Yes this is correct and I agree that any other way to get real value out of your operations would be better. Now changing the rule is like selling someone a subscription telling him its free and after some months you start charging for it without giving the customer an option to unsubscribe. So the solution is definitely unfair, no doubt.
On the other hand, if this would have been part of the model from the very beginning, then I would not see it as peg breaking action but as regular account fee that compensates the DAO for the service it provides.
It is just that there is a chain reaction going on, panic sellers trigger each other and it would require an in my opinion not obtainable amount of buy side support to stop the instant sell-offs. Now by introducing this rule you are basically offering the following options:
You think Nu will fail / you need the money asap: Then keep your funds liquid and on-exchange and be ready to sell at any time once liquidity is there. A fee on your funds from the DAOs side will apply.
You think Nu will not fail and are willing and able to wait for it: Remove the funds from the exchange and park them to avoid the fee.
This would at least take some NBT away from the exchange, reducing this giant 100k sell wall to something where a similar buy wall can be placed on the other side with the remaining funds. Anyone who buys NBT at this point can see in @backpacker’s nice parking graph how many NBT are locked up and therefore might at least start hedging again with small amounts. It could calm down the whole situation on the market.
But yeah, in the end its betrayal of the customers, but let’s not forget that similar approaches are taken in RL if a company is basically insolvent because of liabilities yet could make a profit if these liabilities wouldn’t keep them down.