FLOT NSR Operations (buy side)

Signed. Can’t broadcast for some reason.


1 Like

The new nsr address has the same set of pubkeys as in the nbt FLOT address but the order is different. When we say the signers are sorted in a multisig adress, it means the pubkeys are sorted, right? why is the nbt address not sorted?


Broadcasted. txid 0d22338db64144d41b37ded5ffe8ac43460fe550a128562a198419eae1cbc31e

Will add a link when it can be found in blockexplorer

the explorer couldn’t find the tx. balance in address unchanged.

I think so. But we soon need BTC, as most proposals to go forward show. Shouldn’t we start selling NSR for btc? The current price is 80 sat, we can start with 130%, 120%, 110%, 100% to 90% current price from Monday to Friday on Poloniex. To discourage gaming I suggest FLOT grant the excutioner power to randomize price and timing within +/-20%.

the latest calculation show that we should get 5.4401 BTC back to T4 from selling NSR. That is 6.8m NSR assuming the 80sat price, 0.7% dilution of NSR money supply.

6.8m NSR from 1st NSR FLOT address to @jooizeauction#1 address SWqGtyZvQoDVP8wV2HPMFcA5vK5pVBA3yh

Signed 1 of 3/5. Verify

We can discuss what to do if there are NSR left at 90% current price (or made 5.4401 BTC before Friday) during the week. Let’s get started.

@Dhume @cryptog @ttutdxh @masterOfDisaster

1 Like

The question of whether to accept NBT or BTC is a question of whether we are going to support our currency now, or possibly using BTC to support it later (the funds could also be used for development that wouldn’t support the currency in the direct, open market sense).

Where the organization has been quite guilty of not properly supporting our currency this last month, I think we should choose actions that directly support our currency now. Requiring payment in NBT tends to result in NSR buyers purchasing NBT on the open market, which when combined with the burning of those funds, lends considerable price support to NuBits. Let’s support our currency by inducing NSR buyers to first purchase NBT. Then let’s reduce the NBT supply by burning proceeds.

I can see why @mhps has suggested selling NSR for BTC. With NBT falling, contractors want payment in BTC. While we do have some BTC available for that purpose, we need to focus on making NBT stable enough that our contractors will accept it. If we can’t get our own contractors to use NBT, then who will? Let’s make NBT usable.

While I still support a peg and a buy wall being put up, requiring payment for NSR to be in NBT is a very important and effective way we can support our currency right now, even if we don’t have a peg or buy wall.

NSR demand is low because we have failed to support our currency adequately. If we make supporting it our highest priority, I believe the market will reward us with some additional NuShare demand. This is about integrity and trust.


I’m also not seeing it show up in the blockchain or in blocks. When issuing “sendrawtransaction” I get the same tx back, and that it’s not already in a block.

Not quite sure what’s up yet … if anyone has any insight to diagnose, please share.

I smell an unjustified and overly confident attitude that played a role in bringing Nu where it is.
I’m addressing this not only to you, UAreJordanLee. This goes to all who preferred drinking the kool-aid to running a business.

Prepare for the future. But don’t forget the way of getting there. Supporting only NBT right now is nonsense. BTC can be used to buy NBT cheaply and pay contractors. There’s little reason to focus on stabilizing NBT.
On the contrary - as long as NBT are cheap and volatile, the debts can be reduced cheaply.

Sell NSR for BTC and for NBT.
Reduce the debts and increase the BTC assets.

No peg now. Use buy and sell walls to buy low and sell high. Make revenue. Learn from the traders. Support a peg once you can afford it and can prove that you can afford it.
I’m still missing accounting information from the early months of Nu.
I bet they look horrible accounting wise. So much trading volume was bought to make Nu shine.
It could have worked, but it didn’t.
Now it’s time for something that is down-to-earth.

