First of all, there are no 2 year old’s that get burned repeatedly, they’re curious and it only takes them one time to learn. The notion that it is the fault of the owners of NuShares because they ‘have dropped liquidity’ is scary. I guess that means they should have forked over more BTC to support the buy side? As one of those 2 year old’s you seem to be referring to, I’m not going to get burned again.
The obvious issue here is that Nu is a tiny little boat that is driven up and down by BTC. It has an inverse relationship with BTC, and it gets eaten alive by traders, because it’s method forces it’s system to buy BTC when everyone else thinks it’s a good idea to sell, and sells BTC when everyone else thinks it’s a good idea to buy, all while not profiting off of the transactions.
It’s a damn dangerous game to play against BTC. BTC will rule the world. Nu was doomed ever since the initial plan to have only NBT/USD trading pairs failed.
@JordanLee, is my above post correct? You said you wanted us to understand your model. Is my understanding correct? I just can’t see a zero reserve model working without high amounts of transaction fees. In the reserve model we are using right now, the reserve itself is used to provide liquidity, but in the zero reserve model we are printing NuBits in order to incentivize people to provide liquidity. The only way that can be sustainable in the long-term is if the number of NuBits we print to incentivize liquidity operations is equal to the number of NuBits burned through transaction fees from users of the network. If more NuBits are burned through fees than the amount it costs to pay LPCs, then the network should have profit. We can’t use this model in our immature state though because there aren’t enough fees to sustain paying out that many NuBits to LPCs. An answer to the above would be appreciated, as I can’t be sure I understand the model without your response.
@masterOfDisaster, when game theory involved, the basic accounting is not everything, as long as the free market believe Nu has the value above 400,000USD, they will buy NSR. Anyone selling NBT @ 0.8$ will regret when Nu survide. I admit this is dangerous game, Nu maybe survive and maybe dead, good luck Nu!
Would you find the current park rates were attractive if at random times, once a day the peg were at 0.99 and the rest of the time there was no peg? Would you be confident that when your park time was up you’d be able to sell when the peg was in force? Or would you be worried you could end up losing money because of not timing it right? That is what Jordan is proposing.
If raising rates were sufficent, and if nu shareholders had raised rates high enough to be attractive, the FLOT wouldn’t have run low on reserves in the first place.
When was the idea of widening the spread above 1% SAF to keep the (degraded) peg validated? I remember seeing your post about it. When was it? What feedback did you get?
Was the spread widened above 1% SAF at this time on your gateways?
When was the spread widened above 1% SAF after April on your gateways? When was it first reported in the forum?
Excellent Idea, I encourage other shareholders to do the same. Nu has held a 95% weakened page for 10 days now, if people believe that they can buy Nubits for under a dollar, sell them for 95 cents and earn enough interest to make up for that loss and provide them some profit, there is a chance they will. We should encourage parking for a long enough timeframe to have worked our way out of the immediate crisis (1.5 to 3 months)
High rates are only a problem if there is still a crises when the park time is up. High rates at a very short duration (days to a few weeks) will probably make the situation worse, high rates for park periods of several months have a good chance of helping.
I agree - High rates lead to inflation - which leads to more coins on the market Nu has to account for in the long run. However, if the liquidity comes back we will be in a better situation in the future.
Up front members should park now at “reasonable” rates to help save Nu. But to draw more liquidity from outside we need a carrot.
I must admit – the peg is currently broken and I would not use NBT for payment settlement nor for parking, as long as I know that US-NBT does not tether very closely (-+1%) the USD.
I am willing to give it a try to this motion, for lack of an alternative.
Will add this to my data feed
I wouldn’t either. So if you wouldn’t, and I wouldn’t, why do we think anyone else would? But this is what Jordan is proposing with his motion. Here is what he says earlier in this thread:
Yes, and I don’t see how the pattern of speculators all trying to sell as quickly as possible in the rare minutes the peg is in force is going to give people confidence that if they do lock up their funds by parking them that when they unpark they will somehow be able to get in front of the speculators (who didn’t lock up their funds and are always fully liquid).
The last sentence you quote reinforces my original point. Jordan says “This means we can keep the peg a greater percentage of the time.” Would you (or anyone else) be confident that when your park time was up you’d be able to sell in the percentage of the time when the peg was in force? Because if not, this isn’t a plan that will kickstart tier 5 (park rates)
The motion body is mostly a tirade, but it says “Jordan Lee may appoint and compensate successors to the fired liquidity providers” Which I take to mean he will appoint people who agree with his vision. It also says “Tier 4 funds should be offered at a tight spread, even in the most heated crisis. If anything, tighter spreads can help increase NuBit demand when NuBit demand is low.”
The post I quoted is Jordan explaining what he expects will happen if the motion passes.
1 The speculators are the natural floatation force to sell at a high price, hence helping the buy side to get higher. They usually have bots 7/24. As long as there is chance to see <1% spread, there is business. So our job is keep giving the chance.
2 When BTc starts to fall or just stops having its upward momentum, people start to think of buying nubits or postponing selling if they know there exists chance to sell at $1 later. There will be increased chance (“a greater percentage of the time”) the peg is maintained.
3 Once the percentage is 100% or can be offsetted by park rate reliablly, T5 kicks in.
It seems to me that Jordan is not going to change anything in the motion. While I don’t like firing anyone and don’t think it’s necessary in this case, it can always be temporary as shareholders can hire them back in the future.
My main concern now is that we’re running out of time to act. I was persuaded by Jordan’s plan in the post linked below and I’m choosing to put my hopes in the possibility that he truly knows what he’s talking about. I change my mind and will vote for this, unless a better alternative pops up that has a chance of passing.