Welcome to Hayek club. With Hayek money, perhaps 1HYK=3USD after that bombed.
What is NuLaw? Previously passed motions. It is not future motions, as Creon pointed out. So what does NuLaw consist of? What motions are on the books?
- FLOT
- ALPs
- NuLagoon
- Abstract spread and dilution motions
Anything else? I propose we do away with all of these, thereby ending the current iteration of NuLaw. Ban me for saying it, but that’s my belief.
In place, let shareholders vote directly on supply maintenance. If shareholders feel the nbt price is rising, they will dilute nbt. If they feel the nbt price is falling, they will dilute nsr. That feeling is rhe stability mechanism. The only question then is magnitude of velocity, which can become the entire basis of a new NuLaw.
But yah, fuck all the laws on the books. I can’t think of a single law we should keep if we don’t have a btc reserve.
So you are advocating the creation of a new mechanism to keep the peg, which would rely on a new body of rules, which could be called NuLaw2.
So in your new mechanism, liquidity would be replaced by matching the demand with supply.
Can you give details about you think it could work?
No Peg (see title). This is an extreme viewpoint compare to those that Nu has operated under in the past. So extreme that @Phoenix is trying to get me banned for even mentioning it. First, all external loss mechanisms are abandoned. This primarily involves every mechanism by which Nu holds or influences the BTC market, but also includes dropping park rates to 0%. Without a BTC reserve, FLOT (also an external loss mechanism) is asked to burn all funds and give up their power. The remaining BTC would be used to pay off any developer debts and buy back as much nbt as possible to burn. No developer will be paid in NBT going forward, solely in NSR.
Next, we as a community encourage an auctioneer to begin dual side auctions. Dual side auctions can be summarized as participants submitting either NSR or NBT or both and getting back the opposite token in return. All received NSR goes to those that submitted NBT, all received NBT goes to those that submitted NSR. If no one takes up this mantle, I will do it in August.
At this point, the NBT supply has no method of growing and will only shrink negligibly due to txn fees, so will remain approximately constant. NSR will continue to grow with mint rates and dev costs. This is the backbone, a ‘stable’ NBT supply with a fluid NSR supply. Once dual side auctions find some consistency, shareholders submit NSR or NBT to auction to directly control the NBT supply. This submission process should involve paying both the auctioneer and the executor (who submits and burns the counter token) a small portion of the token submitted. Low-impact is the key here, and the NSR reward should be lower or on par with just the current cost of FLOT.
Once this ideal has been achieved, shareholders are in full control over the supply. At this point there is only one NuLaw rule that needs to be made: the velocity of execution.
In fact, the role of auctioneer and executor can eventually be imported directly into the blockchain in order to achieve perfect zero-cost aside from mint rates and no trust aside from PoS trust. However, that will require blockchain development and a hardfork. The velocity can be fixed, for example to a specific fraction of the NBT and NSR supply per auction every 1000 blocks. Submission could be done directly in the client and shareholder submission done by voting on a single boolean representing which token to dilute each auction.
The key here is that the ‘peg’ is not a peg. The stability of NBT would be solely in the hands of NSR holders, and could be pegged or not pegged to whatever the shareholders want at will. As the shareholders have only a single boolean to vote on (0=NBT, 1=NSR), I believe it would be babying them to impose a NuLaw on this to fix to a particular peg. However, if you really want to imagine a NuLaw 2.0, it could for example simply say that if shareholders believe NBT to be worth >$1 then they should vote 0 and if they think it’s worth <$1 then they should vote 1. But again, I think that such a motion would be unnecessary.
P.S.
I feel I should mention that this idea is not new, nor is it mine. It’s simply the culmination of conversations had over the past year.
2 Likes
This proposal will is and will be hated by @JordanLee and @Phoenix.
But it seems that @JordanLee doesn’t post here any longer - if he ever came back he would have to deliver accounting information, which he doesn’t want to disclose; it would be so easy to counter this accusation by just coming back and going fully transparent. Oh, I know, the privacy of whomever…
And @Phoenix is just a newbie, writing as eloquently as @JordanLee, but following his road to perdition. It’s a pity that there are so many sourced of revenue, but instead on focussing on them, there’s only distraction and lust for power in his posts.
@Nagalim, please don’t let yourself get discouraged by those evil actors.
I know how hard it is to continue if you face a lot of eloquent distractions, lies, inverse realities, accusations and FUD.
You never know whether to spend your time rebuking that crap or showing a superior alternative.
I failed. I broke down. I might recover. I might decide it’s not worth continuing here.
