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.
[Withdrawn] Make Firing and Replacing Incompetent Liquidity Providers Our Top Priority
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 replied here
basically there is no advantage of pushting all buy fund to NLT if all exchanges are set to <1% SAF.
I must admit: no
What is your vision for Nu – any projection and roadmap?
For example - in 2020:
- nubits in circulation: $10b
- nushare market cap: $1t (with 10b NSR)
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:
In the part you quote he said how keep selling NSR can restore confidence of the peg. Its relation with T5 is the next line which you didn’t quote
I dont get what he is demonstrating here – but that is not in the motion body
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.
Note that this above step only works when bitcoin runs out of steam. If btc price keep rising, NSR selling cannot win.
Step 1 in my post is true always.
Therefore we are not running out of time. We should start closing the spread gradually to save our resources and be ready to make significant improvement after btc trend reverses by commiting major respurces to realize 1% spread 100% of the time.
Can you explain what SAF means please?
Spread After Fee.
if the exchange fee is 0.2% both ways, an absolute 1% spread is 0.6% SAF.
Sub-1% SAF doesn’t work because of wall-collision problems.
I must admit.
I did not realize the crucial importance of a very tight peg if we want T5 to work properly.
As a member of FLOT I did sign transactions to replenish the buy side of gateways working at large spread.
Afterwards, I do think it was not the right course of actions to take since it harmed the peg by decreasing its quality.
Although my mind says that liquidity at tight peg is everything, i was reluctant to using T6 because it meant dilution.
In the model proposed by jordan lee, 0% reserve, which seems to be most compelling and simplest, shareholders must be ready to dilute their holdings in bad times. They must be also ready to see their shares shoot up in value if Nu makes a lot of sales.
In this model, centered around liquidity, T5 is here to delay the use of T6.
T6 is here to create new funding if really necessary.
T6 funds unlocking or creation will be possible as long as some people want a piece of the voting system that Nu represents.
As i mentioned already, i think i bear some responsibility as a member of FLOT.
I am fine with being replaced.
I am fine with this motion in principle.
You are ware that liquidity wise this motion:
would have lead to the same result, if it were extended to existion operations?
Maybe I pissed Jordan off with that, which pulled support from his motion:
Jordan’s focus was no longer on adjusting the liquidity provision according to his vision, he needed to move me out of his way.
For that reason he didn’t try to push his 1% spread motion, but decided to start a witch hunt.
He successfully managed to make me the one who’s guilty for Nu’s situation, although the buybacks played the key role.
This witch hunt has the secondary benefit, besides getting me out of the way, to create a lot of uncertainty. It’s in favour of his desire to get more control back, shape Nu according to his vision instead of letting Nu being formed in a decentralized way.
You’ll never find out how many NSR he sold back then and whether he or people he collaborates with, dumped on the buy side on 2016-05-27 to start all this panic.
I’m sure he’s clever enough to have obscured all sufficiently. He won’t even try to counter this accusation.
You’ll never find out how many NSR he still has, but the support for his 1% spread motion was amazing with such a high SDD. Keeping the NSR ready with a good amount of coinage makes using them.
With faster motions [Withdrawn] Faster motions this would be even more effective. Alas, that motion didn’t pass.
Jordan does his best to undermine the current decentralized organization beyond direct shareholder control. FLOT will either be too slow or fall apart. Jordan will offer his services. He makes you believe in the “Liquidity Engine” dream.
Why is there no accounting that shows the NAV of the operations from January 2015, when Nu had so much trading volume?
I wonder, how much it cost to buy that volume.
The thing is: trades on exchange make no revenue for Nu. An increased offset of NuOwned operations could, but that’s bad, I’m from the dark side. Sorry for messing with the liquidity engine.
But in one way it’s an engine: it consumes gas. The NAV gets decreased by this engine. It lead Nu, where it is now.
Where economics 101 don’t work and blind belief replaces ratio, I can as well stop arguing or explaining what I did.
You don’t want to listen and understand, that ALP and NuLagoon were almost instandtly depleted on buyside because of the tight spread, do you?
You don’t want to see that the same happened to @Cybnate’s PyBots.
You don’t want to realize that the same would have happened to the NuBots of zoro and me, if not for an increased offset.
It was often said that one could not know, whether BTC swings up or down; that it’s not given, Nu loses money in liquidity provision from that. That might be true, but
- Nu buys BTC when everyone wants to sell them
- Nu sells BTC when everyone wants to buy them
If the market has no clue about trends, why are the buyside reserves almost empty?
Nu is always on the losing side of this trade. Market aware offsets for BTC/NBT and a tight peg only for NBT/USD could mitigate that.
But that stalls the liquidity engine right?
It’s easier to follow the topsyturvy logic from Jordan, because it allows you to continue with this belief.
All that’s required is to make someone guilty of the situation. Don’t ask about buybacks. Put the blame on me. I can take it. If sacrificing me helps you continuing your belief and your efforts, do it. I gave a lot for Nu. I can give all.
Follow the leadership of Jordan. He will offer service in liquidity provision. Better ask of precise accounting and NAV. Be careful that this is no dump&pump of NSR - the order of dump&pump was chosen with a reason.
I wish you the best. May the liquidity be with you!
And you put a blind eye to the fact that T5 wasn’t working when the peg still was tight.
T5 suffers from Nu being close to bankruptcy. The course to bankruptcy was set by the buybacks, not by the emergency mode buyside offsets.
You don’t realize that this motion isn’t required to sort liqudity provision out, but to create fud, undermine FLOT, get rif of me?
This motion would have done - if shaping liqudity provion would have been the goal:
FLOT would at any time have followed good arguments to adjust parameters.
There were no good arguents. They had to be made.
This is how arguments are made. Make someone guilty, me, FLOT, anybody and finally get through with what has no sufficiently good arguments.
This is not economics, it’s politics.
Have fun with Jordan!
There are 3 reasons that I listed above why that could have been our fault. Maybe they wouldn’t have worked at all no matter what we did. Maybe they would have worked if we had done more, preventing all this in the first place. We may never know.