NSR demand is low, because Nu fucked up as a business.
It has no revenue, but a lot of debts and operational costs.
It never had revenue except for fantasy future revenue by transaction fees.
Nu needs a solid business plan if NSR shall ever recover.
If NSR can’t recover, recovering the peg will be very, very hard.


We have to make NSR recover by generating confidence in our commitment to supporting our currency. It was this lack of commitment to our currency that brought the NSR price down.


That’s true. Nu shut down liquidity operations. What would people expect to happen to share price when a business ceases its most important daily operations in a chaotic and unplanned manner?


Very true words from @IAmJordanLee. We should try to finally understand his message!

Lack of capabilities in running a business brought the price down.
Are you really not able to understand that trying to continue the same path will lead to the same outcome?

You can’t support any peg without sufficient revenue. You can’t hope for a recovering NSR price without sufficient revenue.
Once you get the puzzle of how to make revenue solved, recovering the peg and increasing NSR rate will be rather easy.

Propaganda time is over. The cult blew up
New attempt: serious business!

Very repeated words - that doesn’t make them true and most here know it.
I wonder where the other sock puppets are?


It was running out of Actual Money™ that brought the price down.


Start ups are not profitable from day one. They all require substantial upfront investment. But we have to give people a reason to invest, a reason to think we will support our currency. Shutting down our primary business operations in a chaotic and unplanned manner certainly demonstrates a lack of capabilities in running a business, and does not provide investors with the confidence to invest. That is our main problem right now.

I am advocating something quite different from what was done previously. Liquidity operations used to be decentralized. That was expensive, but most importantly, it didn’t work because the many decentralized decision makers didn’t have the expert knowledge needed to operate our liquidity engine. They didn’t follow our own formal regulations (in the form of passed motions). This wasn’t a few liquidity operators that were breaking the rules we had established ourselves. The chaos was widespread. We can cut down expenses a great deal and improve the quality of decisions made by placing liquidity operations under the command of one or a few liquidity operations experts.

Also, there is a relation between the level of reliance on the liquidity engine required and the reserve level. The more reserve we have, the less we have to rely on the liquidity engine. Given that our liquidity engine has performed abysmally recently, we know we shouldn’t rely on it very much, even if we do make it operate in a manner subject to expert guidance.

So, my plan for change focuses on much higher reserves (to reduce dependence on our liquidity engine) while simultaneously providing a command structure for liquidity operations that will produce huge cost savings as well as much more effective functioning.

@ConfusedObserver I support improvements in the areas you think are important, and I hope you are successful in bringing improvements to tracking business and accounting metrics to our already very open financial reporting. I want us to support our currency while you do that.


Great one!

No, it wasn’t. We had actual money sitting in tier 4 unused. Demand for NuBits that could have been generated with park rates wasn’t because of low rates at first, and then this avenue of increasing demand temporarily was completely shut down with an abandonment of the peg before our real troubles began. It was hardly used. Most important, not a single NuShare was sold prior to the abandonment of the peg. This is a serious and grave violation of many of our regulations. NuShare sales worked in 2015 when we had an intact peg. If you price a peg failure into the NuShare price before you attempt to use NuShare sales to buy NuBits, it doesn’t work very well. That was very predictable, but the decisions made in regard to NSR sales were very poor quality.

I have little doubt that we would have been able to keep the peg and most of our share price if we had utilized our liquidity engine. This was a crisis caused by not adhering to our carefully laid out plans. So let’s be responsible and make sure that plans are followed in the future.


In that moment of crisis, when MoD salvaged the last of the reserve, I have little doubt of the opposite. :slight_smile:

I think we both agree that NSR sales should have been more aggressive, though.

1 Like

Saying NSR sales should have been more aggressive suggests that there were some NSR sales before the peg was abandoned. The historical record is clear that there were none. Your statement is misleading.

You’re right, and there weren’t. Still, selling NSR is more aggressive than not selling NSR. :wink:

Anyway, back on topic: can anyone help @woodstockmerkle in broadcasting the transaction?