[Withdrawn] Think big, act small and establish revenue stream

[mhps]

Anybody knows why it enables focusing on fiat pairs?

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.

Why is BCEX useful or efficient in the plan？

it removes exchange default risk for liquidity ops by about 4% per month in cost, which is significcant.

The amount of burning relates to the coinage and therefore discourages use of NBT on centralized exchanges

as i mentioned before, centralized exchange can largely go around this by parking customers’ fund after deposited.

[crypto_coiner]

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?

[mhps]

Fiat pairs is incompatible with bcex for now right?

@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?

So the only new business value in the proposal per se

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.

[crypto_coiner]

Focusing on NBT/USD and fiat gateways instead of BTC/NBT is very important for the sustainability of Nu.

Nu didn’t pay for commercials, but it spent a lot of money for a tight peg at BTC/NBT.That was a kind of commercial as well.And it didn’t end so good.NBT/USD is less fancy, but it can work.

Do we abandon the NBT/BTC pairs with the plan? and how?

I am glad that fiat gateways that can be widely deployed is on the map. Otherwise there is risk that we will only see like 1000 nbt transaction volume a month like it was on ccedk nbt/usd market.

Why was ccedk nbt/usd not highly used?

The notion that all unparked nubits are borrowed from Nu hence should be charged an interest will change the fundamental of Nubit – from a currency to a debt. I think that shouldn’t be taken lightly because the market will price the change in and force nubit to be sold at a discount one way or another. Charging storing coins doesn’t make sense as it is the user who pays for the storing.

For those who end up not moving their nbt for, say, a year or more, why does Nu have to punish them? Their coins give no more sell pressure to the buy side than the coins parked for a year. Actually the parked ones gives more pressure as they will come back with interest! What Nu wants is actual not moving coins. Parking is just one way to encourage. If someone bought 10k and leave it in a paperwallet for two years, Nu has no need to punish and irritate him.

Isn’t what most money in circulation is? borrowed money from banks? (loans at interest)

Wouldn’t you agree that the required amount of liquidity Nu needs to provide depends on the amount of non-parket NBT? Because I think this is were our basic disagreement is.

In mean you basically say that a parked NBT is not different to a non-parked NBT. But if I consider buying NBT today, I would like to be sure that I can sell this NBT tomorrow. If Nu can proof the reserve for the unparked NBT and the parking graph shows me that no additional NBT will enter the market until tomorrow, then I will be confident that I can sell it, and might also be willing to pay the fee for it.

Again, I think the focus group should be two kinds of customers: short-term users (hedging, money transfer with stable value, etc), who have to pay the bill and long-term users (parking, retirement money etc) who basically lend money to Nu and therefore might even get something back. By balancing parking and burning rates you can define any other user group in between as well (e.g. availability once a month).

I must agree that I agree with all that above

[CoinGame]

9 posts were split to a new topic: Sometimes people get upset about stuff. This is one of those times

[Cybnate]

Do we abandon the NBT/BTC pairs with the plan? and how?

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.

Why was ccedk nbt/usd not highly used?

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.

Isn’t what most money in circulation is? borrowed money from banks?

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.

[cryptog]

By holding

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.

[Cybnate]

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.

i always thought it was a waste of money to have cash in your wallet

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.

[creon]

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.

[cryptog]

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.

[backpacker]

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.

[mhps]

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.

He has no competition – his is the only one that is being in voting.

[crypto_coiner]

EDIT: As mentioned here, I think it will be wise to ask for a second chunk of 100m NSR to FLOT just in case.

How can you avoid to sell to phoenix and jordanlee?

[crypto_coiner]

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.

Are they mutually exclusive?
That would be even better

[creon]

Are they mutually exclusive?

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.

[mhps]

Are they mutually exclusive?That would be even better

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.

[crypto_coiner]

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?

[mhps]

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?

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.

[crypto_coiner]

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?

[cryptog]

Common sense?