About tier 5, all I can say is what I’ve said before, that I was recently planning on parking NuBits, but decided against it because I’d most likely lose money trying to cash back out at $0.95 cents. I’m sure there are others like me. @Dhume thinks that tier 5 may just not be attractive in a BTC bull run. I personally would have rather parked than put my money in Bitcoin. I have no idea when the bull run will end and could end up losing money because of not timing it right. With parking, at least I know I’m going to get a specific amount of NuBits back as long as the peg is being tightly held.
Perhaps more people were not parking when we did have a tight spread because:
We didn’t advertise the right numbers. (Park periods vs APR)
We didn’t raise rates high enough to be attractive.
We didn’t market the rates to a large enough number of people who might have been interested.
If we go the tight peg and NuShare sale route, we’ll have to do all 3 to get people to park, maybe even advertise rates on a Coinmarketcap ad somehow.
You miss the point. Park rates didn’t work when the peg was perfectly fine.
Once again you try to inverse cause and effect.
Read it again: the buyside offset were increased, because park rates didn’t work, the NBT demand stayed low and the reserve ran dry.
Remind me: how many NBT were parked, that belong to BCE development funds? Subtract them from the parked total.
I’m confident that you make a witch hunt, because people like me stepped in your way (e.g. when I reduced support for your 1% spread motion), when you wanted to continue just as you please.
Your lack of economical understanding, why the offset of a synthetic peg can and should be variable and follow the rules of supply and demand to some degree speaks volumes.
Infalliable Jordan has spoken, follow his lead, just like with the buybacks. @JordanLee, how many NSR did you cash out during the buybacks? Enough to buy NBT to crash the buyside and still buy cheap NSR afterwards?
Would that give you the power back that decentralized bodies like FLOT took from you?
Oh, I know, it was your idea to form FLOT. You only have teh best in your mind for Nu.
The only reason there’s no bank run, which I can think of, is that this all was planned with precision.
Why didn’t you tell me that this is oh so bad when I wrote you that in January?
You didn’t read it I suppose.
You didn’t follow the discussion in the forum regarding offset.
Or maybe you did and only waited until you could put the blame on me?
Yah, burn me alive.
Let Jordan rule. He knows all and all of it better. @Jordan, it would be nice, if you made some research, before you approach me next time via PM regarding NuSafe, asking silly things, not knowing anything about how it works.
I’m so glad that you are the one who saves liqudity provision from incompetent providers like me.
You lose money cashing out NBT at $0.95 now as well. With parking you make interest and the peg might be more tight, when the NBT unpark.
But maybe Nu is bankrupt when your NBT unpark - who knows?
The $0.95 is an emergency solution. It’s not the permanent level - if Nu can sustain a better peg, it will be above $0.95.
This is no time to invent new models. We have carefully crafted a model over two and half years. Adjustments can make sense, like deciding to increase the reserve (this doesn’t change the model), but this is a time to stick to the plan. We need our model the most when we are in trouble. @masterOfDisaster and other have attempted to employ a poorly articulated and poorly thought out model. It won’t work, can’t work and hasn’t worked. Their straying from the model has really hurt us badly. I am being very active because it has become obvious there is not that much understanding of the model I invented, even among liquidity providers.
So I am speaking about that model now to excess. Because it must be understood. Some people are acting like I am saying new things or that I didn’t speak up earlier. Neither of these claims are true in the least. You might say I was more polite a week ago (and now I am receiving a lot criticism for not being polite), but my message has been the same. When liquidity providers lowered their buy price I had a new and active motion to mandate spreads at a maximum of 1%. Does this not clearly indicate I oppose the action of voluntarily dropping the price to 0.95? That action would be prohibited if my motion passed, and for good reason. By the way, I haven’t given up on that motion passing and I still endorse the motion mandating a maximum 1% spread. I started an entire thread earlier that admonished shareholders to make better use of tier 5 and 6, showing that they were being under-utilised. Of course, I have argued that tier 4 is being under-utlised as well. We need to repair the damage done to our liquidity engine and rev it up full throttle.
