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
You have to ask why the 2nd one passed? It must be understood as that shareholders see the difference and depite that the 1st one has passed, the 2nd one gets approved. The 2nd one must override the 1st one where there is conflict. So putting out a motion for voting early may not necesssarily have an advantage because a delta motion could be more preferrable.
Right – how do we regulate conflict and priority? there is nothing about it in nulaw, right?
Common sense?
1 Like
I really wish this was up for voting already (
The last thing I heard was that @Cybnate wanted to get a statement by @sigmike regarding feasibility and development effort. I personally don’t see why it should not be feasible and also consider the development effort as small (depending on the details like shareholder set parameters etc), but of course a statement from the lead dev would be invaluable.
@Cybnate, even if we need to give sigmike some more time to think it through, don’t you think that you can put it up for voting already? If sigmike says that this is a terrible or unachievable idea then you can still withdraw it. In the end this motion only serves as indicator that shareholders want it, the actual decision will be made by the hard fork consensus.
4 Likes
Seeing that like … what’s actually your statement about feasibility and quality of the plan, @CoinGame ? You are at least as deep into the codebase as sigmike I guess, if not even more familiar with Nu in particular.