Let the Peg Fail

Just start doing dual side auctions. Slow and steady, gain back a concept of internal consistency. If no one else takes up the mantle, I’ll do it myself in august. The “hurry up and repeg” is JL’s broken concept and it’s clearly done. Not a big deal, shit happens. Reclaim, recreate, never sacrifice PoS security and we can be something. Maybe not what we were or what we thought we would be, but something. Reduce costs, officially shut down NuLagoon and FLOT, create only nsr grants and only to individual auctions (or maybe groups of 4 max) once a baseline dual side participation has been established.


So your plan is we should all quit for now and you will consider working out some sort of plan to move forward beginning in August?

Seriously? What could be more unprofessional than that?

What about all our customers who bought NuBits for $1.00 with the expectation they could sell it for a $1.00? What do you say to them? Don’t care? Too bad, so sad? How is that going to work out for our brand reputation?

I continue to be amazed at people on this forum who want to shut down operations while we consider some other paths that they can’t even define. It is incredibly irresponsible. Emotionally involved decentralized liquidity providers don’t have a place in our community any more because they have displayed a stunning degree of incompetence as a group. These roles no longer exist because they have proven ineffective. That is causing these people a sense of loss. Rather than re-inventing their role in the network, they want everyone involved in Nu to lose their role as well by having the network shut down. You can bet these individuals don’t have many NuShares. I predict NuShare holders, most of whom are silent on this forum, will have a different set of motives as a group. They will not tolerate a shut down. I am appealing to them.


^ignore this troll. If anyone is self destructive around here, it’s @pheonix.

We simply need a means of controlling NBT supply. @Phoenix provides none. I do. Cut all programs that are solely a drain on resources right now (NuLagoon!!) and take control of the supply. Simple. Let the peg float for a while so we can gain our footing instead of a suicidal mission to regain it and drive everything inro the ground.

Two points, neither of which require anyone to pay me anything (as opposed to every proposed plan thusfar):

  1. Shut down unnecessary, expensive operations
  2. Cultivate an nsr/nbt dual-side auction using existing software.
    I.e. replace the entirety of NuLaw with a single auctioneer providing consistent low-impact dual-side auctions. Let the system equilibrate and stabilize over the long term. Ignore the $1 mark and act like a government, controlling the supply to match abstract concepts of demand to stabilize the value of an nbt. This includes concepts like anti-inflation or what have you. Nu shareholders would take ultimate control over supply, price and value would follow and to be determined once stabilization is attained.

Will you tell us more about this in non-technical language? I realize there are threads about it, but those suggestions may or may not be dated. In any case, can you summarize what you would like to see done at this point?

Do you realize we are in perfect agreement about all of the above?

However I will dispute and question this:

I have proposed reducing NBT supply by burning it after selling NSR in accordance with NuLaw. We of course can also increase NBT supply through the normal mechanisms (custodians releasing it). I don’t really need to provide a means of controlling NBT supply because there established mechanisms for that. So I am confused why you say I provide none. I intend to use the established mechanisms at the appropriate time.

1 Like

I am not proposing selling nsr until after we have a)reduced expenditures and b) developed a dual side market. This is drastically different from force selling nsr on an illiquid market.

Dual side means people can submit nsr or nbt and we find an nsr/nbt price directly. What is that ratio? Why is it so hard to burn accross it? Why didn’t jooize’s auction fill? It’s because the current mechanisms are poor. Direct dual side with a baseline of participation that we could totally get just with the active forum members is much more efficient.

Fuck NuLaw, it’s bulky and for a multimillion dollar company which we no longer are. We need to go back to direct shareholder grants.

I think this has already been completed, or nearly so. What expenses are actually ongoing that you think should be cut? Recent expenses don’t count if they have stopped. NuLagoon appears shut down for withdrawal, so I don’t think they will getting their regular funding. @henry I want to keep Tube, but we will have to find a new model to fund the walls. It probably makes sense to treat Tube like a gateway at this point, meaning we put shareholder funds there and pay Tube a much smaller fee. Pools likely won’t be a part of our operations in the near future. NuLagoon hasn’t done anything wrong to lead to their platform no longer working at the moment. They were just caught up in the adverse circumstances created by our decentralized liquidity providers. @henry is a victim, as are NuBit holders and NuShare holders (because their directives were not followed by liquidity providers).

I am considering advancing a motion to ban all forum accounts who advocate the violation of NuLaw. It is a poison that has destroyed the vast majority of our market cap. We just can’t function with any coherence if we permit anyone to violate any NuLaw at any time. Anyone can advocate for a change in NuLaw of any kind at any time. But to encourage defiance of the entire body of NuLaw, we just can’t accept that. We must choose not to tolerate that or die. We can’t operate without NuLaw.

If NuLaw had been followed the last month, I would guess our market cap would be three or four times what it is today. Defiance of it is just deadly to our business.

1 Like

NuLaw is only a code of conduct, like “don’t be evil” at Google, to get an idea of what that means in real life. A law has no meaning without other crucial components of a governance body, which are not present in Nu.

