This motion does not have an acceptable hash. I get an error: “The motion hash must only contain hexdecimal characters”
P.S. I’m long time lurker who made an account because this motion is a good start to turning this ship around.
1 Like
My apologies for that confusion but this issue should be fixed now (new hash provided).
we used to have a hash generator in this forum…
I suggest you use online tools that keep track of changes and allow download of the raw text, so that anyone can view changes and verify the hash.
For exemple GitHub gists could serve this purpose very well. Write the motion inside a gist, then edit it at will during discussions (github will keep track of the history which is good for motions so that you don’t have to read everything again when you already read the first version), and when it’s finalized publish the link to the latest raw revision and people can generate the hash using standard tools.
For exemple on linux you can get the hash of the gist https://gist.github.com/sigmike/17a6993a84a5fee471c14426aa46980f with this command (the url is to the raw version of the gist):
curl https://gist.githubusercontent.com/sigmike/17a6993a84a5fee471c14426aa46980f/raw/9505c075bb8af5851ebcf4751a49b446c66ffebc/hashing_test.txt | openssl rmd160
There are also online tools like http://hash.online-convert.com/ripemd160-generator. But do not use tools that require copy/pasting because they may change the way new lines are encoded. Always work on files or URLs.
2 Likes
Dammit! So I did the Motion incorrectly, awesome! I was in a bit of a hurry and am definitely kicking myself in the ass for it now. Kind of feels like all that effort put into writing the motion is somewhat negated now lol… Ahh well.
I fully oppose the motion in its current state.
The motion is self-contradictory, but I would probably interpret it as:
Immediately cease all fund actions except those by community consensus ambiguously considered critical.
Community consensus cannot replace motions or an agent that determines what the consensus is.
Immediately halting all fund actions and payments for contractors without a replacement plan is extremely irresponsible. I’m paid via authority granted by shareholders to the Chief of Liquidity Operations. I hold the vast majority of shareholder funds. The motion while not affecting all our authority would cripple Liquidity Operations by forbidding fund actions and stripping us of compensation.
If this motion passes I’ll consider myself relieved of duties to shareholders, specifically without further action and with an expectation of shareholder funds being surrendered.
@Proteus: I recommend publicly drafting motions in the future and using the [Draft], [Voting] convention. My interpretation may not be what you intended. It’s important to carefully consider the implications.
1 Like
I love it. Well, I will admit that it’s disappointing you don’t currently support the motion but maybe that’s only because you’re slightly confused on the purpose and intent of the motion? This motion isn’t being introduced for the purpose of hindering or even reducing you or anyone else’s ability to act in the best interest of the network. It’s being introduced as a vital starting point to provide the community with it’s first shred of actual operation oversight & fiscal responsibility. I don’t have a ton of time to respond in detail atm, in fact my wife is literally furious I’m making this a priority as we speak but to quickly address–
"The motion is self-contradictory, but I would probably interpret it as:
Immediately cease all fund actions except those by community consensus ambiguously considered critical."
Wrong. Especially the ambiguously considered critical portion. This motion would solely require you or any other network custodian to create a motion and network approval prior to allocating any network owned funds you currently have access to. It’s really rather dumbfounding that this was ever not the system in place to be honest. Especially with the network issuing such large grants to single custodians like that half a million dollars you recently generated via network. This change should essentially be only a minor nuisance for custodians. If you’re assuming that shareholders are not capable or willing to approve the allocation of network funds for anything other than items that are by consensus considered “critical” you’re being ridiculous and should have more faith in shareholders. Even more concerning is… if that IS your thought process (in assuming shareholder desired actions) you would basically be saying/admitting that when making network decisions or funding approvals in the past, you were deliberately acting against what you believed to be the community consensus and desire of ShareHolders as a whole. Which would be disturbing but I don’t believe to be true.
and real quick the only other point I’ll address now is —
“Immediately halting all fund actions and payments for contractors without a replacement plan is extremely irresponsible. I’m paid via authority granted by shareholders to the Chief of Liquidity Operations. I hold the vast majority of shareholder funds. The motion while not affecting all our authority would cripple Liquidity Operations by forbidding fund actions and stripping us of compensation.”
