FLOT NSR Operations (buy side)

Right. Privkey. That’s what was referring to when I said “password”.

i just checked. the key was right.
one could create a 3 of 5 address with self’s keys and see if it is possible to sign it.

Then I remain clueless.

New attempt with reworked Cointoolkit

3,175,000 to masterOfDisaster Poloniex account

Signed 1 (mOD) of 3/5


I checked the addresses and the NSR amounts.
Please check thoroughly before continuing to sign or broadcast it!

@mhps, @Dhume, @ttutdxh, @cryptog, go!

signed 2 of 3/5. verify
looked right except no input amount or fee displayed

Fee is 10 NSR. That should be far enough on the safe side. 1 or 2 NSR should suffice.
When creating the tx, the input amount was displayed and the fee automatically generated.

I don’t know how far the discretion of FLOT reaches, but I know that without @backpacker’s prompt help we would have had a lot of trouble to get this tx created and processed, even though (special thanks to @jooize!) all did the best they can.
The work on the block explorer was no maintenance, but an improvement.

just to spell it out - i’d like to transfer some NSR to @backpacker.
What does the rest of FLOT (NSR group) and shareholders think about that.
The service @backpacker provided was directly related to liquidity provision. Without it, we would be far from getting the NSR to sale.
Now it’s only ine more signature and the broadcast.
So I think it’s justified to send @backpacker a present.
@backpacker, can you provide us with an NSR address - just in case we agree upon doing it that way :wink:

1 Like

Great idea to make me motivated shareholder of nu)


Paying NSR is good. But Not sure FLOT is authorized to do that.

Without a properly working Cointoolkit, FLOT members wouldn’t be able to fulfill their mandate.

We could just have sat and waited until shareholders couldn’t stand it any longer and created a motion, grant or whatever to pay a contractor.
In between the reserves would have run lower and lower…

Nobody wants that. And we are glad that @backpacker took the initiative.
If we (FLOT) are allowed to overshoot our mandate when it comes to performance and extra roles, why should we be overly worrying about a present for @backpacker?
After all we need consensus to sign the tx.

It’s remarkable, how often FLOT or other people rather act than talk - while so many others stay silent.
May the shareholders remain silent when we pay @backpacker some NSR - or speak now, thank @backpacker and create a grant for him!

If I don’t find a draft regarding an appeopriate NSR grant (or NBT) within 24 hours, I’ll create a tx from FLOT NSR funds.

@Cybnate, I’m addressing you, because you are always taking care of keeping a minimum of governance.
Would you agree that honouring the work of @backpacker is in the best interest of Nu - with or without explicit approval from shareholders?

I consider FLOT paying someone without a passed motion telling us to definitely is beyond what we should be doing.

1 Like

I’m not in the mood to fight for anything, not even the contributions of @backpacker, whom I highly appreciate.
I’m incompetent.

You are not incompetent. We are all doing our best. I think contributions should be encouraged as well, and I’m thankful to all of these people. It’s just not within our … I can’t find the word. We’re trusted to do liquidity operations, not decide what development Nu pays for.



Thank you for your words, but you should read @JordanLee’s motion again:

You don’t realize that Jordan made this a fight, a decision between him and me?
While I have reasons for my position, Jordan is more eloquent, but doesn’t provide data.
At least my incompetence doesn’t go that far that I can’t presume how this is going to end anyway…

What is the data? I don’t really understand what is going on and why liquidity is being held back from the markets. Could you explain it for someone that’s not been following 100%?

We may have managed liquidity funds improperly according to how the system was intended to function, which was designed by him. In that aspect we may be incompetent.

While FLOT is intended to manage liquidity funds, shareholders haven’t given us straight commands on how to proceed in this situation, leaving us to do what we believe is right, where you have made difficult decisions. You’ve even repeatedly pleaded to shareholders to tell us what to do.

Perhaps motions effectively say we should never have held back liquidity.

In a nutshell:
the BTC surge started to empty buy side.
One reason was the low reserve, which was that low because of buybacks (according to a motion created by Jordan and approved by shareholders).
Park rates and NSR sales weren’t able to cover that loss of BTC on buy side.
The buyside offset was increased to support the peg at an albeit degraded peg.
I’m going to be sacrificed, because it’s mainly because of my advocating that it happened this way.
People who sold NSR during buybacks can buy NSR back cheaply now and even cheaper soon, the cheaper the more desperate the network looks.
Having no peg at all instread of a degraded peg (I’m waiting for a dump, that drains all remaining funds at 5% offset, btw.) might do those who want to buy NSR a favour by pushing the NSR rate down even further.
If they play it right, they might end up with more NSR than before the buyback and still have some BTC left.
Well done.


Thanks for the reply.

What about the BTC FLOT funds? How are those being utilised? Do they get eaten too quickly?

Does Nu need a bailout? Perhaps someone (one or more shareholders with available funds) willing to place plenty of buy-side liquidity by purchasing NSR or NBT directly. Is there any idea about how much money is needed to support the peg and provide enough liquidity until things should hopefully re-balance?

Anyone that looks to devalue the peg for the purpose of buying NuShares is an idiot as they risk destroying Nu completely. I do hope no one is that stupid.


There’s been little to no time for motions though has there? I thought the point of FLOT operations was to deal with liquidity in a timely manner without needing to ask shareholders.


Just posting on the forum can influence FLOT when operating with discretion. I feel that there hasn’t been a well explained argument making it obvious which way to go. I’m still evaluating what I believe after today’s discussion, though I posted a summary anyway.

For one position there’s evidence and facts…
For the other position, there’s bold claims and a vision.
One position is represented by the architect.
The other position is represented by a rebel.

You can associate two of the statements with each other, if you pick the right ones.
Whom will you believe?

I suggest you have a close look at how fast funds were drained from NuLagoon Tube (0.1% spread; empty on 2016-05-27), ALP (soon after), @Cybnate’s PyBots (more or less at the same time) and when I tried to revive the liquidity provision on Poloniex, from my NuBot at 2% buyside offset.

I’m too lazy to provide links for all this.
The situation tires me.
Have a look at the jumps BTC made since 2016-05-27.

There’s only one likely assumption: the buyside would be empty, if not for me.
That’s why I need to be fired (I plegded guilty already). I have a voice. You need to come with arguments and not only with claims, if you want to oppose me. It’s inconvenient having me here, if I interfer with an agenda, I don’t really understand. This is not only about liquidity provision!