Discussion regarding my ideas (& draft motion) for handling NuNetwork funds & increasing oversight/transparency

[Proteus]

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

[Proteus]

You wrote “community consensus”, which is usually not meant as the same thing.

If by “community” you thought I meant forum that is toxic horrid advice (as we all know). Shareholders have a vested interest in making good decisions. Just like MasterNode operators in Dash… My apologies for not specifying shareholders. Anytime I say community you can rest assured I mean shareholders lol

[Proteus]

Dividends distribute more fairly, but causes losses where owners of addresses don’t collect them. Exchanges would get large parts.

I think you’re ignoring the fact that needing to store the NSR in your own wallet to receive the dividend actually encourages more long-term NSR investments. This translating to decreased market liquidity surplus thus increasing NSR demand/price. It provides the entire structure for what makes this work. It also provides more tangible proof of a return to investors which currently we see 200k nbt volume per day and literally no movement or even declines in NSR price. There is absolutely no tangible return and even less so for a LONG TERM investor. At least long-term shareholders would have received some ppc while they watched their share price dwindle from 2200 satoshis to 6-16 satoshis… How is this not obvious? How are we even debating this? What further proof would one need?

[MaVo]

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.

This is complete bullshit. @JordanLee sold a lot of his Nushares during the NSR buybacks and pocketed around 500 BTC. He then wanted that control back and crashed the peg. He then even bought Nubits below one dollar and sold them slowly into the market during the peg recovery. @JordanLee then bought NSR again after he crashed the system and I believe he might have thought that everything - including investor sentiment and the community - might recover fast. But it does not and it won’t completely. @JordanLee is the one with insider information because of his “special seed investors” who actually received a lot of Nushares at a special price. The same thing happened with B&C - special seed investors who got a discount on their 40,000? BKS? Where is B&C at today? Where is Nu at today? Jordan was too greedy, and you are too greedy, too.
@Phoenix “lost” control of funds three times. THREE TIMES. No multisig established after the first theft. No multisig established after the second theft. And no multisig established after the third theft. As a solution, the holy Vice Chief of Scam Operations decides to hand over all funds to the infant Vice Chief of Scam Operations who now - correct me if I am wrong - again holds everything under single sig.
Nobody can supervise your actions (don’t tell me that @Phoenix is your supervisor, he was and is your teacher for how to conduct scams). You can payout 8k USD, and 8k USD, and 8k USD and again 8k USD and nobody knows what that money is for. No activity on the development side. @sigmike and @woolly_sammoth made their earnings transparent and it turns out their income in comparison to those payments is completely negligible. Who pocketed those 8k payments? And if we can’t know who it was, then what the hell was it for?
You hold hundreds of thousands of Nubits and hundreds of million of Nushares and you are not pushing for decentralization? That is a deliberate action with only one single reasonable conclusion. You love what you are doing, but not because it benefits every Nushareholder the most. You love it because it benefits you more than other Nushareholders.
You ask the moderators to ban people like @ConfusedObserver from the forum, and just a few days later you ask @ConfusedObserver how to perform NAV calculations. Dude, you are completely braindead. And you keep quiet, much like @Phoenix / @JordanLee because you get compensated and the longer the system runs like it runs, the more money will you be making from front-running buybacks, paying yourself a nice salary, and receiving Nushare bonuses granted by the majority shareholder @Phoenix for your loyal lemming behavior. You are a scammer, that’s it.

I remember how often @JordanLee used the narrative “the market has spoken”. He even kept using it when Nushares increased in price from 100 to 120 satoshis, even though it dropped from 2000 to 100 satoshis before. That is completely nuts. And I want to repeat myself here: the market has spoken. Pinkcoin is worth a lot more than Nushares. Blockshares are being traded at cents, I guess. $0.15 has been offered for one BKS by @Cybnate, a well respected and long standing member of the community. The market has indeed spoken. B&C is completely dead. And Nu fills a reasonable position in the long list of shitty alt currencies on coinmarketcap.com. The market has spoken! But you don’t care, because your dollar wallet is growing as there are newcomers who don’t understand what is going on and buy a few Nubits and Nushares here and there.

[lissajous]

The system is designed to benefit those who liquidify the NuShare.

No. The system was designed to distribute dividends to shareholders, thus encouraging people to hold on to their NSR. The core team changed that and, maybe coincidentally maybe not, the NSR price has fallen ever since.

Change the dividends to only payout to minting shareholders and maybe even change them over to BTC if that is possible without a new chain. Dividends are an excellent model for real world investors. This twisted buyback/dump to absolute bottom is not mirrored anywhere in the real world.

Further, the system was designed to have liquidity operations be decentralized to market participants willing to take the risk. Is my understanding correct that we have totally given up on that feature of our network, or is that still a goal we are working towards?

