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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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)
Neither of those things are truly stable. True stability is not measured in usd, it’s measured in user experience basically. Supply matching demand.
Ultimately, it’ll be voted on by shareholders when to increase or decrease supply. So the stability of the shareholder base, which is really the only engine we can properly keep running anyway.
If you have no stable quantity(BTC 21mllion) or stable price( NBT, Tether), or stable buypower(Hayek money), people just don’t undertand what’s the meaning of your system. Do you believe people will join in a gambling with some one able to print stake from nowhere & as wish?
I understand you are pissed off but if there is no concept of trying to respect what has been passed as motions (non enforceable automatically by the blockchain) as much as we can, I think Nu is useless.
What about all the motions you wrote and got passed? Are they meaningless?
They should be repealed and we should revert to a simple shareholder voting system, yes. They were made when we needed complication because we had things like nulagoon and alps. These structures are broken and dangling, we need to officially end them, along with flot, and thereby do away with all of nu law. This is equivalent to @Sabreiib’s concept of zero cost operation.
As far as stability, once again I state that it is a user experience. If usd is plummeting because washington DC gets bombed, would you still call an nbt=$1 a stable peg? Clearly not. It is a user experience. If users experience stability, they will be back. They will trust their own experience far more than any motion or statement or abstracted concept of price. Simply match the demand with supply.