About decentralization

There have been plenty of complaints in recent months about the degree of centralization or decentralization in our networks. There are a number of principles and facts governing the degree of decentralization in our network. It might be helpful to review some of them.

First of all, a share price rally is a decentralizing event. A bear market is a centralizing event. As the NuShare price, for instance, goes up, early large shareholders are likely to sell a portion of their holdings to people new to our network. If our network succeeds, that is where we are going. More and more decentralization. However, in the case of a severe bear market like we have seen recently in NuShares, we saw most shareholders jump ship. Most sold their NuShares. But who bought them? In the vast majority of cases, I honestly don’t know (Poloniex does), but we have good reason to believe they were bought by a relatively small group of people who could distance themselves from the negative herd mentality enough to see the tremendous potential that remains in our networks.

What this means is that those who wish to have a radically decentralized network need to first ensure a series of bull markets. It seems like in many cases those who are strongly insisting that the network needs to be decentralized are the very people doing the most to centralize it by inducing a powerful bear market. It is behavior that is poorly aligned these peoples’ stated goals.

Two weeks ago, the NuShare market cap was $400,000. Quite frankly, it is foolish to expect robust decentralization at that size. It would be very difficult to achieve, but even if were, it would probably destroy the network by throwing it into complete chaos. Someone had suggested we find a way to limit share ownership to 2% of all outstanding shares. While it has been noted doing so is not possible with our architecture, my point is that it would certainly be undesirable. Imagine 1000 shareholders with an average investment of $400 and a maximum investment of $8000. This is a very small stake. It doesn’t motivate action. Such small shareholders will be, in the vast majority of cases, quite ignorant about how the network operates. We don’t want too many of our shares being held by ignorant and apathetic people. Can you think of any business worth $400,000 that could be successfully run by 1000 small shareholders? The notion is just a bit ridiculous, it seems.

All these decentralized networks start out completely centralized and must grow into decentralization. Bitcoin started with Satoshi Nakamoto in firm and complete control of it. Only growth could change that. Our situation is similar, although our architecture will accommodate genuine decentralization, whereas Bitcoin mining architecture has proven to favor centralization.

What is important is that the system is open and people are free to accumulate shares. Many people on the forum, who probably don’t have very many shares, seem to be suggesting that one or two or three people have an iron grip on the network and won’t let anyone else participate. This is manifestly false. Huge, controlling quantities of NuShares are available to anyone with relatively modest investment. I think there are between 400 and 450 million NuShares minting and voting right now. Anyone with a pulse and enough BTC can go to Poloniex right now and in a single second, purchase 326 million NuShares. A week later, they can produce 40% support for any motion or custodial grant they wish. If someone bought 326 million NuShares all at once like that, we can be certain more than 100 million additional NuShares would show up on the exchange very quickly. The truth is, anyone with enough funds can gain complete control of the Nu network in a single day. The price of NuShares tells us no one is interested in doing this. So the problem is not that one or two or three people have an iron grip on the network and won’t let go. The problem is that very few people want NuShares. Why would the community choose to hate those who have enough enthusiasm for the network to purchase a substantial amount of NuShares? There is a good answer for that, and it is simply jealousy. People who don’t have shares for whatever reason (lack of funds or lack of interest) want to have control and say so. But that isn’t our model. Our model has always been 1 share, 1 vote. Some people seem to want it to be 1 person, 1 vote. This is understandable given that in political democracies the notion of 1 person, 1 vote is held sacred. But we are not a political entity or a government over people. Ours is an economic model. The political model of 1 person, 1 vote would be impossible to implement and quite undesirable for the purpose of creating a stable currency. We aren’t doing that and have never pretended to.

To sum up, our network is so small that expecting it to be robustly decentralized is unrealistic and unhealthy. The only way for it to get there is a series of bull markets. Those who want decentralization should help the network grow. Defaming it and abandoning it are producing a result opposite of what you say you want. Even if the network is not robustly decentralized today, it is radically open to anyone who wants to purchase NuShares. It is so open that anyone willing commit enough BTC to the cause can gain a controlling stake in a single day. No one is holding Nu hostage. I would guess that a controlling voting stake in the Nu network could have been had over the last couple of months for $100,000. If you didn’t buy that controlling stake or an otherwise large stake, stop complaining. Everyone has equal opportunity to do so.


We need to prove Nu is a sustainable model, then potential customers will buy NSR. Perhaps no one can win the debate to you on forum, but their money is their own pockets, and some of them are scared by the heavy dilution. People come to earn money, not lose money, simple rule.

No revenue model except the dilution of shares.

No community, members were diluted after nsr diluted.

Nobody takes this project serious. Anyone can log on the site and find out what a terrible investment nsr is in about an hour.

Phoenix never takes criticism, only gives it. The lack of quality input into the system will help the project stagnate until it’s dead.

There is hope.

yall should seriously consider doing what monero did, when NBT hits the darkmarkets im sure some way to make revenue will be found
maybe add the anon feature also , mmkay

Right. With ~700 btc of pocket change you can buy 300m nsr on polo.

Back before May for month after month it was them who kept the network alive by minting and running liquidity ops. Continue pissing them off and feel happy doing the heavy lifting yourself then.


The numbers I brought up earlier are taken out of context. Taking 2% of the current marketcap is not a lot. I was referring to a growing Nu with at least the market caps we had where 2% would be 50k worth or something like that. 1000 shareholders with say 10-50k worth of shares would still be interested to participate or delegate.


Wouldn’t call that modest. And controlling is more than 50% in my world. Even if I want, I can’t buy a controlling quantity as 1 or a handful of shareholders clearly prevent that from happening and insist on a real controlling share. This is not necessarily wrong but presenting it as you do is appears to be incorrect in my opinion. It doesn’t help with regaining trust by current and future investors.