Incorrect. This motion is not designed to halt operations, liquidity or even compensations. Nor does it fail to provide a replacement plan. It’s the same plan as before but actually operating as originally intended. Operate the same way, just submit motions first and make sure there’s a modest lead-time so the motion can be approved PRIOR to allocating said funds. Let the network approve & reinforce your actions via motion! All of us want this to succeed especially as shareholders. Motion voting is done solely by those vested in the network. None of us would willingly start sabotaging ourselves by failing to pass motions that have a measurable benefit to the community or provide and integral role of operations.
“If this motion passes I’ll consider myself relieved of duties to shareholders, specifically without further action and with an expectation of shareholder funds being surrendered.”
I personally would be very upset if you chose to do so. None of this is with intentions of diminishing your involvement in the community or your value/position within the network. I personally want to help you man! Also, no one is saying you can’t make payments or that you can’t compensate yourself. You just have to do so via a motion that is first approved by the network. We as ShareHolders were fiscally responsible enough to evaluate and assess the investment risk vs value of potential returns when we purchased our holdings of NSR. We’re just as capable and even more-so motivated to provide at the very least this same level of consideration & responsible decision making when voting on network actions & fund allocation as well.
I gtg for now though, will be back later. (my wife now hates me)
1 Like
Although I like that aspect of it, I believe that a ‘handover’ should be more planned and staged to be successful and to reduce the risk of the peg or other critical services being lost due to non-rational responses to events.
I also believe that putting this up for voting without having a discussion in draft also goes against the NuLaw as it was ever defined or at least my own reasons why I joined Nu in the first place. That way a motion or custodial grant can be improved instead of being set in stone by a single player without any consultation. In a way that is the behaviour we have seen in the last few months. Therefore I won’t support the motion in it’s current form. I hope you would allow further discussion and consider withdrawing this proposal in order to submit an improved one.
1 Like
Yea, I definitely apologize for not beginning this discussion/motion as a Draft. That is definitely the appropriate and wiser option for obvious reasons. Definitely won’t happen again. In fact that alone from @jooize’s perspective probably communicated an attempt to work against him rather than with him which is the polar opposite of what I intended.
My apologies again! Should we go ahead and start this over?
1 Like
You could start to put [Draft] in the title or ask a moderator to add that if you don’t know how.
Or maybe a new thread and linking from this one?
1 Like
I could edit the title of the current post but would rather just start fresh personally. I’ll create a new thread for discussion and then use my github as suggested by @sigmike for the actual motion file (generating hash from url). Of course anyone interested in this motion is encouraged to discuss here or send me their suggestions and/or current concerns directly if they’d like.
1 Like
This is my own foremost thought on this motion. We offer stable currency as a product. Stability and predictability in our operations is of utmost importance for creating trust in our product. The damage our brand sustained last year was precisely the result of having little concern for meeting the expectations of customers. Additionally, the perfect became the enemy of the good: people said we won’t do anything at all if we can’t do it perfectly. I see a similar lack of concern for the customers in this motion that would surely be injurious to the interests of customers and shareholders alike.
@Proteus seems to be expressing some concern about transparency. Nu is arguably already the most transparent financial institution in the world. I can’t think of any organization that publicly releases the amounts paid to every contractor. Whether that kind of transparency is beneficial is a complicated matter. A discussion around it is probably healthy. However, any changes must proceed in an orderly fashion. What has been proposed is not orderly.
From my point of view, we are not likely to get our best return on investment by focusing on the question of whether to publicly release the details of every last payment made on behalf of shareholders. Our big returns will come from effective marketing, especially trying to get better placement of our products and NuShares on exchanges. There are many other tasks more deserving of our focus.
