Actively Maintained Data Feeds


Are there any currently? It seems like active voting has slowed down since I last checked in, but I’m curious if any are being kept up to date and what perspectives they represent?


Phoenix has majority shareholdings. Vote how you want, it doesnt matter anyway.


I intend to start a data feed, but it isn’t my top priority right now.

The last custodial grant was on December 27th, a large NSR grant for liquidity operations. The entire balance is still there, although some will be spent in the next day or two. We aren’t selling very much NSR these days, which is great news. We aren’t spending nearly as much US-NBT as we have at times in the past, either. What does get spent comes from funds that were granted many months ago.

It appears @Nagalim, as well as others, feel a bit sore due to a sense of entitlement about controlling the network. He and others in a similar position feel that their participation and acceptance on this forum gives them the right to control the blockchain. It doesn’t. In fact, this forum has nothing to do with our blockchain. Only minting NuShare holders have a right to control the network, in proportion to their holdings.

With about 800 million NSR on the order book at Poloniex, it is obvious that NuShare ownership is very available. I have discussed @Nagalim’s unfounded and emotional assertion before with rational argument on this forum. I’m not going to rehash that today, but you can find it if interested. I think it was several months ago.

Anyhow, I think you will see data feeds begin to be actively maintained as we continue to build on the 100% NSR price growth we have seen since the bottom in mid-January.


It is not unfounded or emotional at all. It has been proven time and again that phoenix is in direct control over a majority of the minting shares in this network. Attacking me with ad hominem really doesn’t change this fact, and the direct logical consequence of this fact is that it doesn’t matter how @cookrn votes except as a curiosity.


@Nagalim @Phoenix it’s in the best interest of Nu moving forward to not have a person with singular control, right? How big of a share purchase would be required to break the monopoly?


@Phoenix is the founder, @JordanLee masquerading under another psyeudonym. This character has controlled the majority of shares since conception and would never act in such a way as to lose the ability to have full control at will. Because Nu has no actual legal framework, it is impossible to wrestle control away from this character, as they can easily fork or add more shares at will, as evidenced by the recent hardfork blackballing certain addresses with no explicit explaination given, yet the hardfork passed. This character has full authority over all undistributed shares and future share dilutions, as well as every other facet of Nu. No amount of money can recover this broken system, as the entire consensus system is a farce.

It’s not so much about consent as it is submission to a single central entity.


All decentralized systems must necessarily begin from a single point. Bitcoin started with Satoshi in control. What Nu and Bitcoin need to effect broad decentralization is growth. At under 1 million USD market cap, there aren’t enough people interested in investing to produce broad decentralization. That doesn’t mean the architecture isn’t perfectly suited to encourage decentralization, because our open source software is clearly designed that way.

Our network difficulty level does fluctuate quite a bit, and I haven’t taken the time to do recent calculations, but it seems there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 400 million NSR minting and voting. That means you can control it with an additional 400 million NSR at this difficulty level, or disrupt any existing coalition of shareholders with 200 or 300 million NSR. At current pricing levels of $3 per voting NuShare, the price of 200 million NSR would be $60,000 and the price of 400 million is $120,000. There are 700 million NSR available to the public on Poloniex right now. NuShare ownership and even control of the network is available to anyone willing to investment these sums of money.

There are many here who feel entitled to control the network because they post here often, but we don’t use a proof of forum post system to control the network, we use proof of stake.

The most effective opponent of decentralization in Nu has ironically been @woodstockmerkle, who started a competing blockchain with the purpose of increasing decentralization. The result was a drop in the price of NSR and a decrease of interest in Nu. In others words, he effected a centralization of Nu. On the other hand, his new blockchain was not successful and did not provide any benefit to anyone.

It may be that those who vehemently oppose Nu for its lack of mature decentralization are just voicing frustration that they, as active forum participants but very small shareholders, are unable to control the network. Their motives should be questioned because the outcome of their actions does not match their stated goals.


These calculations conveniently ignore the fact that whenever the dominant shareholder base has begun to stray from @Phoenix/@JordanLee’s concept of what should be, huge stakes have begun minting to drown out opposition. To overcome this, you would need to literally own 50% of the network, which is far more than that available on exchange at any price. Of course, you will never see this amount on exchange or up for sale, as the current dominance will never be given up. I.e. the votes doesnt matter a lick, never has and never will. They are a farce.


You dont have to take my word for it. You can easily connect share days destroyed to the events where JordanLee used his ancient shares to drown out opposition. Compare large SDD events to the passage of key motions, and you’ll see what I’m talking about: that Jordan hides his shares until he needs to block or pass a key motion or grant.


@Nagalim is right on the above. We’ve seen this occur before with specific motions that go against him. His hidden non-minting shares come out of the woodwork to support him at the last minute. This is the reason why I completely divested myself from the network. The whole voting system in Nu is a farce. He tries to make you think voting is fair and that you are having an actual impact on the process, however it’s only an illusion. There is only one individual that will ever have control of Nu, Jordan Lee/Phoenix. He will never give up this control to anyone else, so I would advise current shareholders to abandon him and the network entirely. It’s just not worth it.


