They can send withdrawal orders or contact me to prove the address ownership.
The Pool deposit addresses is only for deposit, not the addresses we sent withdrawal fund out.
But these are the addresses, where pool participants send tiny amounts of NBT (0.01) or BTC (0.0001) to withdraw funds (or 0.1 NBT / 0.001.BTC to convert between pools), right?
Yes.
NuLagoon Tube is well balanced with tight spread and more than $5,000 liquidity depth in each side. Enjoy it.
2 Likes
Till now, all the funds from NuLagoon Pool A, C and D are returned to original investors. Over $77,000 fund were transferred from NuLagoon’s solo control to their original investors. It is a remarkable achievement in this cryptocoin world which full of distrust, hate and scam.
Any Pool investors if have not received the returned fund as you should, please contact us as soon as possible. Thank you.
In future, NuShareholder can continue to use NuLagoon Tube to provide liquidity with their own funds. As stated before, the monthly fee is $500, fee should be paid to address: BLGdraBCznbtQjM6V7jWUyrcn9Uzihy4Y3 with no later than 3 months delay. Thank you.
3 Likes
Thank you @henry for your integrity and your loyalty to NuShare holders and NuBit holders. It is much appreciated. I hope to see more initiatives from you in the future. It is regretful that you haven’t made more money than you have, but with the damage from the Augeas default now fully absorbed, hopefully we can get back to growth. The peg has been perfect for more than 2 months now, US-NBT transaction volumes are up 15% month over month, and in December we will release Chinese NuBits. NuShare liquidity, which more than anything is the strength of the peg, is many times what it was 6 months ago. The results we have had have clearly proven the liquidity engine model proposed by @JordanLee and embraced by shareholders works reliably. The only caveat is it has to be used, which the group that became known as Augeas chose not to do to any extent, in grave violation of shareholder policy. We are well positioned for growth.
Now let’s discuss the practical matter of providing liquidity via NuLagoon Tube. I noticed there are presently about $5,000 in funds available for trading at NuLagoon. May I ask where those funds are coming from? Are they your personal funds, or are they investor funds?
It is in the interest of NuShare holders to have good liquidity at Tube. Prior to the Augeas default in May and June, Tube transactions were growing rapidly, and it appeared Tube was poised to become the highest volume NuBit exchange. We ought to help Tube grow again, because it provides an easy way to trade NuBits in volume.
Probably the most reasonable way for liquidity operations to help is by providing funds for liquidity at Tube. It may be best to structure this as a zero interest loan to Tube, perhaps in the amount of 30,000 US-NBT. It could be increased if there is demand for the liquidity. In some ways this isn’t very different from what we do with Poloniex. When we put shareholder funds on Poloniex, that is a zero interest loan of sorts.
@henry, how would you feel about taking a 30,000 US-NBT loan for a term of 6 months? The intent would be to extend the loan after six months, but putting a time limit on it gives us a chance to re-evaluate the needs of shareholders, NuBit users and Tube and make adjustments if needed.
I don’t know @henry’s birth identity. While that is a concern, he has performed incredibly reliably and with great integrity for two years. He could have easily disappeared with all investor funds in June, but he didn’t. He returned them all. Part of the calculation is that Henry is a very competent and reliable partner for us, so we need to do what we can to encourage him to continue building with us. There is some risk there, but I think the potential rewards are greater. I hope he will continue to develop innovative and useful products as he has in the past. In reality, knowing someone’s birth identity is not likely to result in recovery of funds if a trusted person decides to take them and run. The notion of using government coercion against someone who has misused shareholder funds is largely impractical.
So, as Chief of Liquidity Operations, I am willing to extend a 30,000 US-NBT loan for six months to Tube at zero interest. We will also pay 500 US-NBT per month for this liquidity. @henry, is this the best way for us to support you, or would you like to suggest something different? We should create a contract on Daology that is hashed to spell out exactly what our expectations are. What date in the past should the 500 US-NBT payment per month be started?
NuLagoon used to get payments of around 5,000 US-NBT per month from NuShare holders. While the reduction to 500 US-NBT for fewer services is a misfortune for Tube, it is a 90% savings for NuShare holders. We have dramatically dropped the cost of liquidity, as @JordanLee predicted would occur. There are lots of successes occurring in the Nu network.
1 Like
Most of this funds belongs to the unregistered user BAkQ3Y5GEAhCot85mYTuyKve9howNiqcXP, who accidentally send 4655.0 NBT from an unregistered address. This funds should be returned to him. I can’t do so now because Tube doesn’t have enough NBT. I will discuss this with the user.
Thank you very much for the trust. My only concern is who is responsible for the volatility risk. The funds of 30,000 US-NBT on Tube, six months later may worth more or less than 30,000 US-NBT, because of the volatile BTC price, trading spread and so on. In recent month, BTC price rise a lot. This is actually a chance to make money.
Can I suggest that NuShareholders take the profit or loss generated from liquidity operation? All the funds in Tube belong to NuShareholders regardless it’s 31,000 or 29,000 NBT in 6 months later. This is basically exactly the same to what we are doing in Poloniex. Also, because the transactions in and out Tube are all fully transparent in blockchain, no one can steal money in stealth.
