It’s not that I haven’t propsed an extraordinary NSR sale recently (in addition to the sale based on “Core and Standard”).
Unfortunately I’m busy with fighting your strange accusations, otherwise I’d have already organized making a new FLOT NSR address.
But I will do that soon and draft an NSR grant.
Unless you beat me by bringing the FLOT NSR pubkeys in a different order so that our privkeys still work, while the multisig address will be different (the current NSR FLOT address can’t be used for grants again).
Will you finally start supporting it, or are you busy with slinging mud?
Or why don’t you just make a grant with a singlesig address you control?
…like in the good old times…
I mean, shuffling the NSR FLOT privkeys is not more effort, but…
…I leave it to the readers to come to their own conclusion.
Its clear reserves should be higher than they were. Steps are being taken to raise reserve goals through motions. I didn’t author the current regulations on reserve levels but I admit I didn’t steer them higher.
However, I am absolutely certain low reserves did not break the peg. Setting asymmetrical offsets did. We had plenty of capacity waiting in tier 5 and tier 6, but your asymmetrical offsets broke those tiers. That is the problem here. Remember, this is a liquidity engine, not a reserve based model. Our goal should be zero reserves, after the liquidity engine is robust enough. The health of the liquidity engine is what is of paramount importance, not the size of our reserves. Our liquidity engine was broken by those that set asymmetrical offsets. Fixing the liquidity engine must be our first priority.
We have been discussing plans to restore the peg to 1% spread from 5% spread. The idea is gradually tightening it with current T4 fund and NSR dilution fund as BTC buy pressure receeds. It is also
Thank you for your continued propaganda and false beliefs.
Low reserves were the reason the buyside offset had to be increased.
Will you eventually answer the question I asked so often, but am not aware or an answer:
what would have happened to the peg once the last BTC had been gone?
Tell us!
Better or worse than $0.95?
I provided data about how fast BTC were traded in the tight spread operations (ALP, NuLagoon Tube, @Cybnate’s PyBot, @zoro’s NuBot before he increased the buyside offset following a FLOT request) and that this couldn’t have been sustained for long.
You say you are certain. No more data. Strong argument!
You are not acting credibly. You are wasting our time. Once I find time I’m going to care for what you could as well, but you are busy with making pawn sacrifices.
Just in case you want to help; one more time:
alternate the order of FLOT NSR pubkeys and make an NSR grant. The remaining NSR won’t lasr long
make a proposal for a NuBot operation at Poloniex, that runs at a tight spread (each side <0.5% offset) and doesn’t use parametric order book
Otherwise I will create the NSR grant and make a proposal for a NuBot with these parameters.
I don’t give up Nu easily, no matter how hard you fight to plummet the NSR rate.
Some here are asking why I didn’t raise a stink like this before, while others are condemning me for being this direct at all. I have been carefully pointing out how tier 4, 5 and 6 were being under utilised all along. In others words, don’t drop the peg, use tier 4, 5 and 6. I did so quite politely. So I have been trying to right the ship all along, but I have been critised for not doing it forcefully enough.
The polite approach didn’t work so I am trying something more direct.
What people need to realise here is that a reserve based model won’t scale and is subject to counterparty risk. It just won’t work. Our model is a liquidity engine. We have reserves at this point in our history, and we should have more at this point. But if you try to solve this problem from the perspective of keeping reserves or building them up, I don’t think it will work. You have to focus on the functioning of the liquidity engine, which has recently been broken.
The friction of T5 and T6 is too high to serve T4-T1 fast enough.
You really have only a clue about liquidity provision in theory, but not in practice, do you?
But I appreciate the tone of your last post. So much less of an agressor. Will that be the next attempt: make me the reason for the rough tone as welk as the reason for the weakened peg.
Oh yes, I say weakened.
The peg in NBT/USD was fine all the time.
It was the synthetic peg in the NBT/BTC that followed economic principles by some degree - supply and demand, you know? - to support what was left of the peg.
@JordanLee, might we please have a report of the BCE development funds - addresses, balances, stuff like that.
I just want to make sure I make a grievous mistake considering some of them might have been dumped into NuLagoon.
As you already made a call for slaughtering me, you can very well put that on the list if accusations: asking for a report in an inappropriate way.
I could have held back with the reasoning, but I wouldn’t know why.
I have been quite inactive but i’d like to offer my two cents.
If T5 and T6 friction is too high, the problem that needs to be fixed is that friction.
The idea of “reserves” don’t matter. The answer to “what would happen if we ran out of reserves” is sell NSR at whatever price. The price of NSR does not matter either. The whole idea hinges on the network as a whole will rise up to liquidity challenges and those that rise up will be rewarded for their efforts.
It makes it very hard to rise up and defend the peg when there is no peg to defend. No 0.95 is not “the peg”. If i feel this way as a very early member, i can only imagine what newcomers must think that haven’t observed this whole time and have no ties whatsoever to Nu. This is a huge huge huge hit. One that may never be recovered…
I have many questions. I’m tired from today’s personal activities, so I apologise if I’ve confused something.
Park Rates cannot be effective unless customers believe they will be able to cash out without losing their profits into a wide spread. Do you agree?
Do you want nothing or part of liquidity at tight(er) spread?
I understand you want funds supporting a degraded peg? Why? For marketing basically? For revenue from those who find it worth the premium to exit NuBits (similar to RNA?)?
Customers will in worst scenario have to wait for NuShare sales to fill their order in any of these cases. This is unavoidable if liquidity runs out, which many but not all assume it will.
The only reason not to do that is if we weren’t prepared to turn on the NSR sales quickly. We have to be prepared to refill tier 4 quickly with NSR sales. FLOT, can you help us there and tell us what you are prepared to do?
An intermittent peg is better than none at all. But I don’t accept that we will have to have an intermittent peg at this point. We might just be able to keep continuous liquidity up.
To me, the biggest key is we have to convince NuBit holders that we will defend the peg with everything we have, forever, from this moment. NuShare holders must take the hit. That is what we said we would do.
I was afraid you’d do that instead of spending 30 seconds to create a new FLOT NSR address, like I proposed.
That’s why made it my top priority, even more important that fighting all these accusations.
I’m a strong proponent of NSR sales to support the peg. That’s why I fought fiercely against all motions that try to limit it.
Can you please tell me why you prefer accusing me to, keeping me busy fighting accusations instead of doing what’s necessary?
How long will you wait until you propose a motion to operate NuBot on Poloniex at a tight spread?
Want me to do that as well, as always reliable, and cheap or for free?
It’s good to have “incompetent” idiots like me that keep this thing running, only because they believe it can do good.
Beat me to this NuBot motion. Do it!