Liquidity operations policy changes

When campaigning to become Chief of Liquidity Operations, I pledged to return our peg to $1.00. I predicted the first moves upward in the NuBit price would be swift. They were. I said progress would slow as we approach $1 and that the peg would be gradually restored. With the NuBit price ranging from $0.85 to $0.90, it is time change the character of NuBits from the very speculative investment it was at $0.20 back the to stable currency it is supposed to be.

The important question is: What course of action will incentivize NuBit use the most? It isn’t my plan to buy all NuBits back. I want to create demand for NuBits. Right now we are supporting NuBits with daily purchases of several thousands of NuBits. This might be the fastest way back to $1.00, but it might not be the way that encourages the widest adoption of NuBits. As of today, NuBits are still subject to fluctuations in price as a result of changes in demand. Daily volatility (the difference between the low and the high) typically exceeds 5%.

We could restore stability nearly immediately by introducing an escalating soft peg. We would start at a price the market supports today (which would be somewhere between $0.85 and $0.90 at the moment). Instead of using all NSR sale proceeds to buy and burn NuBits, we begin to shift some resources to building a buy wall and reserve. Then we slowly increase our soft peg price. We might use a calendar to shift the soft peg upward according to a planned schedule, or we might not commit to specific dates. If a calendar were used, I am inclined to increase the soft peg price $0.005 NBT per day until $0.95 is reached, at which time the increase would slow to $0.0025 per day. That would take about a month to fully restore the peg. However, NuBits would become stable almost immediately, with a steady appreciation expected.

Let’s think about how this looks to NuBit holders. They become increasingly confident NuBits won’t go down in price from our soft peg price, which would likely start between $0.85 and $0.90. Instead, each day they hold, they get an extra $0.005 for each NuBit they hold. Those that have confidence in our ability to keep our escalating price target will have difficulty justifying selling today when they can wait just one day and get more than an additional half percent return. Who sells an asset that goes up a half percent a day? Not many people. This may be a way to provide the right incentives for people to hold on to their NuBits. As it approaches $1.00, the plan is to have thick walls and the price stable. The buyer had a use for stable currency before, so it is likely they will continue using NuBits for the same purpose they were before the crisis in liquidity operations.

I would like to open a discussion on what the best approach to NuBit support will be in the coming days and weeks.

1 Like

You don’t need to be hurry in lifting the price so quickly, i.e 0.25-0.5% per day since NBT is around $0.85-$0.9 which is far better than $0.2.

I suggest to lift price 5% for a whole year to reach $1 destination, so that NBT becomes an anti-inflation money, what a surprise! Thanks for this crisis, NBT evolves from a FEDcoin to Hayek money, and if customers like this slowly increasing style, why stop at $1, just go on to $1.1 etc.:slight_smile:

But, where is the revenue?


@JordanLee would fire you as an incompetent liquidity operator who advocates something less than $0.99.

Increasing reserve sounds good to me.


Revenue and reserve (in a USD stable, reliable fund) is for sure what’s needed - more badly than a peg before this has been sorted out.
There’s need for accounting as well.
Rudimentary accoubting is already available.

I doubt it will ever be possible to get accounting information for the first one or one and a half years of Nu. The key people aren’t willing to.
Maybe it isn’t even possible, because the money was just thrown down the drain without accounting it - who knows?

Selling Nsr to buy nubits is a very bad idea. There has to be other plan in place else we will see nbt dead soon. nbt liability has’nt reduced significantly with these operations. nbt price rose higher from lows - but adding buy walls everyday is a lazy work. Killing Nsr liquidity to push the price of nbt will lead to undeniable selling pressure when btc rises. If you bet this not gonna happen then you are cheating.

1 Like

This is strange claim, because it suggests what I am doing is reducing NSR liquidity, when in fact I have done a spectacular job of dramatically improving NSR liquidity. I deserve a large bonus precisely for increasing NSR liquidity several fold. The four highest volume days of all time have all occurred in the last few weeks because of my work. The previous liquidity operations team was not able to bring liquidity to NuShares.

Take a look:

First reply in this discussion is asking for a raise.

1 Like

Most of the alts in polo are enjoying great liquidity and price boom in exception to nsr. Nsr is facing liquidation at such low prices. ’ Even a kid with no knowledge of trades can do this’. If you are well equipped you must have allowed nsr price to rise and later liquidated at higher prices. If you look at the liquidity supply to alts- its at its peak in polo. you have failed to utilize this huge liquidity supply in alts the right way rather you have created a environment of negativity around nushares. you could have easily raised 100btc from nsr at prices close to 200sat if you have read the liquidity in polo well.