Thank you.
Just to clarify, Augeas launched October 26, 2016, which is after May/June.
Neither time travel nor cross-blockchain / cross-exchange transactions are implemented or operationalized, though these may be things we’ll consider in the roadmap.
1 Like
I will be making a lengthy post in a new thread soon to summarize some of our recent history. In it I will describe how the Augeas default of May and June occurred, what Augeas is, and how it came to be, among other things.
That claim is accurate, and it isn’t a mistake on my part. Augeas did exist in May and June, as the majority of the most active participants on this forum. It also existed at that time as a minority of shareholders on the Nu blockchain. Augeas wasn’t born on October 26. It formed slowly here on this forum. At first, it was a community without its own blockchain, and later created its own blockchain by selecting a subset of the Nu blockchain. That subset of the Nu blockchain existed long before October 26. Criteria for inclusion in the subset was that the NuShares in question must have consistently voted against the peg, as only a minority of NuShare holders did. Therefore, Augeas is that subset of NuShare holders who oppose the peg and oppose honoring of the reasonable expectations of NuBit holders. We see the same people who opposed the NuBit peg being the most active in Augeas.
This would mean shareholders would also get the profit from the 1% spread, correct?
I am fine with this, but it does mean shareholder funds need to be segregated from other funds, such as the ~$5,000 on Tube now. Would you be willing to move these funds off Tube as you work to return them so that all funds will be shareholder funds? We could also define a certain percentage as belonging to shareholders and a certain percentage owned by others, similar to what you did with your pools. That isn’t quite as simple, but it certainly isn’t too difficult to do. I am fine with either approach, as long as the funds belonging to shareholders are tracked. @henry, would you prefer to remove non-shareholder funds from Tube or would you prefer to track the funds owned by each entity?
Correct. Shareholders decide what spread will be set on NuLagoon Tube, and get the profit from it.
I will compose a contract on Daology and post the hash in this thread shortly. I also will remove non-shareholder funds before shareholders funds deposit. Thank you.
Glad you found your scapegoat. At least now you wont blame your failures on qgm.
1 Like
JordanLeePhoenix is always right.
Real accounting doesn’t need addresses and volumes per transaction - it’s all transparently written in the blockchain, even if central exchanges are used.
Nulagoon is in no way associated with JordanLeePhoenix.
Augeas is the bad guy. It’s not a farce in which JordanLeePhoenix scams shareholders and customers.
This would be the material for a charter of Nu, but I’m sure I can predict if it will be voted in or not 
Oh! I have an idea…
1 Like
Contract of Liquidity Operation on Nulagoon Tube
https://daology.org/proposals/2a4f280f76505ff07aba18958500662e336d5f4f
Text Hash ( RIPEMD-160 )
b3b0c2b3b2c3171d323d27d05c2addb503583911
NuShareholders (Their representatives of Liquidity Operation @Phoenix) and NuLagoon (Its administrator @henry) have made the following agreements.
-
NuLagoon Tube will be providing trading service on US-Nubits/Bitcoin market
-
NuLagoon Tube’s administrator is responsible for the VPS, SSL and domain fee, service maintenance and trouble shooting.
-
NuShareholders or their representatives decide the size of funds for liquidity operation on NuLagoon Tube and keep the right to adjust the size anytime in future.
-
The funds on NuLagoon Tube can only be used on liquidity operation with no exception.
-
The funds on NuLagoon Tube, including all the profit or loss generated by liquidity opeartion, belong to NuShareholders.
-
NuShareholders or their representatives pay NuLagoon Tube 500 US-Nubits/month for the service fee. The payment should be made to BLGdraBCznbtQjM6V7jWUyrcn9Uzihy4Y3 at end of each month with no delay than one month. The service fee payment is started at 2016-09-21.
Proposal created with Daology.org by nulagoon for Nu
I just emptied NuLagoon Tube. From now on, all the funds on NuLagoon Tube belong to NuShareholders.
Thank you @henry for formalizing our agreement on Daology. The content is somewhat different from what I had in mind, but I like the way you propose to structure it much better. Therefore, I am pleased to accept the proposal as is.
Shall I proceed by transferring 30,000 US-NBT to BJDirPFfohpTRXTiTzw8gfZjV9qy3CRqpM under the condition the funds be handled consistent with our agreement summarized by hash b3b0c2b3b2c3171d323d27d05c2addb503583911 ? @jooize, will you please partially balance Tube by exchanging 3 BTC (from the Poloniex buy wall) for US-NBT after I transfer the 30,000 US-NBT?
Can do. I’m going to bed within an hour or two, though.
Yes. The TX probably will be recognized as Invalidin, but it’s safe. I will manually re-mark it later.
This has been paid in the amount of 1500 US-NBT, for a period of service from 2016-09-21 until 2016-12-20.
Thank you Henry.
30,000 US-NBT were also transferred to BJDirPFfohpTRXTiTzw8gfZjV9qy3CRqpM for use in liquidity operations at Tube.
1 Like