Once again, I will remind everyone that the system I have designed is intended to reward shareholders for providing excellent liquidity and punish them when liquidity is reduced. The empirical evidence is now very clear that this works as designed. Three times shareholders have dropped liquidity (twice when they very much had other options) and each time shareholders have been sorely punished. Sometimes I think shareholders are like a stubborn 2 year that refuses to learn to not touch the oven after repeated burnings. Have shareholders had enough of getting burned? Have you learned yet that there is a strong causal relationship between liquidity quality and NuShare price. Stop touching the oven!
What we have in our network is a liquidity engine. Ours is not a reserve model. Reserves are there just while the system is immature. I have never heard of anything like a liquidity engine before. It is a novel design made possible by crypto. What I keep telling people here is that it must be used. If you leave it off, it doesn’t work. Liquidity providers, above all, must understand the architecture of our liquidity engine in order to function properly in that role. If they don’t understand it, they shouldn’t be liquidity providers.
Double or triple the APR for up to 3 months, if you want to have a slight chance to get demand for NBT increased.
It would be good to make sure, that BCE development funds aren’t allowed for parking; they are effectively not in circulation.
But how to do that?
Via BCE motion?
Even if all BCE funds get parked - it will be cheaper, if that helps than trying to sell an equivalent USD value of NSR in this illiquid market.
I’ve made up the 50% to 75% APR based on my gut feeling; maybe that’s still to low.
With park rates I really have no experience and I admit it - opposed to liquidity provision on T1-T4
Figure out appropriate Park Rates and vote for them. Very important! We need them to function. Discuss!
Create and publish unified attractive advertisement of Park Rates. If required, pass a motion making FLOT pay for the work with remaining Bitcoin funds assuming they haven’t been spent, or pass a grant if sufficient. It may not need to be that fancy, but I’d rather it be worked on by everyone before publishing.
Set <=1% spread because Park Rates won’t make sense for customers to utilise otherwise.
Sell NuShares via auction and on exchange. @FLOTNSR
I don’t comment other than: may the liquidity be with you!
…you incompetent piece of an architect.
You once were different. Once I thought I could believe in you.
Speak out as many models as you wish and implement them youself!
The origin of this problem stems from the NSR buyback program. Why the hell this program was permitted in the first place is still beyond me. Blaming master of Disaster for these problems is Despicable.
All I know about engines is that they need gas/fuel to run. Taking the analogy one step further the fuel is $$$ -> BTC. And Nu is all tapped out of that. I’ve got my skin in the game. So unless someone with big pockets comes along or the hill shifts so we can kick start then engine down the hill, we’re stuck.
We all need to stop whining. If we want to solve this problem as shareholders and we need to step up to the plate and all purchase NBT and park them. We need to park them for years. This is the only way to solve the liquidity crisis.
Do you know what I’ve found in my mailbox? Another conversation with Jordan reporting about liquidity operations, including buyside offset. Not a single word from him regarding it. @JordanLee, is it ok, if I copy some of your conversations here?
You try so hard to make me look like a fool, I might even forget my courtesy and post without asking.
But I’m different
Might I just quote your response with my own words?
"I’m impressed by you"
Damn. That were your words. I hope you take no offence in having that single sentence quoted as reply to what I wrote.
What I sent you included:
When you speak with someone, and the topic touches on points of disagreement, do you always make a point of your disagreements? People deal with the business at hand and push their disagreements aside.
I agreed to put in $1,000 into NBT over the next two weeks on these conditions:
number one the buyback program is never reinstated. It’s a terrible idea to begin with. We are not following in the footsteps of Wall Street and the current stock buyback program. These circumstances and scenarios are different
Number 2 at least 25 shareholders or the equivalent of $25,000 can be purposed to his cause
Number three Master of Disaster is not held culpable for the situation and Focus energy into the future and learning from this lesson