@nagalim and @sentinelrv it looks like you two have become trolls because shareholders didn’t want you to have a role in the Nu network. I am sure that is painful for both of you, but what you are doing is unfair and destructive. It appears you were rejected by shareholders due to your lack of professionalism. That lack is on display here.

You shouldn’t be posting here unless you are engaged constructively. Stop standing in the way of development of stable blockchain currencies and a decentralized exchange. If you aren’t here to build those things, you don’t belong here.

@Sentinelrv you reported on this forum that you sold your entire 1% share of Nu right in the middle of January. It turned out to be within a day or two of the all time low for NuShares, as I recall. I’m sure that is painful and fuels your anger. It would be best to take from the experience a heightened skepticism about following your emotions in matters of investment, as well as other matters.


I contributed a lot to this forum very constructively. I have a home here, as much as you have alienated me. I am calling out what I see as important statements about the process and what it means to be a DAC. I see your personal attacks on me as a ‘troll’ in response to my statement of your overwhelming control over the network as revealing of the potential truth of what I say.


This is partially correct in the fact that “shareholders” equal YOU owning more than 50% of the network. YOU don’t want us here because it makes it easier for you to sell new members on lies and revised history.

Lack of professionalism? First time I’m hearing about this from anyone here. I considered myself a great representative of the Nu Network and tried to sell as many people as I could on its benefits and fairness in voting. I had remained hopeful about its prospects even after the peg failed, up until I realized that I and everyone else here had been conned by you. You are one of the biggest con artists I’ve ever known and your ability to spin and misdirect knows no bounds.

You can never just address the points being made because you know you have no convincing answers, so the best you can do instead of addressing the accusations is to make it all about the accuser, spin, deflect, revise history and throw out ad hominems and falsehoods like you did here. You will NEVER address the questions people have asked of you a million times, because you can’t without looking guilty.

I have no anger that NuShares have risen in price. In fact I have not looked at the price since I sold out and was unaware it had gone up. This network is dead to me, even if it had a billion dollar market cap. I sold out not because of emotion, but upon realizing you defrauded everyone involved with the project. I can’t stand the way you try to mislead and sell everyone on a false vision of fairness in voting where everyone has a say when it is nothing more than an illusion you spin to try and trick people into thinking they are an integral part of the process.

You pretend to want everyone to properly understand your liquidity engine model while at the same time holding a better understanding of it just out of reach and refusing to give more details. My guess is you have no model. You give little details on it, but hold the majority out of reach on purpose in order to make people think you have this ultimate plan when you don’t. It is just a tactic to keep people involved for long enough to carry out your next scam. You are a charlatan and if you ever slip up, there are hundreds of people here that want you locked up and sent to prison.


@Nagalim @Sentinelrv, assume you are correct about @Phoenix is such a scammer, why he is still here? That’s not logical.

Phoenix/Jordan is not perfect, but I guess his motivation is good. BTW, @Sentinelrv, It’s because I believed your advocating words to invest B&C in 2015, now you are against this ecosystem.

@Nagalim, your faith was so strong about NBT<->NSR shift mechanism before 2016, and we argued a lot about the issues of Liquidity engine, now you are totally against Nu.

You are still here, without any regret. Perhaps Phoenix also should apologize about not describing the liquidity engine very detailed because even @tomjoad didn’t understand/agree with NSR sales.

If my suggestion is proven to be wrong, I will leave the forum before apologizing to all of you. Is the word “sorry” so difficult to say?

BTW, I think tomjoad and master of disaster are somehow greedy because both of them want to dilute other BKS holders when B&C’s version upgrade in difficulty, remember it.

In my eyes, there is no perfect man in this world. I don’t need to make friends with you, I don’t hope any of you are good person, I just trust mathematics and self interest, that’s the only foundation for a decentralized system as bitcoin.


I mostly agree with @Phoenix but think his numbers for purchasing network control are misleading. Immediately purchasing 400,000,000 NSR at Poloniex would cost around 300 BTC, and 500,000,000 NSR is 460 BTC. 300 BTC is almost $350,000.

@Phoenix is a terrible defender of his potential innocence.

There may just be no answer because he can’t have it unless the answer is him being majority shareholder.

It makes no sense to still argue about what @Phoenix did to recover Nu. FLOT failed to sustain the peg with Tier 6. @Phoenix took Nu out of a hole that nobody else displayed anywhere near ability to do.

Nu is operational, we’ve established how to operate Tier 6, and we’re moving forward with developments. Be a little appreciative of that!

@Phoenix responding saying you’re being emotional from the loss may not be likely to improve the mood, and I’ve adviced him of that. I just can’t see what’s left to be upset about though, and by this point I don’t come up with any other explanation.

Timeline of events related to the peg break 2016

Don’t agree, still believe there were other viable scenarios. There have been at least two other motions at the time.[quote=“jooize, post:15, topic:5009”]
responding saying you’re being emotional from the loss may not be likely to improve the mood, and I’ve adviced him of that. I just can’t see what’s left to be upset about though, and by this point I don’t come up with any other explanation.
I agree we need to move on and stop people calling names, take the lessons learnt and rebuild or find another home.

