Now you will ask me whether I really believe in some of the stuff I just asked. Well, can you either disprove or prove or answer any of the questions? No, and that is how he loves to operate. Wouldn’t be wondering if in the case of Nu’s total failure an account called “Mr. Bean” pops up and makes some funny eloquent jokes.
It’s like good cop bad cop. Jordan Lee cannot promote a $0.10 nubits but his alter-ego with a glued-on mustache can.
I have to give jordan Credit. He probably is so brilliant that his mind is literally going through a phase of mitosis. However it’s terribly convenient for one of him that it is occurring right now.
What would you do if you had more than 1600NBT?
1-Wait the rise of the phoenix?
2-Sell everything?
3-Kill yourself?
Well, for god sake, can you be responsible as a man @JordanLee or @Phoenix? Do you have any introspection？
@sigmike, and @Eleven, could you please come out and tell us about B&C development? I think this is the very basic politeness as software developers who are responsible for the investors.
I agree that handling multiple accounts is not a good thing per se.
But anybody pretty much in this forum can have multiple accounts.
It s clear that jordanlee is not hidding the fact that he is also phoenix.
However, what matters really at the end of the day is motions.
To take an extreme example: a complete AI Bolivian stranger ant can come to the forum and propose a rescue motion so compellig that shareholders vote for it.
This is the spirit of Nu.
Identity, color, race, background, height, and any othet credentials do not matter. What matters is reputation and motion.
Phoenix might not be able to become a reputed signer but he can advance motions.
2 Likes
You could have bought a nice gun for 1600 NBT a few weeks ago, but now you might only get some cheap pills for it. If you bet on the proceeds from option 2 to help you realize option 3, it is definitely gonna be more painful now.
The only logical reasoning I can come up with is that Jordan Lee was several people operating under the same alias, and that they had a disagreement and one of them created a new account.
Still, it’s so bizarre I don’t understand how he expects us to go with it without an explanation…
I don’t think that could be it though, because Phoenix is basically making the exact same arguments, so where is the disagreement? Maybe there is some truth in not wanting to be seen advocating for a $0.10 peg?
You remind me, perhaps he is doing an experiment that whether a DAO can survive in such situation without leaders, and of course @Phoenix has nothing to do with Nu’s debts and don’t bother answering questions from angry NBT holders.
Welcome back @Phoenix!
Hero @JordanLee sacrifices his/her reputation to get rid of debts of Nu and tries to save Nu, so let’s surpport his motion.
1 Like
Jordan you cannot seriously believe the crap you are repeating over and over again. Nobody gave anything about the 5% spread, this whole spread thing is only important to outcompete other currencies, not to establish confidence. Your flawed model lead to this situation.
Every non-parked NBT in circulation was a constant risk, and it was that risk which came down on you (in form of a single guy selling a lot). If you would have implemented some mechanism to get the risk compensated by the NBT holders then this whole thing at least can lead to a zero sum. I still think the coinage tx fee would be a good approach here, since it would make all liquid funds profitable and all remaining funds predictable since they are parked.
And btw, I understand your liquidity model (also the engine analogy, which is quite good). I read and understood the white paper before my first post. What you wanted is a reverse black swan: adoption gets to a point where 1 NBT is not a dollar note anymore, but where people associate 1 NBT with an amount of goods that has a value of about 1 dollar such that the NBT will only exchanged for goods and not so much for currency. You originally wanted to reach this point of adoption by lending more and more money through parking until the capital is so large and the dept is so diversified that people are confident that the relevant small part of the dept can be paid at any point in time. Small spread liquidity was designed only to be required in very small amounts in order to fill in the gap for an increasing natural support.
But this all didn’t happen, and until today you didn’t learn from it in order to consider it in your model designs. But don’t worry, I will continue reminding you about it, until this here is entirely over or you start deleting posts (which didn’t happen so far, very nice). This whole thing would be really funny if there wouldn’t be much too kind souls like @Sentinelrv who obviously invested far too much into a only partially understood concept and while he is responsible for his own decisions I blame you for deceiving such people with your game.
1 Like
Try to be positive please @creon, it seems I criticised NU more than you in the past, but I feel you don’t have to be so harsh now, anyway, phoniex is going to try full reserve.
Jordan is not a scamer, otherwise he can just leave this community and shut down this website. So what we should do is discussing solutions to save and improve Nu.
3 Likes
You summarized the situation, I think that’s the main point right now in the initial steps towards the path that leads to regaining market confidence again: full reserve model (or even 2x or 3x reserve).
First ressurection-phase “enigma” solved.
Second “enigma” still remains hidden: how to develop a sustainable profit model for NuBits/NuShares operations in the long run in order to keep and defend the peg without consuming itself (by increasing debt vs decreasing reserves) like the above mentioned example of the gold standard (a historical fact)…
1 Like
I believe the profit should come from online content consumption/production micropayment.
SunnyKing mentioned that the peerkeeper thread discuss is interesting but hrobeer and I both have no idea what specific part he refered.
The founder of WWW also advocated the micropayment to change millions of websites business model.
1 Like
I assumed Sunny was talking about your post here…
The founder of WWW gives me big confidence that the micropayment is the future,Nu may charge 1% fee after our lightning version cloned.
I feel you are right.
It that were the case, that would defeat that which the blockchain has been made for – to prevent sybil attacks from fallible and corruptible humans
1 Like
Good point –
So let us state it once and for all –
Nu provides a tight spread.
Liquidity custodians dont make money at this tight spread and are subsidized by Nu to provide their services, and recoup their costs.
However, because we provide a tight spread, customers are satisfied and Nu share value goes up in time.
NuShareholders are rewarded for providing a tight spread.
Whenever we have an emergency and need a large buy side wall, we should not/never HESITATE to use our Tier6 = NSR burning.
Am I correct?
2 Likes
For now, Nu is not a profitable business because our first occupation is to establish the peg –
Once established and relied upon, ppl will want to transact with it or raise money with it or borrow money with it and that will be our second step coming in: profitable money expansion
1 Like