Liquidity operations policy changes

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

Remind me - why should NSR holders burn NSR to get on the fork?
Anybody can create a fork without any requirements.
But if one wants to introduce requirements, don’t you think using a whitelist to distribute shares would be preferred to burning NSR?

I understand that you refer to this version of forking, because it would help you get rid of opponents once they burned their shares.
Alas, I don’t see that happening.

there will be no single side burning of course, we can’t help you get more control in current chain ownership state and possibly on the new project chain too. i prefer mandatory vote for every shareholder that chooses fork not implicated in mhps analysis with address balances from the moment of loss of peg (block 888888 for a good round number). All we need is a new version that can only send shares to one of two burn adresses. A tally is counted after 100k blocks and shares are assigned on two new chains. NBT balances can be carried across to both chains. Remaining shares that didn’t take part in the voting process can be carried across later if we create multisig account with undecided shares. or something like that, i am just brain storming.

I am a substantial holder of nushares at just above 10.7 million and don’t have intentions of selling any off within the year. Nubits’ price has bounced back due to buyback. I think nushares will shortly follow suit.

1 Like

How exactly do you imagine that to happen - the NSR rate to rise without substantial improvements?
Playing the greater fools game with people who come later and want NSR more desperately than you do?
Selling NSR to recover NBT to some degree will not be able to replace revenue.
Where shall that NSR rate rise come from?
Options I’m aware of are:

  • market manipulation
  • hopium (part of the greater fools game)

Did I miss something?

I’d feel rather bad if I were an NSR holder right now.
Without revenue there’s no way to evade complete bankruptcy.
Nu needs to make revenue and cut operational expenses.
Trading in the BTC/NBT pair at a tight spread is expensive; widening the spread would hardm volume, but could make revenue.

The NSR sale and NBT rate recovery are necessary, but they aren’t sufficient.

The market prices of NuBits and NuShares are the result of many interactions of unpredictable and unknown actors, so they cannot be forecast with certainty. However, I believe we will see the NuShare price rise as we reduce the rate of NuShare sales, which is a process that began yesterday. Let me explain why.

NuShares are no ordinary crypto asset. Aside from the pioneering model of governance they facilitate, they are designed to be the most volatile crypto asset. This is because NuBits were designed to be the most stable crypto asset. We take the price volatility the market wants to impose on NuBits and we divert it to NuShares. That’s our model. It has proven to work every time it has been tried. The default orchestrated by incompetent decentralized liquidity providers dramatically reduced demand for NuBits. When NuBit demand falls for any reason, the market is trying to lower the price of NuBits. Our model says we counteract that by reducing the NuBits in circulation and increasing the NuShares in circulation. When a very sharp reduction in NuBit demand occurs, a very sharp increase in the issuance of NuShares is necessary. So I created a sharp increase the issuance of NuShares. That’s the model protecting the value of NuShares. It isn’t a fun process for NuShare holders right now, but it is certainly the right way to preserve the long term value of this most volatile asset. We must at this difficult moment in time be careful to bear in mind how our model plays out through the entire cycle of decreased and increased demand. It is a test to see if we have the maturity and discipline to keep our attention on the big picture instead of being swayed by emotional impulses. Decentralized liquidity providers utterly failed this test. I am demonstrating the maturity and foresight that is needed at this moment.

A NuShare is a speculation on the potential to issue NuBits in the future. If we increase demand for NuBits by offering a quality product that is predictable and people have confidence in, everything else will fall into place. NuShare issuance will slow. The NuShare price should rise as a result. Then additional NuBits are issued to meet increased demand, and NuShare buybacks will eventually follow. Then the price of this most volatile asset moves upward for as long as NuBit demand increases.

Some say promoting NuBits is hopeless because of the poor choices of decentralized liquidity providers at the end of May and in June. However, all this is already priced in to the NuShare price (and the NuBit price). All we need to see improvement is to increase NuBit demand from its currently low level. Ironically, destroying so much NuBit demand as has been done in June makes it easier to create additional demand, because it is easy to make major improvements over the terrible way things were run in June.

If we follow the model carefully, the NuShare price will be true to its volatile character and swing back powerfully, because we have already firmly established a dramatic improvement in the NuBit price. Our biggest threat is lack of confidence that we will follow the model. We need to make it clear we will not let anyone who rejects our successful model to have any control in our system.

I wish to emphasize that I intend to gradually reduce the number of NuShares sold per week, which have exceeded a rate of 35 million NuShares per week the last couple weeks. I reserve the right to increase it, but I don’t intend to in dealing with the crisis that was under way when I became Chief of Liquidity Operations.

We are very tentatively stable at $0.85. We need to build a buy wall below that to increase the stability. We can create NuBit demand by stabilizing at $0.85 and increasing the soft peg price slowly… At this point, NuBits are a semi-stable asset that offers the promise of modest appreciation of a little more than 15%. That is something we can sell. Our goal should be to make the restoration of the peg be seen as nearly inevitable, so that the ride from $0.85 to $1.00 seems like an easy gain and as close to a sure thing as we can make it.

What is the motivation?

You are excluding ME!

I apologize, better would be to find exact block when peg broke. Do you have any other objections?)

I am just curious what the peg breaking has to do with the fork block. I guess I thought the objective was remove Jordan’s influence.

That’s my objective as well.
The current version of Nu is doomed.
I suppose it will have a dead-cat bounce, but no future, unless viable revenue streams are found.

As @Phoenix==@JordanLee dosn’t show interest in revenue, I wonder how this can change.
Nu feasts on itself as well as on present and future NSR and NBT buyers.
Nu has to feast on shareholders and customers, because there’s not enough left in Nu to feast on.

Only in a fork with a sound revenue scheme I sense a future for “Nu” and that part of the community that gets ignored by our new dictator and doesn’t want to be involved in this ponzi scheme.

It seems that way. The idea we can print NSR to pay the bills will just continue to be rejected by the market, while we print NSR to pay down debt. I fear that even the shareholders in a hypothetical future version of Nu without Jordan will still not understand that economic reality. NSR used to be voting rights and dividends, predictable in supply, and now it is a pump and hyperinflation cycle coin which is a feature according to the Chief. I doubt it will ever get back to the prices achieved with dividends and scarcity.

We blew through the 1 billion shares stated at ICO like a bat out of hell. (Would that be a Phoenix?) We need another milestone. I think 3,000,000,000 NSR will be in circulation within a year unless fundamental changes that are effecting the NSR market are made.

How many NSRs are outstanding (in circulation) right now?
Do you have an idea?

“moneysupply” : 1098930997.21499991

I believe there is another 150 million NSR about to be printed as well. I do not know the definite “in circulation” number, though. I could be mistaken, and that is already included in the moneysupply.

1 Like