[jooize]

The NuShare must be diluted in times of declining demand beyond tier 1–4 reserves. Distribution of funds above equilibrium can be performed in different ways. The NuShare may be destined to fall in value when below equilibrium, but what ultimately matters with regard to tier 6 is the support of our currencies. Those who provide support gain share of the network.

It has taken me a long time to grasp how the model makes sense, but I’m increasingly convinced it does. The network has even taken several bad hits, but still has functioned.

Dividends only to certain shareholders would be possible. I may be more for a flag to indicate outputs (or addresses if possible) want to receive them. We shouldn’t require minting as that has an effect on voting, and some only wish to hold shares. However, perhaps minting by default shouldn’t result in voting no.

A wallet designed from scratch along with a UI/UX designer would be wonderful. Most or all cryptocurrency wallets I’ve seen are terrible.

Decentralized liquidity is still a goal. I will say again that the team doesn’t have exclusive rights for improvements to Nu, and we do listen to ideas. It’s just that most have consisted of “you suck!” lately.

[MaVo]

No. The system was designed to distribute dividends to shareholders, thus encouraging people to hold on to their NSR. The core team changed that and, maybe coincidentally maybe not, the NSR price has fallen ever since.

You are very right. Buybacks are much better to benefit from via insider knowledge. If they kept the dividend model via PPC, less money could have been pocketed by Jordan. I don’t remember exactly, but there were some buybacks conducted “OTC”, meaning that the buyback wasn’t conducted on an exchange, but privately at “favorable rates for shareholders”. This shitcoin is just a shame.

[woolly_sammoth]

Returning to discussions on the Original Post.

I don’t believe that @jooize has to date acted outside of any remit previously put in place via motion and as such remains within Nu Law in carrying out the duties that he has done and continues to do so.
I feel that the terms put in place in this motion as it stands are too severe and risk badly damaging the network. I would prefer to see a clause put in place to transition from the current fund holding setup towards a shareholder approved multi-sig group who can manage the expenditures of Nu in a more detailed way (project or task breakdowns perhaps). I feel the motion in it’s current form could sever the process currently in place suddenly but not prepare the ground for something different to follow. The motion mentions putting in different sub motions to achieve this but I feel that it should be specified in this motion to ensure the structure is in place once this one passes.

Most importantly, I am heartened by the use of a motion to do this. One of the crowning achievements of Nu, in my opinion, is the ability to enshrine rules and social contracts into the blockchain. This motion, even though I’m not sure I could support it in its current incarnation, is the perfect use of that functionality. Something is happening that one or more community members don’t like or think needs a change so a motion is crated. The community can discuss and refine and then it can be approved or rejected by the holders of NuShares who actively participate in voting.
Once enshrined there can be no argument, it is then NuLaw and we should all need to abide by it otherwise, what’s the point?
I hope that this is the start of more motions and a return to voting. Think there should be more transparency in accounting? Great, make a motion. Think that dividends are better than buybacks? Cool, make a motion.
The good bit is that motions are only rattified by those who can definitely prove that they have NuShares and who, it would be hoped, have the best interests of the network at heart.
I know there will be arguments against the fairness of the motion system due to the unfair distribution of shares. That may or may not be so (what better way to find out than creating some motions and seeing what happens?), but I would trust it as a method of developing social contracts than the current war of attrition on this forum. I am certain that if a motion encapsulates the best intention for the network, it will gain votes and become NuLaw. I’m looking forward to finding out anyway.

[Proteus]

Well it doesn’t appear the motion has enough support by those whom I believe probably have the most voting power. Is there anyone that would like me to hash this and submit it for voting? If so speak now and suggest any changes and I will, otherwise I’ll leave this alone for now.

@jooize & @woolly_sammoth Is it possible for me to be paid for the time I’ve been putting into working on the website? I still haven’t received anything. If you wouldn’t like me to continue the work you can just remit payment for the 9 hours I did.

Address: BCvimkwHyiHPvTiSV1jD9DCeXRMZs5eAcc

[Proteus]

BUMP because Nu NEEDS it!

[Cybnate]

I think there are some good things in that motion and some bad things as has been commented on. It is unlikely this motion will pass in its current form without major changes no longer reflecting your intention. I doubt the current shareholders are ready to take the proposed major changes even when softened aboard anyway. Still hope that will change in the future.

[ConfusedObserver]

It is unlikely this motion will pass in its current form

Ofc it won’t pass. It’s not after the fancy of ‘the shareholders’ aka Jordan and his sock puppets.
There is no desire for transparency at those who want to exploit Nu.

I doubt the current shareholders are ready to take the proposed major changes even when softened aboard anyway. Still hope that will change in the future.

Be alarmed once it’s about to change.
Logic dictates that it means those who have all the information that isn’t available to the rest due to lack of transparency know that the ship is finally sinking and abandon it.
As long as Nu can be milked, it needs to stay nontransparent. Information asymmetry is the key to exploit Nu.