I’m no loger maintaining my datafeed as the last motion basically appointed @Phoenix with all responsibilities and exec power on the network. So there is less point in voting for something unless Phoenix wants to consult the minority shareholders and invites them to do so. I would activate my datafeed when that starts to happen on a regular bases and appears to be serio


I dispute this.

There is a passed motion that permits me to allocate shareholder funds in modest amounts for any purpose that is in shareholder interests. This is very useful, and is the only reason I can legally offer you payment for hosting a Nu client for NuDroid, as an example.

I would like to be more specialized with a smaller scope of activity, but there aren’t enough other people attending to the needs of shareholders at this point to make that practical.


Explain to me how FLOT could have raised 50-100k in a few days with less than 15 BTC on the buyside on Poloniex. Don’t confuse the slow selling of small amounts of NSR over a period of months if not years with the ability to generate large amount of funds in a short interval. We needed to raise at least 50-100k USD in a matter of days to prevent the peg from collapsing which was impossible. Trying to claim that the current method of selling a few hundred bucks a day for months on end is proof that tier 6 works in an emergency situation is absolute nonsense.

No @Phoenix used his illegally obtained shares (which are a voting majority) to remove the largest creditor (B&C exchange) from the Nubit supply and tons of Nubit holders yielded and sold their Nubits back to Nu at a significant loss (selling below 0.20 cents apiece even).

If B&C exchange still held its Nubits and no Nubit holders sold under 1 USD Nu would still be in nearly the exact same hole it was in during the peg collapse.

Nu defaulted and its customers and shareholders ended up paying for that. Tier 6 doesn’t work when we need it most which is the most retarded aspect about this ridiculous model called the liquidity engine. Without revenue Nu is literally a Ponzi scheme and its collapse is inevitable. Trying to restart the Ponzi by finding new unsuspecting customers is disgusting and you are willingly and knowingly aiding this criminal @jooize. Wake up man!

Timeline of events related to the peg break 2016

The only criminal I know here is @masterOfDisaster and possibly @henry. If you want me to see what you see, do what I have done for your own narrative.

Which shares are these?


@Phoenix posts motion “B&C Exchange should trade all US-NBT for NSR”.

[Passed] B&C Exchange should trade all US-NBT for NSR


Motion “B&C Exchange should trade all US-NBT for NSR” passes.

Motion passed in Nu: 2016–08–30 22:18 UTC
Motion passed in B&C: 2016–09–03 12:43 UTC

[Passed] B&C Exchange should trade all US-NBT for NSR


@Phoenix is granted 278,480,580 NSR on behalf of B&C Exchange to SSajkovCPXwdw46nyJ7vpTDkwtRZJzyY2z.

Current balance of that address is 199,441,111 NSR. Including sent to addresses since March 27 there’s:

199,441,111 + 14,951,210 + 3,516,040 + 15,000,000 + 367,910 + 11,220,000 = 244,496,271

Takes forever to scroll beyond that in NuExplorer, so I don’t know where the rest is or what’s up with them.

That address is indeed minting, as @Phoenix has stated publicly at the bottom of a post somewhere, but those are not the shares you’re talking about.

The shares you’re talking about is likely part of the 420,000,000 NSR that @Phoenix was granted before the B&C Exchange grant. He was also granted 3,000,000 NSR for his role as Chief of Liquidity Operations.

There’s no minting directly by those addresses. @Phoenix’s attack vector here is sending NuShares to himself instead of someone who paid for them and relying on us not noticing.

I performed blind auctions and a few direct sales at that time. The last one was Blind Auction NSR #10. I received 13.8 BTC for 15 M NSR. 6.84 BTC from Blind Auction NSR #3. 16.2 BTC for 18 M NSR. 1.2 BTC + 12 BTC from Blind Auction NSR #5.

You claim @Phoenix used those shares or other stolen shares to vote for Nu and B&C Exchange to trade NSR and US-NBT. Prove that claim by matching the amounts of NuShares with sales I have logged and find a discrepancy.


Let’s remember that @Dhume was one of the few individuals contractually obligated to provide liquidity for Nu as a multisig signer last June. He refused to transfer funds according to contract. He broke his contract, broke the law, and destroyed a tremendous quantity of value.

He feels quite defensive about his own serious misconduct. I’m not suggesting @Dhume was malicious. I don’t see any indication of that. He didn’t gain from his misconduct, so there was no aspect of corruption. But what he did do was wrong and destructive, even if it was the result of ignorance. By claiming the system is flawed, he diverts blame from himself, which appears to be his motive for posts such as the above.

The facts speak for themselves. The liquidity engine works brilliantly. Its very powerful and very effective. The capacity of the system to support the peg was not even strained at the time the peg was abandoned. Everything was within healthy parameters. It is ridiculous and unfair to suggest there weren’t funds available to pay full price for NuBits being sold. While any calculation depends on great many factors and assumptions, my guess is Nu had 10, 20 or 30 times as much peg supporting capacity in late May and June as it actually needed to support the peg. The problem was some custodians made the unlawful choice not to even attempt to support the peg. That is a very uncomfortable reality for @Dhume, because it makes him responsible for unlawful and large financial losses.