It strikes me that the way to Nu’s doom is paved with high NSR volume - the volume was high during buybacks and it is now.

Why don’t you ask for that bonus?
Looking at the recent voting behaviour and considering @mhps analysis you should have an easy time getting it.
You could try to make it look like a close call if you are interested in challenges.

The NSR volume was high, which is no wonder looking at the crashed NSR price that was caused by revealing Nu’s flawed business scheme without any revenue.

Even if the NSR volume wasn’t bigger in the buyback times, I bet at least the BTC / USD volume was back then.

It’s a pity that the delayed damaging effects of the buybacks are advertized as achievement of creating NSR volume.

Where’s the revenue that will bring confidence in Nu and a rise of the NSR rate?
Does anybody want to buy more cheap NSR first?
Or is this just the start of round two of a ponzi scheme?

1 Like

A bonus for bringing NSR to an all-time low and printing NSR as if there is no end to it? Yes that is a way to create liquidity especially if you are selling it for less and less. Great job! Couldn’t even think of that.

And why is NBT still not pegged at $1? Because of all the trust NBT holders have in you? Another great job!
And now you are proposing to peg at $0.80? Not a fail?

Please make sure you put a grant in place with that large bonus. You won’t have trouble passing it anyway. So I sincerely wonder why you haven’t done that yet.

And yes, I’m cynical. Your liquidity moves haven’t been a great display to date and sure doesn’t provide the trust what is so desperately needed to restore a peg properly.


Since I was elected two and a half weeks ago, we have purchased an average of more than 0.5% of all NuBits in circulation each day. At that pace, all NuBits would be burned in less than 200 days. Obviously, a price of $1.00 would be restored much sooner. NuBits are the only crypto that is radically deflationary at the moment. Many are fond of praising Bitcoin for being deflationary. Even after the latest halving, the simple truth is that Bitcoin still has an annual inflation rate around 5%. NuBits, on the other hand, are on pace to have 100% deflation in about six months. NuBits are becoming scarce very quickly. It is an impressive show of strength to increase the price of NuBits more than 300% in a few weeks. We did it with absolutely zero reserves, after a spectacular default by decentralized liquidity providers who colluded to stage a rebellion against shareholders and destroy NuBit holders. We have learned to make sure those with control over liquidity are responsive to shareholder and NuBit holder concerns.

In addition to the changes suggested in the OP, once we get a buy wall with at least 10,000 NBT of value on it, we will lower our daily NBT purchase/wall placement target to 2,000 NBT per day. Relief is on the way for NuShare holders.

The daily rate of NSR sales have been around 5 million per day very recently. I plan to slowly taper this down over time, beginning as soon as we get 10,000 NBT worth of buy wall. As the number of new NSR hitting the market declines per unit of time, we will see an increase in the NSR price if all other things are equal. Of course other changes will have quite a bit of control over the NSR price, so we need to make sure we are working together to support our currency and continue to make the environment more positive. I realize it is painful for NuShare holders. It should provide good motivation to ensure this type of unnecessary default never happens again. It wastes a phenomenal quantity of resources.

The continued insistence of some to unnecessarily default and destroy NuBit holders is of course our biggest problem now. It is very difficult to create confidence in NuBits with people like @Cybnate suggesting we burn NuBits purchased by people who trusted us and 40% of shareholders voting to destroy NuBit holders. It is important we stand for integrity and consistency by making clear we do not accept these dishonest scammers.

To bring success, reject the scammers among us and assert our integrity!

Your type makes me puke.


wow, he is right, the motion really has 23% voting and Jordan also was so kind to calculate the actual fraction of shareholder that are therefore voting for this. There really seems to be more will of shareholders to safe this project than expected, although a majority of the blocks is probably still out of reach.

Jordan doesn’t even see the equivalence of the approaches and also doesn’t seem to understand the proposal, so I would recommend just to ignore his poor thought processes and to discuss further steps about how to integrate a proper business model (and if its into a fork). Note, that even if Jordan achieves what he wanted and can go home with a bag of money while Nu went even deeper into its hole, then you can still implement this method and hope for a recovery. Trust into NBT will of course he hampered, but that is already the case…

It is very difficult to create confidence with people like @phoenix who just endlessly create NSR without a business model for the shareholders. Your dilution is close to 50% with the latest proposals. NSR value is at best 20% of 3 months ago.

And even worse you are destroying and therefore kind of stealing NuBits holders value by buying NBT for less than $1. They are losing over 20% selling to you for weeks on row. And you are stlll saying that you stand for integrity? At least alternative proposals are very clear upfront.

It is a real shame what you are doing!

