When everyone agrees that the ‘advertising’ time is over…
The parametric order book is instrumental in order to maintain low friction for end-users (low amounts) and higher frictions for hedging traders.
With the high offsets from the traders we could possibly fund services like those from Shaun. Too high offsets will shy away traders, so there will need to be a supply and demand factor added. Not sure how that exactly looks like yet, but something like an automatically adjusted parametric orderbook based on NBT demand.
There are some tough and non-popular choices to be made here as I’m aware many Shareholders are also traders and making some good money out of hedging.
From my observation when there are major price movements, volume happens in a few major trades (several to tens thousands USD per trade). That suggests Nu is mostly making a few sharp traders rich. If this is true, Nu can still attract these traders with wider spreads because these traders are making profit above 20% per trade. I might be overlooking the smaller traders who are sensitive to spread but serve to provide liquidity in the system when Nu LPs are providing liquidity with a wide spread.
From where we are, I think our strategy should be
provide parametric order book in NBTBTC market so that the small traders get smaller spread and the whales get bigger spread which they can live with.
provide tight spreads in NBT/FIAT markets to allow users to buy NBT with fiat at very close to $1. In order to reduce exchange risk distributed NBT-Fiat exchanges should get support.
I support your strategy as good as I can, because I came to a similar assessment regarding NBTBTC.
The NBT/fiat markets with a tighter spread are very important, but are harder to supply with funds due to KYC and AML requirements.
Distributed NBT/fiat exchanges could help big time here.
I disagree. While I don’t think we should be paying for documentation work (yet) I wouldn’t fight tooth and nail to derail such a venture. In fact, I offered some advice earlier in this thread that would have made me personally feel better about the process. My disagreement here (as in, the bullet that was dodged) relates to the person at the center of the motion. I don’t think it was worth putting them in charge of documentation. Their quick reversal is the end cap on that decision. I’m not going to spend much more time on this subject but I’ll add some bits of context for my reasoning.
They are very, very new. Most of the time they would have spent on documentation would have probably been billing for simply learning basic stuff about the project. Even the whitepaper is very technical in nature. I doubt they would have been able to produce much compared to the amount of time it would have taken to get up to speed with the developments. Why not encourage people who have been here for a long time that have all the background knowledge to start writing down documentation instead of charging us for them to learn? Contrast this to how other custodial grants have been delivered. @Cybnate has been managing projects for Peercoin for a long time. She had a history of results in project management and was a member of the community from the start. It was a no brainer to give her a grant for NuDroid. Consider how @willy put together ALIX and Coinerella prior to asking for money on continued developments. Not to mention the other services he has provided. Even @jgeewax showed up recently and spent a lot of time asking questions to learn more about the network (and even contributing some code and ideas. If he requested a grant to actually write down the things he learned that would be a totally different situation.
@CoinaDay showed up looking for a paycheck to learn about the network without any history of interest in the network. Now normally that’s not a big problem. If someone wants to provide a service to the network and just shows up for a grant in request of that service in a lot of cases that would be acceptable. For documentation though? Documentation is hard. That’s why you rarely see good documentation. Writing good documentation is the process of having a deep and wide scope of understanding for a subject and expressing it in a way so that people who have no experience can understand it. We were about to put someone who just walked through the door in charge of creating documentation for us and billing us? If we’re going to make documentation a big deal lets pay people who have been here to write down what they know instead of paying someone to learn about the network. Or maybe expect that this person go through a documentation trial. Produce some samples of what you’ll do for us.
So outside questioning their resilience to criticism and following through on their own words I think the situation as a whole would have not ended with whatever happy ending you were expecting. It’s better that this relationship suffered a quick execution than slowly rotting away in the sun. If I have to take blame for pulling the trigger i’m okay with that. We ended up on the right side of the bullet, In my opinion anyway.
I tend to agree that it’s better (for Nu and CoinaDay!) this relationship was ended, but have a hard time to find the way acceptable.
I could have lived with
"Hey CoinaDay, this documentation task is nothing I/we expect to produce good results. Why not focus on the NBT/fiat gateway instead?"
That would have been honest, fair and helpful - for Nu and CoinaDay.
In the last version of the motion regarding documentation CoinaDay would have provided service upfront. Not paying him afterwards would have been horrible for him and for Nu.
I have a bigger problem with the tone than the result.
You are aware that the design, the code, the forum is open and available to anybody.
If somebody wants to create competing services, a few bucks for documentation work wouldn’t make the difference.
Nu shied away a person who
would have liked to provide services like programming and documentation
was not concerned about anonymity
already has some experience with cryptocurrencies
because of being afraid of fostering competing services?
This is ridiculous and I fear you might not understand that you can’t limit the effect of such a behaviour to the target you aimed at; I fear for collateral damage…
As I said before it was never my intention for things to happen this way. Other than this specific motion not passing i’m not happy with it either.
I already said it was a joke. Nu did not run anyone off. I made one comment in jest and that person decided to hit the abort button on everything. At face value I would say the response is as ridiculous as the joke I made. I think there’s more to it than that but we’ll never know for sure.
I’m not going to worry or focus on “what could have been”. Time is better spent in other areas, so i’m going to move onto those things.
Right, let’s move on.
You already said it was a joke. You being happy with parts of the outcome doesn’t change the intention.
I’m just unhappy this escalated the way it did.
And I fear that newcomers sometimes don’t find it always easy to find a place in this community - although this community could be happy about having some more members.
To be fair for CoinaDay, he was mostly polite and considerate. But it would have taken a massive amount of self-censorship to prevent the incident from happening; JL gave him a personal embracing welcome, and CoinGame even offered constructive suggestions despite his then-secret objections to the project. It would have been unreasonable and unfair to the community to demand better.
I once had a junior colleague who was English major and had taken 3 months programming class before becoming an intern then a developer/document engineer. She turned out to be one of the best document engineers we had for the 400 man-year project.