price under $0.001852, how is this even possible?

I just want recognition that the burn motion is not in its final form in the same way that having ktm run all liquidity operations was not the final form of liquidity operations; a more decentralized and continuous approach where risk and profit is shared across many custodians is necessary.

I share the perspective that what has been passed by motion is not the final form. There was a great deal of discussion about the best way to make this work some months ago. Every other solution that was proposed had significant drawbacks. The very simple solution of just permitting NSR auctions is easy to implement, low risk, very flexible, though not as automated as most other solutions. After we use it a bit I think we will understand the network’s needs better and can add layers of functionality on top of the flexible base we have constructed.

[Nagalim]

Thank you for the response.
Would you vote for a motion that enabled anyone in a NuPool to burn nbt to nsr at a rate 10x the coinmarketcap price with volume up to the amount of compensation they have received for liquidity services?

[creon]

The burning motion surely created a final link between NSR and NBT, its not that NBT is backed by NSR are shareholders are able to use NSR capital to support the NBT peg.

I still don’t think that motions are the right tool for that though. Why don’t we let people apply for parking using motions? I see no reason why parking was designed in this intrinsic way while burning was not.

So I think burning can be implemented on the blockchain just as parking. Shareholders vote for a certain amount of NSR or NBT that may be burned in exchange for a specific amount of NBT or NSR respectively. Anyone, Nu related or not and registered on this forum or not, can take this offer at any time in the client and the whole operation doesn’t even require any trust.

To make me feel super happy I would also change the compensation for parking to NSR but this is another topic.

[Nagalim]

a million likes here.

[GreatScott]

You mean NBT burned for NSR, right?

[creon]

Right … I mean we allow for both, don’t we?

EDIT: Clarified that, thanks.

[Nagalim]

Cause currently there is the pathway of the Malicious Shareholder:
buy a bunch of NSR, manipulate park and burn rates, burn for NBT, park NBT. After shit hits the fan or doesn’t, whatever, you sell your NBT and crush Nu walking away with the profits.

[GreatScott]

I wouldn’t vote for inflating NuBits to buy NuShares under any circumstances. Any buy back would need to originate from excess BTC or USD a custodian generates.

[creon]

I still think a share buy back can make sense if shareholders rather prefer a larger expected future dividend (by increasing their relative share) instead of increasing the current dividend.

NSR price under $0.001852, how is this even possible?

buy a bunch of NSR, manipulate park and burn rates, burn for NBT, park NBT.

The weighted median should avoid this manipulation attempt as long as the attacker doesn’t acquire a really large fraction of all NSR (which is certainly not possible on the open market currently). But I agree that some analysis on that would be good.

[cryptog]

NSR price under $0.001852, how is this even possible?

With the burn motion, however, codependency of the two Nu units is a fact.

Right but you need to burn which would be done at specific times
My point is that nubits price is not a simple, known mathematical function of nushare price, as it seems we can find with bitshare/bitusd, imho, at least right now.
But maybe in the future it could change and if it is in the interest of Nu, i would support personaly such a change.
This is only my interpretation.

[GreatScott]

NSR price under $0.001852, how is this even possible?

I still think a share buy back can make sense if shareholders rather prefer a larger expected future dividend (by increasing their relative share) instead of increasing the current dividend.

I don’t support dividends either, if the funding source of them is NuBit inflation.

[creon]

Wait but what exactly should happen to the revenue if NBT now becomes the world wide number 1 currency? I mean someone has to sell each one of these NBT. So in the case of a successful adoption, there is an urgent need to inflate NBT. Somehow this revenue needs to flow back to the shareholders.

[GreatScott]

You are right. Perhaps I am focusing more on supporting the peg than restricting the peg. In the event there aren’t any NuBits for sale, it is indeed a call for some hefty inflation and the profits ought to be returned to us somehow.

[creon]

It would be the same situation as we are in right now, just the opposite direction: The sell side liquidity would be almost wiped out and the buy side liquidity would be extremely large.

Now as a merchant this is surely not nice, because I am offering my goods for 1 NBT = 1 USD and my customers need to pay 1.10 USD or something to get NBT because the peg is broken in this direction.

So while it feels better for shareholders, the emergency to act would be the same.

[desrever]

NSR price under $0.001852, how is this even possible?

in the case of a successful adoption, there is an urgent need to inflate NBT.

I believe that this is why this motion passed quickly and we are sitting on a strategic reserve so we never find ourselves in the situation you are depicting, with no NBT on sell