Ya'll will learn sooner or later that liquidity provision is about opportunity cost and you need to reward liquidity providers with a portion of your marketcap if you want a tight peg.

Liquidity provision is an investment and any investment should have a positive ROI.
If the investment in liquidity provision pans out, it will rather increase the market cap than cost a share of it - at least long-term.
This investment is what increases the value of the product and hence the value of the corporation producing it.

edit: one might say that you can't afford not spending that money ;-)

I was also not a fan of NuBits and think it will at some time come unstuck but the volume is pretty good and I was impressed that they paid out over $400 000 in dividends to shareholders over the last year representing a 25% yield to NuShares shareholders.
[...]
Do any people who follow NuBits more know how much the market makers need to be subsidized?

So far the track record of Nu is ok for the first year. February 2015 and the months after that were bad because Nu lost a lot of money due to exchange defaults. Back then the liquidity providing was done with funds that Nu owned and handed over to custodians to provide the market with liquidity.

This model has been reworked and now Nu pays for market makers who provide liquidity with their own funds.
The average monthly revenue for market makers is approximately 7%. That seems big, but apart from the exchange default risk it needs to compensate BTC volatility (the main trading pair is still NBT/BTC, although USD/NBT and CNY/NBT are available as well).
These 7% are paid by Nu up to a maximum volume (some tens of thousands USD value each side all exchanges combined, Poloniex has the biggest volume: https://alix.coinerella.com/walls/?).
A dutch auction model kicks in if the liquidity volume is above that threshold and reduces the effective interest.

This is speaking of the so-called ALP (automated liquidity pool) where a custodian operates a server software and liquidity providers provide funds with ALP clients. They stay in full control over the funds as the ALP client puts orders via exchange API and reports them to the ALP server, which credits them each minute. The money never leaves the exchange account of the liquidity provider (unless stolen, etc.; it might just get converted of the orders get filled)

A second way to provide liquidity is via MLP (managed liquidity pool). In this version a liquidity provider uses NuBot to place orders. The funds are under direct control of the NuBot operator.

For more information on liquidity providing have a look here: http://docs.nubits.com/liquidity-pools/

There are a lot of changes on the road map.
The ALP and MLP software are currently being merged and will in the future be based on NuBot (https://bitbucket.org/JordanLeePeershares/nubottrading/src/master/docs/SETUP.md).
The reward scheme will be changed to a fixed compensation scheme where x NBT are paid per side and liquidity providers fight over the compensation. That is expected to have some advantages over the dutch auction model as it makes providing liquidity especially attractive (in terms of interest) if the order sizes on the book are small for whatever reason.
This is expected to help the money flow between the different tiers (of Nu's tiered liquidity model), different exchanges, because it incentivizes tracking wall sizes to put orders preferred at exchanges with low order volume.
The motion regarding the tiered liquidity model: https://discuss.nubits.com/t/finalized-evolution-of-liquidity-operations/618
An interpretation of it: https://discuss.nubits.com/t/interpretation-of-the-liquidity-tiers-a-waterfall-model-triggers-metrics-and-actions/2914
The begining of the ALP: https://discuss.nubits.com/t/trust-less-liquidity-pool/1686 (back then called "trustless liquidity pool")

This might sound confusing, has a lot of links and I bet I used some words that are not really self-explanatory. Sorry for that. But the liquidity providing is a quite complex area if you are interested in the inner workings and one of Nu's important functions.
If you just want to make some money providing liquidity, it can be as easy as sending funds to the major MLP "Nulagoon" (http://nulagoon.com/lqpools.html) or downloading and configuring an ALP client.
If you have questions that are not answered here (because I think not too many from the Nu community are frequently here), feel free to ask at https://discuss.nubits.com/!

Although I didn't find a specific answer to my question for a testnet, I come to the conclusion there is no such thing for Bitshares 1.0.
Will there be a testnet for Bitshares 2.0?

[...]Both communities only have to gain with this and any other discussion.[...]

Discussion would be nice. So far I've mostly seen insults, prejudice and mockery.
There are for sure exceptions like @cass, @betax or @akado in this thread (I hope I don't tread on someone's toes forgetting him/her in this list), but I'm not going to waste time in environments in which "normal" or friendly behaviour is the exception.

....well I found for you the perfect avatar to use on our forums 



edit:
 I improoved the avatar 

tony was ahead of his time and went long on the wrong wave.  tony's funny in a dennis leary vs george carlin death match sort of way.  and while all this was heppening the nubits team was making some money by teaching the humans what a focussed and trusted team of investors and developers can do for those looking to hedge the crypto decline of 2014.  a fine service considering the primitive tools available.  an effort and.purpose that they can b proud of.  and judging by the recent rise in bts price on news of a launch date,   it looks like those who made money on Peercoinubits will be timing the next set of bts waves

Quote from: tonyk on September 07, 2015, 01:59:27 pm

Quote from: bitcoinsatan on September 07, 2015, 01:35:37 pm

tony was ahead of his time and went long on the wrong wave.  tony's funny in a dennis leary vs george carlin death match sort of way.  and while all this was heppening the nubits team was making some money by teaching the humans what a focussed and trusted team of investors and developers can do for those looking to hedge the crypto decline of 2014.  a fine service considering the primitive tools available.  an effort and.purpose that they can b proud of.  and judging by the recent rise in bts price on news of a launch date,   it looks like those who made money on Peercoinubits will be timing the next set of bts waves

well said...but I truly doubt anyone who saw Nub as something  good, can appreciate the true beauty of BTS. Something like doubting that just because Nazi party has come to power against oppression, its members will ever deeply appreciate democracy.