Haven’t seen anyone in the forum calling for that. Shareholders in companies are mostly represented by their stake, although some may have voting shares and others may not have them.

So true.

I raised and discussed that before, but it never made it as a development priority. That might have generated some revenue. One can argue whether it is ethical though and it would probably attract unwanted attention.

Which is not a controlling stake btw.

Bold claim, but the only verifiable amount of NSR entering the market are the ones that were sold by Nu.
You don’t know wether any shareholder sold NSR.
And not all NSR were sold at Poloniex. I remember auctions with big numbers of NSR.

Provide the market with a sustainable, reliable revenue scheme and they will come.
Once there’s revenue in sight, I will buy NSR myself!
As long as there’s only maketing babble trying to pump NSR I won’t spend a single Satoshi - at the moment there’s only a lot more dilution in a lot more waves in sight.
Selling NSR or NBT doesn’t create revenue!

This network started decentralized, but mismanagement/abuse (the BTC trading pairs were crazy marketing instruments and played as big a role as the NSR buybacks) made it waste the investors money in an unsustainable liquidity provision.

When the shit hit the fan (economical failure), the blame was put on FLOT, volunteers/supporters were alienated and the centralized control now rests in the hand of a few - or should I say: a single person?
The only decentralized body (FLOT) that had a little governance within the limits of its mandate has been replaced by a dictator (Phoenix).
Well done.
The mismanagement at the beginning and the control now appear to be in the hands of the same person, who just changed the forum name (for less up-to-date readers: from @JordanLee to @Phoenix), but continues to trick people.

Oh, I will not only refrain from buying NSR - I won’t touch NBT either; not until Nu has evolved from pump&dump ponzi scheme to business.

Don’t tell me that I’m negative. Write it on paper and flush it down the toilet.
Tell me and the world how you make revenue and you’re in the game!

Here are some options to generate revenue for Nu:

  • Increase spreads on exchanges
  • Slowly burn outstanding NBT over time when not parked to charge those benefiting from the available and expensive liquidity, mainly traders.
  • With transaction fees and find a model to increase the number of transactions e.g. Internet of Things, microtransactions, wallet with great easy to use features etc.

Ideally there are all applied at the same time. I’m still hoping the strange bird sees the light before we have another rebirth :slight_smile:

1 Like

Lightning nertwork is the next big thing.

None of them are new, yet not a single of them has been seriously attempted.
The first one can be had without any coding efforts.
The second one requires a new client due to the changed protocol.
The third one is even harder to get.

I really don’t get it, why a spread (pereferably asymmetrical: offset for selling NBT, close peg for buying NBT) is worse than running out of money.
The strange bird wants no business, he’s just playing the greater fools game. This and nothing else can be gatheresd from the bird’s course.

Nu could be great and I still think it can be. If I had no hope, I would have stopped writing here already and put more focus on other interesting projects.

Because he believes we can print money from thin air, from the NSR price speculation, but overestimation on the foolishness level of the public is the biggest problem.

Who dare to invest their hard earned money into NSR? With dilution at any time?

The fucking zero reserve is the most stupid idea raised by @Benjamin, and can be a scamming excuse.


@Sabreiib is right here. Since blockchains can’t scale without ballooning in size, off-chain networks will be necessary in the future to off-load the majority of transactions. This means in the future on-chain transaction fees won’t be a viable enough way to collect revenue, since the majority of transactions will use off-chain networks, similar to our experience already with off-chain exchange trading. Please don’t plan around this because it’s not going to happen.

1 Like

Although we are a bit off-topic, Off chain transaction can be a potential revenue for us. It seems lightning network relies on semi-centralized organization. If we clone the lightning network from bitcoin, our signers can collect off-chain transaction fee from customers, it will be a big revenue without bloat problem of blockchain.

The Nu’s true story is that we pay a lot to decentralized LPs, pay for software dev, par for blockchain explorer, pay for this, pay for that…In the end, we spend(spoil) all the money(BTC,FIAT), so we print NSR from nowhere and dump on market and hope the public buy our NSR by giving their BTC/FIAT. In this architecture, customers are milk cow, fools to be drawn blood from time to time.

Stupid NSR buyback and stupid NBT high parking rate make situation even worse, in the end, customers realize that they have no other fate but heavily dilution, with something 1/5 to 1/10 value left in their hands.

Isn’t the truth ugly enough?

We just cannot afford strict pegging on NBT/BTC without enough revenue from elsewhere, haven’t Nushareholders realized it?

My solution is to let LP as beneficial activity with spread trading, let Nushareholders pledge their NSR to borrow some NBT and make money via LP. Decentralized LP make their living by themselves, by their own incentive. Clong lightning network and collect fee from off-chain high volume transaction and pay our system’s expenditure.

Bitcoin network does have revenue, it is the new minted BTC everyday. Because we have to maintain a stable currency, relative expenditure is higher than Bitcoin network, our PoS minting reward cannot afford Nu’s daily cost.

1 Like

I wouldn’t call that revenue, same as selling NBT is not real revenue. The transactions fees are revenue.

That is is the big challenge we are facing. Cost cutting can only do so much, eventually we need a revenue stream beyond just selling NBT or we face more NSR selling and dilutions.

revenue maybe here

Have seen a couple of interesting revenue models in the last few days, that is one of them.

I would like to draw everyone’s attention to my original post in this thread at this time when there is so much discontent about the level of decentralization in the network. Everything I said a month ago is very relevant today. However, today there is even more NSR available on Poloniex. Ownership and control of the network is available to anyone who wishes to pay the modest price the market requires for it.

1 Like

Jordan, only the weak are eating the corn from your turds. We know you have been able to gain an even greater disproportionate amount of control over the network with your campaign.

Lol, you are pandering to the weak.