Again just words, what are you really doing about it? Impressive shows of strenghts? Calling others dishonest scammers? Are there honest scammers? Really? You are only putting in more controversy by attacking me and others.

Are our proposals to address the situation really that different? I don’t think so. My proposal would also been selling NSR and would have punished NBT and NSR holders like you do. The only difference that I opted for a more sustainable model so that we won’t jump in the same ditch for a second time.

Are you really going to continue fighting the other 40% of the shareholders and create more controversy? Does that makes sense? No, according to your own words. Collaboration and creating confidence that would make sense.
I’m listening…


@cybnate well said.

1 Like

There’s little sanity left in those who rule.
All is aimed at scamming present and future investors in NSR and customers that just want to use NBT.
I’m saying this because I understand now that this business can’t be sustained without revenue and tx fees don’t count as such in the foreseeable future.
There is no revenue and the actions of @Phoenix don’t deal with changing that.
Without revenue it makes no sense to recover the peg - it will fail again.

And those who make proposals to reform the business and work in the most crucial part - revenue! - are being attacked and insulted.
Nu can go this way. I won’t support this and I won’t follow.
@Phoenix, @JordanLee, that part of your mission is complete; I’m out of your way.

The time is near for those who can’t bear this any longer to find their own way; they can’t cure Nu from Jordanism in the present system.
A fork seems to be unavoidable.

1 Like

Do we want it to be a fork of Nu and call it Nu, or call it something else?

It depends on how the fork is done, who wants to support the fork etc.
@Phoenix and @JordanLee speak of a rebellion, try to put the blame for the bankruptcy of Nu on liquidity providers.
I see it differently. And I know that I’m not alone.

What Nu suffers from is a combination of a ponzi scheme and a putsch, where the putsch tries to prolong the ponzi scheme.
I call it ponzi scheme, because there’s no revenue.
The system gets sustained by sold NSR and NBT.
The proceeds from NSR sales will evaporate.
The proceeds from NBT sales will evaporate.
They will evaporate in sustaining the NBT/BTC trading pair with a tight peg.
Oh, I know, the Liquidity Engine…

The voting for the regulation of spread was very well played by the new dictator (I don’t believe in coincidence after @mhps’ analyses).
1% Maximum Spread in Shareholder Funded Liquidity Operations passed shortly after 1% Maximum Spread for ALP/MLP, Above 1% Allowed for Nu Funded Liquidity Operations (e.g. Gateways) had passed.
Without spreads bigger than 1% there will be no way to make revenue in the NBT/BTC pair.
Nu will fail again - or continue to fail; depending on how you see it.

I don’t know whether it was planned like that ponzi scheme lead by a dictator from the start, but with the wisdom of hindsight you can find a lot of hints that what’s going on at the moment has long been planned.
Hints are e.g. the attempt to introduce faster motions or the NSR buybacks

I don’t see a way to cure Nu without cutting Jordanism out.
How to do that is a matter of discussion.
Starting something new and calling it different from Nu has benefits as well as trying to continue Nu after getting rid of the dictator.
A whitelist gathered from the voting behaviour in controversial motions (e.g. the 1% spread motion) can be a guide.

I have previously talked about my plan to reduce daily NBT purchases to 2000 from an average of well over 3000 per day currently. The market is telling us it is time to make that reduction now. This will reduce the funds that need to be raised with NSR sales by more than 35%. Relief for NuShare holders is here.

By purchasing and burning 2000 NuBits each day, we are still removing more than 0.33% of the entire NuBit money supply each day. That is still a pace that will support the price of NuBits well.

My biggest priority right now is enhancing and protecting the liquidity of NuShares. With all other things being equal, NuShares will have twice the liquidity at 100 satoshis that they will at 50 satoshis. Preserving the price of NuShares is critical to maintaining liquidity in NuShares, which is in turn needed to support NSR sales, which support NuBit purchases. We need a decent NuShare price to optimize our ability to continue purchasing NuBits. So, it is time to slow down our NSR sales targets to provide funds equal to 2000 NBT each day to either purchase NBT or place on an NBT buy wall.

Unless forum participants present a good reason to do otherwise, we will begin reduced NBT purchases and reduced NSR sales immediately.

While this is off topic, and I do wish we could have good discussion about the issue at hand, I would like to point out that @sigmike has suggested that NuShare holders disillusioned with what the majority of shareholders are doing could burn their NuShares on the main chain and create them in a new and separate chain. While I wouldn’t say I support this action, I will say it is reasonable, fair and would bring some benefits. I doubt it will be done. I don’t plan on doing anything to advance such an effort, but I am not opposed to it. Perhaps reserves could be split proportionately (if 20% of NuShares move to the new chain, the new chain gets 20% of reserves).

1 Like