[the above is figure of speech of course - Nubits is not Nazi nor Ponzi in any way shape or form...faar, faar from it]

Yes.. and yes to your previous comments. 

Quote from: Randomaniac on September 07, 2015, 10:49:30 am

Oh my, this speaks volumes...
...although I'm completely new here, I'm going to make use of a forum feature, I've never used at any forum before: the ignore list.

But as tonyk doesn't seem to be interested in discussion and rather wants to cause a disturbance, I might very well save myself from reading his/her posts.

....well I found for you the perfect avatar to use on our forums 



edit:
 I improoved the avatar 

Yeah, you are right. Let me guess: you need the motto of this avatar if you look at the bitUSD exchange rate?

For documentation purposes (in case it might soon^TM look better than in the last few days) - oops, that's what I wanted to prevent...
edit: Once I've calmed down, I'll remove the image and put you to the ignore list as well

Quote from: Randomaniac on September 07, 2015, 08:31:42 am

Quote from: cass on September 02, 2015, 10:52:29 am

maybe we can someone from nubits team on here to join this discussion..

wasn't meant as an invitation after all?

sure it was .. i will try to reach out to tomJoad

Thank you for your reply.
I was not sure whether I should rather spend my time somewhere else if everybody here already knows everything.
But I should stick to my own assessment:

I wouldn't hold single individuals responsible for a whole community!
[...]

Sending a message to Tom on the nubits forum should require registration. That is no big barrier, but if you'd like I can shoot him a message regarding your invitation.

[...]but it's nice to see ponzi scheme isn't being thrown around so loosely anymore.

I wouldn't hold single individuals responsible for a whole community!

Quote from: xeroc on September 07, 2015, 07:09:24 am

Aren't you doing almost exactly what FED is doing?

Nooo! The difference is, they announced to the  public they are accepting private bids for their own 'feds' chairs. The Fed on the other hand starts the process by sending private invitation for the corresponding private auction. 

If you translate the 'feds' chairs to NuShares, then yes, I agree.
Everybody can have such a chair. They can be bought at exchanges.

Initially they haven't been distributed freely to everyone, but more like the fed approach: invitations to people.
It was argued that this was necessary to bootstrap the whole thing and I agree that giving the chairs to people who might be in for the long-run rather than a quick buck was helpful to get the ball rolling.
While one can find that segregating, a wide distribution was ensured to make sure the chairs are sufficiently decentralized.

Nu is not just a regular coin, but a corporation. While I might find it unfair how it started and that not everybody could be in from the start, I did not make the rules; rules which helped Nu get where it is today: having issued a stable crypto currency that has kept the peg closely for almost one year.

Regarding the mechanisms with that Nu controls NBT supply to keep the peg stable I might need to expand the scope.
Nu is run by the 'fed chairs', the NSR holders. Nu is using a PoS process.
NSR holders that mint can cast votes each time they successfully mint a block.
One type of vote is a custodial vote.
With such a custodial vote NBT can be granted. They appear from thin air by protocol on the custodial grant address as soon as 5,001 blocks in the last 10,000 consecutive blocks carried such a vote.
They are sold by the custodian and the revenue is meant to be distributed to the NSR holders, spent for development, spent for paying liquidity providers, etc. (whatever the intention of the custodial grant was).
This way new NBT get into circulation.

To reduce the number of circulating NBT there are basically two ways.
One is reducing the number of NBT only temporarily and in the end creates even more NBT: parking.
Parking removes NBT (as far as I understand they are destroyed and created again (including the parking rate interest) after the parking period has ended), but only temporarily. Parked NBT will come back to haunt the network with even more NBT, because they generate a parking interest (which is voted for by, guess whom: the NSR holders). Parking was the reason why Nu was accused of being a ponzi scheme.
Without mechanisms to reduce supply permanently this accusation would have been fair.

Which leads us to permanent removal of NBT: burning.
NBT burning has been available right from the start of Nu. A convenient, reliable, decentralized mechanism to fuel the burning was missing, though.
The NSR holders understood that and made the developers create another type of grant: NSR grants. NSR holders can vote for NSR grants like they can vote for NBT grants.
The same rules that apply to NBT grants are in place: 5,001 of 10,000 blocks are required, issued NSR are created by protocol at the NSR grant address.
The NSR custodian sells the NSR, buys NBT and burns them. An example has been given by @CoinGame
Tada!

Any more questions?