1 Like
Yea this couldn’t be any further from the truth. You really need to get updated on other open source, crypto & blockchain projects man! First off Dash which I also devoted portions of my time to support over the years (and my ROI there will be funding my families expenses for the foreseeable years) not only has every single contractor payment or network expense publicly available (and itemized) to the community but every one of those fund allocations are only issued once granted by the network (MasterNode operators which just like NSR Shareholders are the most vested in the network). Beyond that basically every quality open-source project in existence (think Debian or Tails etc etc) is completely transparent on all compensations paid to contractors, devs & community expenses. I’m kind of dumbfounded that you aren’t privy to any of this… Aren’t you Jordan Lee?
3 Likes
@Proteus I told you. You are going to learn it the hard way. @Phoenix and @jooize are going to make fun of you with stuff like “Nu is the most transparent business in the world”. And @jooize is all against transparency as well. Uses the same narratives as @Phoenix / @JordanLee. Good luck with your endeavors to bring more transparency to Nu 
1 Like
I have an idea of what the intention is, but stand by my interpretation.
Describe how community consensus would be measured and carried out in practice.
Shareholders decided via motions to give an agent the authority to operate Nu in the current manner with contractor privacy. Whether that is optimal is the question behind this conflict.
I consider strict interpretations part of my job. If shareholders would effectively remove me as a contractor while their funds are in my custody with no action required from my part, I still wouldn’t confiscate them for personal gain but figure what I consider right. That would include supporting the peg for some time and making final payouts to contractors if applicable.
Nu is transparent in funds spent on contractors and expenses, but obviously not including details of the effects of each payout. There is nothing inherently wrong with operating this way. It is always disappointing to see decisions be made contrary to what one believes is best. Can you argue against the core principle of shareholder power?
Shareholders are free to make changes. I oppose the approach in this motion because I find it would have undesirable effects by even its proponents intentions.
How would shareholder consensus be established? Isn’t that quite obviously the purpose of motions?
Honestly, I’m only here because there is “blood in the streets” (a Warren Buffet quote) and I saw an opportunity for a possible large upside on my investment if the community can solve its problems. I did the same thing with Dash purchasing my first 5 masternodes when Dash was at a low, worth less than $1.60 per. Then I dove headfirst into helping the community in every way I could. The ideas I’m presenting are very similar to the core qualities we implemented into Dash over that time. I believe SigMike also worked on development for Dash and can attest to all of this (if I remember correctly). Today those 5 MasterNodes are worth 800k USD (yea, it paid off). Yet I can tell there really isn’t much left of this community. What’s left has definitely seem to have lost hope or just lost the desire to attempt to make much changes. Currently the only parties seeing large upsides from involvement in Nu are the “Contractors” … There is literally no benefit in someone purchasing NuShares at this point. It was supposed to be increased Nubits tx/exchange volume would mean a direct benefit to NSR shareholders but it doesn’t at all. There’s no dividend, all or most profits are being paid out to a select few “contractors” & the entire “decentralized liquidity network” is in control of one person who has no oversight/accountability whatsoever and gets to pay himself $90/hr. Must be one hell of a review when submitting a time sheet to yourself! Even the buyback is a joke because as far as I can tell these shares aren’t being burnt post buyback but just going into “Nu Funds” held by the “Liquidity Chiefs” lol…
At this point I’ll back off and let you guys do whatever this is supposed to be… but I would like to be paid for the work I’m doing & have done. Not to mention the work I’ve done for the website is literally the only sign of life or hope to be found by Nu other than the NBT peg on two fairly obscure exchanges.
Just going to leave this here… The definition of “decentralized”
- “to distribute the administrative powers or functions of (a central authority)”
My Nubits address for payment is: BCvimkwHyiHPvTiSV1jD9DCeXRMZs5eAcc
Should I submit this as a grant or can you afford to pay me out of that half a mil you granted @jooize? I figure the site needs a total 20 hrs of work (I’ve done 9 so far) and you offered me $15/hr saying the network couldn’t afford much (except your $90/hr) so that would make it a cool 300 Nubits.
