It is obvious that the network has chosen a different liquidity model than what I have advocated. That can be healthy, as others in our network will have their own insights and our open governance model facilitates those insights becoming part of liquidity operations. We have had extensive debates over liquidity models over the last 20 months. There isn’t a compelling reason to revisit those debates right now.
However, I would like to ask the community why they have they have allowed liquidity to be severely impaired while only partially utilising tier 5 and 6. Park rates have risen less than 10% over the last several days (from around 25% for three months to 27%). The market has clearly indicated rates being offered are not high enough. As an aside, shareholders have chosen in recent weeks to not offer park rates when passed motions underlying the NSR buyback calculations clearly suggested shareholders should offer park rates. So, my question to the community is: Is the partial utilisation of park rates intentional, and does it serve a purpose? It doesn’t seem like optimal behavior.
Large orders for NSR have remained unfilled for about a week now. This demonstrates tier 6 has also only been partially utilised. Once again, I will ask: Is this intentional, and if so, what purpose does it serve? It doesn’t seem like optimal behavior to me.
The NuBit network has offered reduced liquidity three times: in February 2015, March 2016 and over the last week. Each time NuShare holders have been severely punished for it by the market. I have made very loud pleas for our network to understand the critical importance of high quality liquidity in recent weeks. Each day that liquidity is impaired alienates and erodes our customer base.
Why have shareholders and their representatives chosen to impair liquidity while only partially utilising park rates and NSR sales?