You seem to be focussed on providing an alternative. Keep that focus. It’s the only kind of focus that can save Nu.
Your thread here, @Cybnate’s draft “Think big, act small”, @nmei’s proposal "“No liquidity without a revenue model” are amongst the constructive attempts to reform or revolutionize Nu.
Don’t let yourself get trapped in motions that try to follow a path that didn’t work in the past. Nu was only running astonishingly when it could burn thousands or even tens of thousands USD per month.
Startups don’t make revenue. That’s right.
Read carefully: the startup time is over. Nu is bankrupt.
Except for the few BTC I could save for Nu opposing @JordanLee, getting attacked, insulted, excruciated for that, there’s not much left.
Discussing with FLOT, not sending them to NuLagoon and not offering them at a tight spread was all I could do against an architect that went rogue, but that had and still has superior political and rhetorical skills.
Dumping NSR at the market now would only benefit those who want to buy NSR cheaply.
NSR sale according to “Standard and Core” motion is not important at this very moment.
It violates NuLaw? Ban all that dare evolving Nu beyond a ponzi scheme!
But if you first create a sound revenue scheme and try to sell NSR afterwards to fund development, you might wonder about the NSR rate you can sell at!
2 Likes
It benefits NuBit holders a great deal. Supporting our currency gives us credibility, which is what we most need at this time, given what has occurred over the last month.
It is quite permissible to hold and express an opinion that the Standard and Core motion is no longer helpful. If that is the case, you should advance a motion to nullify it. If your motion passes, you can discard the regulation and be in full compliance with NuLaw.
I will give the same advice to @Nagalim. Think all NuLaw is now inappropriate? OK, you can say that. The appropriate action is to advance a motion that nullifies all existing NuLaw. If it passes, then you can ignore the entire body of nullified motions and you will be perfectly compliant with NuLaw in doing so.
What is not permissible is to simply say you aren’t going to follow shareholder directives. If you refuse to follow NuLaw, you are of no use to shareholders and should not have any position of trust whatsoever. Widespread violations of NuLaw renders Nu completely dysfunctional, as we have discovered this last month. It simply can’t be tolerated.
Violations of NuLaw were the primary reason for the loss of the peg and the drop in the NuShare price. As Chief of Liquidity Operations, I will always follow NuLaw and will dismiss any liquidity provider who insists on violating it.
1 Like
No, the appropriate action is to speak my mind and not be bullied by the likes of you. I’d appreciate it if you don’t try to force your opinions on me with empty threats, thank you.
3 Likes
The primary reasons for the loss of the peg were the end of an unsustainable business model and an NBT dump of someone who knew about it (while others didn’t realize it).
The NSR price went down, when it became clear that Nu failed.
The NBT and the NSR rate are victims of the same failure: the economic failure of Nu.
You never get tired of repeating the same untruths.
Both NSR and NBT rate can only be restored, if Nu finds ways to generate revenue.
A motion that’s aiming at adjusting actions to the current situation has already been created:
It’s good to read this:
If somebody made a motion that forbids you further liquidity related posts, would you follow that as well once it passed?
Would you come back with a new account in this case?
Certainly.
How about a motion that solely requires you to burn all your shares and nothing else? Would you follow that too? Remember, if you say no, you risk geing banned.
1 Like
I doubt the motion can be passed, although DAO is not a real world company, it must comply some basic rules, to deprive weath without any decent reasons is illegal, e. g. How about send money to ISIS?
Tell that to the eth hardfork.
1 Like
It is possible a cryptocurrency community becomes a terrorism group. ISIS can also form a crypto, cannot they?
I really dont see how you or i could stop them. What’s your point here? Creating a crypto only requires some kind of freedom of information transfer. Terrorists also have access to math and language, does that make math and language fundamentally bad?
This is an important question, it is what leads people to think muslim is a terrorist religion. Flawed logic, but logic many follow.
What we decide determines who we are.
If we pass a motion to deprive customer/shareholder wealth without decent reasons, we becoming Nazi.
What do nazis have to do with this? They were a government, not terrorists.
This thread is officially terminated as someone had to invoke Hitler or Nazi.
6 Likes
Other Mods, feel free to open it. I don’t support the direction this one is going and I don’t want to delete posts.
@Sabreiib, let this be a warning.
I don’t think @Sabreiib realizes that he has lost a lot of credibility to his argument by bringing up Nazis. I will leave it up to him to remove his own comment. It’s his reputation. I will say that if a discussion on Nazis continues from this point forward there will be consequences in the form of account suspensions.
1 Like