Nu can and should operate without that, by synchronizing the incentives of customers and shareholders using blockchain state transitions.

small textwall: motions are not votes, but oracles. The simple difference is, that if I post the hash of “apples are green” and someone else posts the hash of “apples are red” then getting 50% for red doesn’t mean that apples are generally this color, but only that a randomly picked apple is likely rather red than green, assuming the shareholders are honest with their voting. For Nu this means that phoenix can post his funny motions and at the same time I can post a motion “all of phoenix motions are void”. What happens if my motions gets 50% and then phoenix motion gets 50% a day later? What if the opposite is the case?

Motions are a very nice tool for opinion mining but not sufficiently powerful to define a true state over time, which is required to define something like laws or even contracts.

1 Like

The degree of tolerance for NuLaw violations determines how powerful NuLaw is. That is why I am working to develop a culture where NuLaw violations are not tolerated. We require NuLaw to function at even a minimal level.

The system is well designed to produce proper incentives on its own. While such incentives are preferable to NuLaw, encoding incentives at the protocol level just isn’t practical for accomplishing most things that need to get done. We need NuLaw and it must be respected. Anyone who doesn’t respect it should be rejected by shareholders and any one who claims to be a friend of Nu. Shareholders will do just that (reject NuLaw violators), but unfortunately that takes a little time.

W/e ban me, see if i care. Ill just sybil attack and run the auction anyway. Soooo easy to get around your fascist bullshit.

P.s. to anyone keeping score, our lead architect is now attempting to drive away the second most active forum member using straight up banning.


I don’t care how active you are or what you have done if you refuse to follow NuLaw. If you don’t follow shareholder directives, you are of no use to shareholders and should be discarded.

Whatever you say Chief.

If it is indeed true what some people think, that he took advantage of the network by suggesting buybacks, knowing they would crash the network by lowering the reserve, then it makes sense that he would be pushing so hard now for NuShare dilution.

Any Bitcoin gained from selling NuShares into the buybacks can then be used to buy huge amounts of NuShares when it comes time for dilution to save the peg. Most of the Bitcoin from NuShare sales would then be coming from one main person, effectively giving them much larger control of the network. The non-selling of NuShares though would go against their plan of achieiving a majority share of the network.

Even if it’s true, I guess it’s at least good that he is confident in the network’s potential success in the future. Maybe it’s similar to what @Sabreiib said…

1 Like

Making Nu strong isnt the only thing you can do with nsr. You can also mess up the PoS security and print limitless shares and bits. Done delicately, people might not even notice if you softfork just right. There are still hundreds of thousands in the theoretical marketcap to be drained.

Nu’s crisis comes from a unsustainable liquidity provision activity, I am happy to see almost all community memebers are aware of it, both Jordan and Nagalim agree with cutting the expenditure.

In fact, there should be no expenditure at all, as long as we make LP a mild profitable business. Jordan has admitted that Nu as a startup has little revenue, but he/she doesn’t want to charge fee from NBT customers.

You have no choice Jordan, you either earn lots of money from elsewhere to provide “free” strict pegging at NBT/BTC, or you charge fee by 1.02sell/0.98buy. Face the reality please. If google loses the revenue from advertisements etc, every search on google will be charged fee, and andriod is 50$, gmail fee is 20$/month, don’t you understand this simple rule?


I am pushing hard for NuShare dilution now because that is what NuLaw clearly mandates in the present circumstances. There are very good reasons why those regulations are in place. We need to demonstrate discipline and deliberateness in our actions, not emotional wanderings.

I guess it depends on if he really believes what he says.

I really hope so.

At first you need to make Nu a profitable organization, give the confidence to people that Nu can last for a long time(not a ponzi), then some people will buy 1000NBT and put 1.00USD@sell, 0.995USD@buy on centralized exchange FIAT pair by themsleves, individually, driven by their internal incentive, in a decentalized way. Finanlly, a spontaneous order comes into being.

You and I are in agreement this is of paramount importance. That is why the abandonment of the peg and the widespread violations of NuLaw are so disturbing to me: because it does so much to destroy that confidence. The reality is our liquidity operations became incoherent and disordered due to ignorance of or apathy toward NuLaw. Placing liquidity operations in a hierarchical structure can remedy that.

We also agree that everyone accorded any trust or standing in our organization must be steadfast in protecting NuBit holders, because that integrity and consistency will drive future NuBit demand and the NuShare price with it. Like you, I am opposed to anything like burning customer NuBits. We must make every effort to hold to our core mission of maintaining NuBit value and liquidity.

We are the first DAO and the absolute pioneer of blockchain governance. When viewed in that light, it isn’t surprising we had an unexpected problem with governance. We see the problem now. We can fix it and move on.

1 Like

I fully support you to recover the peg while discarding the peg is irresponsible and ruining our reputation.

I am also encouraged that our leader will not give up. As a pioneer DAO, making mistakes is not dreadful, but abondon ship is.


Youve argued for an inflation adjusted peg. That is the same as discarding the $1 peg. I am arguing something similar, seeking stability outside of the $1 peg. On this matter, me and @Sabreiib are in agreement while @pheonix continues Nu-destructive tendencies (because lets be honest, we have no idea if pheonix is a part of nu or not)

1 Like