FLOT BTC Operations (buy side)

@Dhume and @ttutdxh usually need to be notified by a PM

I’ve acctually witheld signing this on purpose, I don’t feel this is the right course of action and it’s been put into motion by what I believe to be a malicious actor. I want this bird situation cleared up before I feel comfortable emptying our last reserves.


Thanks for posting your objection.

@ttutdxh has been messaged.

What would the plan be? Go rogue with the money? Whether we like the results or not, Nu is supposed to be controlled by what the blockchain says.

FLOT members promised to follow passed motions. If blockchain consensus cannot be achieved in favor of whichever purposes a minority shareholder base desires because let’s assume the actor you refer to is in sole control of Nu, FLOT will need to steal the money.

FLOT is a liquidity team, not an elite group of fund managers.

I think the situation is clear-cut, albeit certainly not comfortable.

25.74 BTC to Poloniex buy wall at $0.995

Description: All remaining FLOT BTC funds to Poloniex for US NuBit peg support.
Address: 1L55nYrmDEVSmwrLRBkXDCRc7kRJ9YDKVP (Nu Poloniex Gateway @jooize)
Amount: 25.74096065 BTC
Fee: 0.002 BTC

Signed 1 of 5-of-8


@woodstockmerkle @cryptog @mhps @Dhume @dysconnect @masterOfDisaster @ttutdxh


1 Like

With me, mod and ttutdxh practically absent, Nu is on the brink of losing control over the address, so I support that this migration should be completed ASAP.



Signed 3 of 5-of-8



The current situation is that the peg has been restored. Extrat fund would help but without the 27 btc in FLOT’s hand the peg will still likely be bolstered.

I invite members of the community to air their opinions whether the fund should be put into the peg – it might get dumped on by big nbt holders in a flash – or for development – @Dhume is right that getting enough people to sign can be a problem if the fund is in FLOT’s hand.

I will sign it if I don’t hear convincing objection in three days.


So some FLOT members are absent, they are so irresponsible. BTW, have they returned @dhume 's 7500 BKS? If not, I think so terrible to trust such multisig group.

The approach should be different. E.g. multisig with 3 out of 8 or even more. That way the funds are not in control of one person with all the risks and more signers are available at any given time to approve transactions. Higher amount can be 5 out of 16 or something like that.

1 Like

Seeing as it will be impossible to do anything else with these funds besides what Phoenix commands (due to him having a majority voting control over the network) I don’t see a reason to not hand over the funds anymore. We cannot get any motion to do otherwise with these funds anyway so might as well hand them over.

1 Like

I agree with this shift. 5 of 8 on the BTC multi sig team was definitely a problem. 4 of 8 would have increased the odds of the funds being used in a manner consistent with shareholder directives. I am undecided on whether 3 of 8 would be better than 4 of 8. Perhaps we can experiment and see how 3 of 8 works with a modest amount of funds.

When we make these kinds of decisions going forward, we need to take into account our experience that theft of multisig funds has not happened. The problem that we have seen is a strong bias toward inaction. We can address that by requiring fewer signers.

I agree. The peg has been restored. So we do not need that additional buy support. Wouldn t it be better to use it for development for example?

1 Like

We are in great need of additional buy support. Accessible reserves stand just a little above $10,000. We need a lot more buy funds for Poloniex, not to mention Tube, Bittrex and HitBTC. There remains an acute shortage of buy side funds. We need this BTC to support our currency. Please transfer it to @jooize’s gateway.

I see. In that case it makes sense.

How does this statement

relate to this one:

Only $10,000 reserves, but $41,000 buy orders.
Are you going to say that somebody is speculating on less than 4% gain by placing $0.96 bets?
Doesn’t it make more sense to suppose somebody tries to pump the market, make NBT look more reliably pegged than it really is?
Who could that be?
Who benefits from that?
How much is $10,000 compared to NBT in circulation?

Are you really continuing to hug the NBT/BTC markets at exchanges despite all the costs, risks and no gain from it?

Aren’t you afraid that somebody forks the codebase, develops a business scheme that provides revenue (most simple case: spread trading), focusses on a currency pegged to USD, trades only in that pair, offers 100% reserves and offers shares for that?
It would start small, but could grow organically. The risk would be small.
Sounds like Tether, but works without the AML/KYC issues.

I bet there are a lot (former) supporters of Nu who would take the risk trying such a different road.
The shares of that corp could be airdropped to the lot who attempts this.
You won’t need extensive development for it, just time, passion and some marketing.

It’s only a matter of time until somebody does it. You can only try to prevent it by being faster.
Having no revenue will break Nu’s neck sooner or later in one way or another.

1 Like

Yes, US-NBT is great deal at $0.96 if you can buy them there, because you can sell them back for $0.995 quickly.

The trader and all shareholders. Which reminds me that you don’t speak like a shareholder or someone who is watching out for shareholder interests. So why are you here? It seems like you have an interest in seeing the project fail.

This is libel, which is illegal and immoral. It is a manifestly false statement intended to cause harm. Stop it.

You’re an absolute comedian pheonix. You’re either that or you’re dillusional, either way you make for a perfect CEO.

