Anybody knows why it enables focusing on fiat pairs?
How does the plan enable fiat pairs?
Why is BCEX useful or efficient in the plan？
Because it is expected that most centralized ex will delist nbt?
Fom the proposal:
The amount of burning relates to the coinage and therefore discourages use of NBT on centralized exchanges or holding them in off-line wallets for longer periods.
How is it different with bcex?
The peg will be established as soon as the ratio reserves/NBT circulating (not parked) hits 50%. It also assumes that B&C is working and that NBT can be listed. Nu will start providing liquidity walls on B&C on popular pairs.
why is bcex pivotal here?
At the same time walls can be established on NBT/fiat pairs only on centralised exchanges assuming these pairs still exist. Other pairs should be initially left for arbitragers until a profitable model of liquidity provision appreciating the risks of exchange failure has been established.
we may have a revenue model but if we are subject to btc vol then we might loose much money.
Isnt it crucial to have revenue and fiat pairs only?
1 Like
pro: removing btc volatility risk completely
con: small volume (people get in/out of nubits with the fiat pairs, once in a while; people get in/out of trading positions with the nbtbtc pair, once or more a day), aml/kyc rules
connection: a thriving nbtbtc pair push volume out of fiat pairs.
it removes exchange default risk for liquidity ops by about 4% per month in cost, which is significcant.
as i mentioned before, centralized exchange can largely go around this by parking customers’ fund after deposited.
1 Like
Ok
Fiat pairs is incompatible with bcex for now right?
So the only new business value in the proposal per se is the symmetrical to parking on tier5 which is protocol based nbt burning, let s say?
@JordanLee once claimed that fiat can be traded on B&C via some sort of proxy. but i can’t find the post. Maybe @Phoenix can help?
If we can greatly reduce btc risk (e.g. with the gateway with built-in reserve in usd token) then the popular pegging via btc can be profitable.
2 Likes
Do we abandon the NBT/BTC pairs with the plan? and how?
Why was ccedk nbt/usd not highly used?
Isn’t what most money in circulation is? borrowed money from banks? (loans at interest)
I must agree that I agree with all that above
9 posts were split to a new topic: Sometimes people get upset about stuff. This is one of those times
I don’t think we should abandon it fully. It should be primarily let to the arbitrage market. On e.g. B&C Nu can help promoting/animating the pair at cost by providing some wide spread liquidity. This would encourage arbitrage to happen within a small spread. I haven’t seen a profitable model for Nu to provide tight spread liquidity. A fee based on the value of the transaction instead of the byte size of a transaction might be part of the solution in that context.
There was a lot of competition with subsidised NBT/BTC pairs. NBT/fiat is not a trading pair, it is an entry and exit gateway for going in and out of crypto. Remember, NBT was meant to be the crypto replacement for USD/fiat. So the highest trading volumes would more likely take place on NBT/crypto pairs.
Storing money cost money. The question is how we are going to charge for it. By holding, transaction fees or else? I think a balance between holding and transaction fees based on the value of a transaction is the way to go imo. The value is important and differentiates Nu from other coins who can get away with transaction based fees as they don’t need the reserves to back large size and therefore ‘expensive’ transaction. We need to get closer to a ‘user pays’ model.
1 Like
You mean you want to charge nubits users for just having nubits in their wallets in a non frozen state.
I think it s very controversial but i always thought it was a waste of money to have cash in your wallet if you do not use it.
I think cryptos can be used wonderfully in this regard.
It is controversial for cryptos, not for fiat. NBT mimics fiat. When you want to hold/store it for a longer term you park your money. Better than a bank as still secured by the blockchain. So NBT is the crypto fiat, it has always been that, but someone forgot to think about who would pay the bills long term.
The initial high burning fee for holding should be seen as a way to get us out of the liquidation and have the ability to start over. Once the peg is established the park rates can be increased making it more attractive to hold NBT and increase the percentage of reserves of the circulating NBT.
The NBT holder will pay for the price of keeping the reserves. Ideally I like to see the burn rate to be voted on in the blockchain similar as we vote for fees and park rates. This would provide the Shareholders with all the monetary controls required to run a stable coin properly.
True, especially fiat 
Most would only hold because they think something else will go down, called hedging. We have seen this clearly in the last few weeks. When people think BTC is bullish they will sell quickly. My proposal adds a price to hedging, user pays.
3 Likes
I suggest to put this up for voting soon, so shareholders have an alternative to JLs grant which already has 45 votes in the last 100 blocks.
5 Likes
I thought the same.
Phoenix motions and custodial grant votes all enjoy at least 40 votes in the last 100 blocks, which implies that he has a lot of power as a single individual (bad for Nu) because I do not see much support from other shareholders.
EDIT: As mentioned here, I think it will be wise to ask for a second chunk of 100m NSR to FLOT just in case.
2 Likes
I think it’s also important to try and reach users of this forum and encourage them to withdraw shares from exchanges and resume voting.
1 Like
He has no competition – his is the only one that is being in voting.
How can you avoid to sell to phoenix and jordanlee?
1 Like
Are they mutually exclusive?
That would be even better
No they are not exclusive. I just can imagine that there might be some shareholders who urgently want to do “something” and while several good proposals were made, JLs is the only option they have right now in this moment. So my hope is that some people will remove JLs grant when they see other possible paths. I could be wrong about that.
2 Likes
Why?
It’s almost certain that anyone who has been in teh community for a while must be able to propose SOMETHING right. So it’s certain that competing proposals are similar at some level. There should be multiple proposals which shareholders understand which proposals is different in what, and what they are in common.
2 Likes
OK - but what s the use for a late alternative motion against another one that passed earlier and that has the benefit of time priority, if you dont define how it unvalidate the first one?
1 Like