I still plan to hold onto the 10m NSR I have left to see if anything ever happens here but won’t get as involved.
1 Like
I consider our contractors highly competent, and would love to see more people join the team as there are many things to do. I hoped you would be one of them, so I’m disappointed to see you given up and talking like the 500,000 US-NBT grant is my own pocket money. Burning the NuShares is certainly doable, but we need a sufficient amount if NuBit demand sees a decline. I hold almost 239 million of shareholder NSR.
We’ve sold 59,000 US-NBT more since last count. The large grant was necessary for liquidity operations because Nu is successful. We’re performing buybacks for 1,243 USD per day. You could buy NuShares at 15 satoshi and put them up for sale at 16 and quite likely have that order filled in not too long. That’s $100. Place buy orders and sell orders to benefit from the spread. If you already own NuShares you bought lower, have them consumed by buybacks. The system is designed to benefit those who liquidify the NuShare.
Nu is probably most functional in the hands of shareholders who agree. The flow in tier 6 is a core dynamic for full support of our stable currencies. The network doesn’t have any other mechanism for 100% reserve, and I’d be interested in seeing viable alternative approaches. Tier 6 reserve funds go to shareholders either via open market or dividends. There are short-term speculators and those who fundamentally care for or believe in the network.
Buybacks move the NuShare market more powerfully. Dividends distribute more fairly, but causes losses where owners of addresses don’t collect them. Exchanges would get large parts.
If (a nonspecific) you hold the belief someone had majority vote or ownership and that bothered you, the dilution performed in peg recovery was to the benefit of your interests. Some on the forum oppose both large shareholders and the dilution of them. Think that through, all the way with first round buybacks and everything. I’m still waiting for those alternative timelines and narratives.
The team doesn’t have exclusive rights to benefitting shareholders. Instead of calling for the halt of operations, begin building from the bottom using motions and grants. Gradually replace our current structure. Cater to shareholders. Understand also that not every detail can be efficiently voted on via motions.
Of course our selected contractors benefit, that’s why many of them bother working for Nu.
Feel free to submit it as a grant if you prefer. I was granted authority to see what you can do, and may pay you directly. I will review your work tomorrow or Thursday at the latest, but I heard it looks good. Thank you!
I offered you $15/hr, but the rest is not true. Go back and read our conversation at Gitter. I will say that I do not earn as much as $90/hr.
You wrote “community consensus”, which is usually not meant as the same thing.
1 Like
Saying Buybacks move the market more powerfully when there is only evidence of sharp price declines since moving off the dividend model is pretty careless. Not to mention much of NuBits design is focused around the PPC dividend model.
Also, I never argued the need for more liquidity. I argued the centralized approach to it. There is nothing decentralized about the current liquidity system especially when one single point of possible failure is being granted 500k in funds at once. The second someone is able to compromise your systems or you decide to act nefariously everything is poof gone (not saying you would, but that’s our risk). There is no Nu Network left, at all. That is not decentralized and the sole reason I could never possibly without moral decay suggest anyone store value in NuBits or invest in NuShares. Which if I can’t tell all my friends and family to jump on the bandwagon with me I don’t really have fun being super involved. Everyone I know has fattened their wallets with me over the years. I’m not going to fuck up that winning streak.
Phoenix’s loss was not the problem but only a symptom of the problem… The problem is complete centralization with absolutely no community or investor oversight. In my opinion there is no winning scenario for an investor in the current climate.
Last, I didn’t say I was leaving. I’m just saying I started to put in a lot of work on motions to establish some fundamental changes for oversight but it doesn’t really seem like anyone cares? If no one cares I’ll just do some website work, keep minting (voting too) and watch the NSR markets for a bit… Trust me I have all the time in the world and an absolute obsession with cryptocurrencies/blockchain tech. Plus the money I make off of them! To me this shit is like high score in a video game. I’ll be lurking here as well as other projects looking for prime “blood in the streets” opportunities to get involved/invest in. So I’ll be around
1 Like