Anyway, aside from your batshit crazy accusations, you completely ignored the point that the buy-side liquidity is being provided by someone that could pull it at any moment. The clear insinuation is that you are manipulating the markets for your own profit. Anyway, please continue to ignore these vital questions of transparency and ethics. I’m sure a complete lack of responsible accounting will help you out wonders in your court case against confusedobserver.

1 Like

The drive to be suspicious that every action is part of an elaborate scheme of wrong doing and cheating is a bit excessive here lately. What if it is me that has personally put up all those non-shareholder US-NBT buy orders? Would I be convicted of supporting the peg? Of trying to bring value to NuShares with a strong peg? Of trying to make a little coin with arbitrage? Everyone else has the same opportunity. Whoever is doing that is certainly a friend of NuBits and NuShare holders. If the official buy wall is consumed and a buyer picks up US-NBT for $0.97, he is our friend because he prevented US-NBT from going lower. He gets to sell US-NBT for $0.995 most likely the next day for a small but low risk profit. It is a win-win situation.

Many here seem to have an implicit belief that the transactions in our space are zero-sum: if one loses, another wins. While that is true in some cases, it isn’t very true of the overall situation. It is fairly easy to create a win-win situation that is not zero sum. As we learned in June, it is also relatively easy to create a lose-lose situation in our space, which is what happened. Everyone lost: NuBit holders, NuShare holders, BlockShare holders, decentralized liquidity providers, NuLagoon pool users, pool administrators, @JordanLee and @masterOfDisaster. There were no winners. That is why it was so terribly anti-social. It was just pure destruction. The paranoid among us are still looking for who won in their zero sum mindset, but there were no winners. It bears some relation to the MAD doctrine (mutually assured destruction) of nuclear warfare, even though that metaphor is a bit dramatic. The system is set up so that NuShare holders must protect NuBit holders and keep them whole. If NuShare holders try to impose a loss on NuBit holders, a larger loss is immediately delivered back to NuShare holders. This is designed to prevent NuShare holders from imposing a loss on NuBit holders in the first place, due to the knowledge that an attack on NuBits will induce the market to launch an even greater attack against NuShares. In this respect, the system worked just as designed in June. A premise of the design was that shareholders and liquidity providers would understand this basic dynamic, thereby ensuring they would never press the big red button and attack NuBit holders. But stupidity won the day and the suicidal attack was indeed launched. Idiots. And that is why the network needs me. I know not to press the big red button. As an aside, the events of June make me much more worried about the odds of nuclear war. It shows even when win-win options are readily available, sometimes the anti-social and destructive choice is in fact made due to ignorance. It is very scary.

As long as I continue to be empowered I will ensure nothing so terribly anti-social happens in our network.

Quite on the contrary. From the beginning of my presence here I pointed my finger at things that needed improvement, e.g accounting and revenue.

Had you listened and implemented a revenue scheme first and started mass NSR sale later, you could have sold them at way higher rates.
Nu could have made a new start, but you are instead just trying to prolong the ponzi scheme.
Nu was starting with the funds that were gathered from shareholders.
These funds are gone; wasted in an unsustainable liquidity provision.
The cashflow dried up and the NSR rate crashed.
You repeat the story of the broken peg that caused the NSR crash. Please don’t consider the average shareholder that stupid.
The NSR sell pressure was much higher than the NSR buy pressure, because Nu’s economic scheme was unveiled as deeply flawed.
That’s the story of the NSR crash and the Nu failure you try to ignore. The market doesn’t ignore.
With revenue, you had sold NSR at higher rates (beneficial for shareholders) and might have been able to buy more NBT (good for customers).
Allow me to ask again: how many NBT are still in circulation and not backed by BTC?

I tried to improve Nu, because I wanted to become a shareholder. I found Nu interesting-looking.
With all you did in the last months you put me very far from that idea.

is what you do. You don’t do traders and shareholders a favor. You play a game trying to enrich yourself. You run a ponzi scheme cloaked as Nu.
Pumping and dumping both NBT and NSR is part of that game.

I’m glad that I’m not the only one who recognizes that.
You, @Phoenix fail to recognize, understand, acknowledge what’s wrong with Nu. Or you know it and still act oppositional to what’s good for Nu.
So you are either stubborn or dangerous. Most of your posts make me think it’s the latter.
As you appear to control (directly or indirectly) the majority of the votes, you can do as you please and put the blame on ‘shareholders’, if the inevitable happens.

Corporations can’t be run with hope. They need money.

Not necessarily and of course not if the orders are placed to manipulate the market, which is a likely reason.

The person who was front-running the collapse and could sell tens of thousands of NBT at the pegged rate was no loser.
The shareholders who sold NSR during the buybacks and bought NSR cheap during the selling-off were no losers.
Is it so strange to look at it like both parties might be the same?

They do and ever did. Without revenue NuBits holders are ultimately the ones who will end up with NuBits that nobody wants to buy for BTC or anything else.
Selling NSR on the way and wasting the proceeds doesn’t change that.
In the end there will be NuBits holders with worthless tokens.

You are my hero.
I think about drafting a concept for an improved version of Nu here. It’s up to Nu to absorb that or wait for others to do it.

1 Like