I would very much like to always offer BTC at a tight spread.
For that reason we are working on improving the USD stability of reserves:
But the truth is: the buyside support by T4-T6 has limits. We are close to them.
Have T4 empty and see the peg fail completely.
It’s up to you, shareholders.
Ignore the experience from the operations that are at a tight peg (empty buyside on ALP, NuLagoon Tube, PyBot, 2% buyside offset NuBot) and throw the rest in the hands of those who bet on rising BTC.
Leave Nu with empty hands and NO way to support the peg.
Even if Nu could buy NBT at $0.10 in that case, it wouldn’t have BTC left.
The only thing that can save Nu now, is leaving a rest of confidence in the peg and a nosediving BTC.
One of these things is in the hands of Nu.
The other isn’t.
Your draft is full of emotion. That’s why I felt it proper to respond in a similar way.
Where are the facts that support your theory? I have provided facts that underline my position. I will provide more, if necessary.
NSR sales have been successful in the past. The decline of NSR since May 27th is more the result of abandoning the peg than of selling NSR. When we sold NSR before we did not see this type of decline, because we were providing high liquidity and demonstrated a high commitment to the peg.
With 2.4 million we dropped the price to below 300 Satoshis.
The decline looks rather directly related to the sale. The rate is stable since the last sale was ended.
Wanna make a bet what the next sale does to the NSR rate?
You can’t demonstrate commitment to the peg, if you are out of BTC.
The only reason we’re not out of the BTC is, because the buyside offset was increased.
Can you do me a favour and put this draft up for voting?
It’s absolutely great like it is.
It gives the shareholders the chance to answer the question:
do they rather want to have a weak peg support that can be continued, or a good peg support, that ends abruptly, once the BTC are empty.
I can’t answer that on behalf of them and only do, because I think it’s right.
It’s the shareholders corporation. They need to decide, which road to take.
How fast the remaining BTC will be gone can be seen, if you have a look at ALP, NuLagoon Tube, @Cybnate’S PyBot, or my NuBot, that ran at 2% buyisde offset.
Once the BTC are gone, there will be no buyside support, except for the arbitragers, who do that because of self-interest and to make money. I’m not blaming them for doing that. All I’m saying is, that they have no incentive to keep the peg tight.
Then we should start a grant for NSR. The remaining millions will be gone soon, if they are to be dumped on the market to follow the dream of an everlasting tight peg.
This dream will end sooner than you think.
But maybe a BTC nosedive comes first. Who knows.
It is apparent that more liquidity is needed, either in the form of reserves or funds like that held by NuLagoon, which are not strictly reserves but behave like them in many ways. That is a separate issue.
If T4-T6 aren’t strong enough to keep a tight peg, the logical consequence is to widen it.
We can try selling more NSR, although shareholders explicitly approved “Standard and Core” motion, upon which the NSR sale is being calculated.
How will you support T1, if not from higher tiers?
Where will you get the support from, if you are the limit of what the higher tiers can do?
Why don’t shareholders make an NSR grant to extraordinarily sell NSR? This can of course be done in addition to “Standard and Core” if it’s their explicit will.
Why don’t shareholders raise the park rates even higher? They don’t need data feed providers to do that.
You need to first increase the reserve, before you can allow the low tiers run empty.
Or do you rather want to have the buyside emptied only to find out that nobody wants to buy NSR?
they re gone. There will be a time of no buyside support - until BTC can be retrieved from either selling NSR or selling NBT (from people who want to park them at x% per year (x is a big number in this case…)).
Getting the reserve low was a mistake.
Making it empty would be an even bigger mistake.
I want to know what the idea is for how things should go down with all liquidity pushed into tight spreads. FLOT is pledged to obey, but with a lack of understanding for how the peg will function without any funds has made us hesitant to use them (at least as I view it). Perhaps our discretion has been misused, but I haven’t seen much shareholder outcry other than yours, and I feel like we could have been guided in a better way than this aggressive approach, but whatever gets us where we need to be is fine with me.
I consider the peg already broken with wide spreads. The white paper (or elsewhere) says peg failure is straight to zero, not as what has occurred with wider spreads.
Selling NuShares takes time, and I think some believe peg support will fail before they’re sold and proceeds are put on the wall.
Working with a degraded/broken peg was presumably chosen to buy us time for discussion and potential other measures.
Is it accurate to say that you want FLOT and Nu to:
Push all remaining FLOT funds into buy side at tight spread.
Set appropriate Park Rates and advertise them to have people buy NuBits.
Sell NuShares and push proceeds into buy side at tight spread.
Consequences that may result are that peg will look worse, and …?
I’ve expressed that I don’t see any other way than NuShare sales to get us out of this, and my uncertainty of pushing all FLOT funds into the wall is about the value of peg perception against providing actual liquidity.
We need to provide liquidity eventually (and before faith in Nu is lost). A reason to delay providing that liquidity is believing there’s a better way. We’ve taken time to think. Is there a better way?
One last message for now:
it wouldn’t have been necessary to insult people like @zoro and me as incompetent for keeping the peg on a degraded, but reliable level.
Why not just forcing a tight spread by motion?
Would have appreciated that instead of being called incompetent when doing all I can to support the peg as good as possible given the circumstances after the reserves were torn down to the level that’s the reason for the increased buyside offset.
Park rates were working to stimulate NuBit demand until the last 10 days. We have increased the risk of parking a great deal by abandoning the peg. It is the abandonment of the peg that is impairing the usefulness of tier 5 and tier 6.
Jordan thinks parking has been impaired by the higher spread, but then there is the other issue that I have been mentioning. How many people here have been advertising park rates using the single park period percentages, rather than the much larger APR?..
While it is impossible to understand the motives of each buyer and seller in the market, my guess is that the choice to offer low liquidity has knocked 40% off the NuShare market cap. Any action that results in destroying 40% of the market cap when there are alternatives that wouldn’t do that is indeed incompetent and cannot be tolerated.
Shareholders will decide. They may side with you. I felt it was necessary to articulate the reasons for the situation we are in and the proper solutions as I see it.
I was actually considering using my Peercoin stash to park NuBits, but then I questioned why I would do it if when it came time to unpark I couldn’t sell my NuBits back for what I paid for them because the buy side wall still wasn’t back to normal. This is why I haven’t parked so far. I would end up forfeiting any interest I made when selling back the NuBits. Could others be thinking the same exact thing? That would validate what you say here about the current buy side impairing parking.
Edit: I don’t mean the total Bitcoin on the buy side, but the lowered price per NuBit sold I will receive back.
For example, if I sold $5k worth of Peercoin to buy NuBits and park them, I would need to be sure that when it came time to unpark and sell my NuBits, that I could receive back the normal amount and not at a reduced price per NuBit like $0.95 cents. Whatever interest I made on parking would be forfeited through the reduced NuBit price. It would therefore be too risky to park.