Motion for manual exchange?


I think this deserves a motion instead of a dictate. I would much rather spend perhaps a day or so worth of the buybacks to get NSR listed on an exchange.

Manual Exchange (NSR/BTC) – Discontinued, see
Manual Exchange (NSR/BTC) – Discontinued, see
Manual Exchange (NSR/BTC) – Discontinued, see

This is the perfect situation for @jooize to front-run the buybacks. No matter what you @lissajous want or like, these buybacks are going to happen manually :wink: Btw, why do you think a motion is worth anything? What do you think will the outcome be?


I believe this is still the narrative of how Nu is supposed to operate.


A motion would take too long. We need to ensure liquidity of the NuShare. I certainly agree this approach is far from optimal. We may have a new wallet release with the most essential features ready for Alcurex within a day, thankfully.


There is no sense of urgency to the buybacks. Alcurex doesn’t even have an API. This is very important for liquidity.


I think this manual buy back program is acting outside of NuLaw. We can add this to the inexplicable reasons shareholders are disgruntled with those at the helm of Nu.


A means of exchange for NuShares is important for them not to lose value. Why do you think it’s against NuLaw? We have authority to conduct liquidity operations, which I think this clearly is within. Buybacks are part of the liquidity model.


I think it is a stretch for you and Phoenix to assume the motion granting your authority to run NuBot with shareholder funds lets you literally make any decisions you see fit. Whether it is dumping Bitcoin Cash, adding ETH, (failing) to prop up NSR at 42 satoshis, under the table compensation for yourself. The list literally goes on for a good long while.

How about you explain how you interpret the motion yourself? I can’t prove a negative as it was extremely vague in language. You act like the worst politicians I have ever seen in this regard and that goes against founding principles of Nu as far as I am concerned.

The fact that you fail to see this and refer to disgruntled shareholders concerns as inexplicable really gives credence to @MaVo’s attitude. He undoubtedly lost more than myself and I cannot really hold this against him after seeing how you deal with any criticism (even if constructive).


Usually because it’s inefficient. We develop ideas over time. Adjusting motions and updating all shareholders would slow us down, more than it’s worth I think they agree. Anyone who disagrees can post a motion. Try with something simple but still meaningful and see the support it gets.


You don’t get it at all!


I am in agreement with @jooize that prioritizing the continuity of liquidity operations is very well within our mandate from shareholders.

Not even two days ago, @jooize proposed a $1,000,000 US NuBit grant be placed under his control. This already has 69% support from shareholders. I have endorsed the grant. Shareholders overwhelmingly support what we are doing in liquidity operations as indicated by the current vote.

@lissajous you are always free to create whatever motion you would like and see how many shareholders support it on the blockchain. You can create a motion to stop these exchanges. If it passes, we will certainly comply. However, I am confident such a motion wouldn’t pass.


Honestly, nobody asked you. You have done so much damage to Nu with your carelessness, identity games, and poor critical thinking that your opinion and comments go in one ear and out the other.


@lissajous I think by now you should have understood that this project is not meant to reach global scale anymore. It serves to create monthly anonymous paychecks to @Phoenix and @jooize, both of whom refuse to disclose their income earned through Nu and paid by shareholders. All relevant developers (@sigmike, @woolly_sammoth) were willing to disclose their income, and surprisingly they only accounted for (too lazy to look the precise numbers up) 5% to 8% or so from all expenses paid over the course of three months. There have been payments of almost up to 10,000 dollars. I think 4 of them within 8 weeks time. It is still unclear who rendered services to Nu for that amount of money. Demands for explanations have been refused with the typical answer, which is “we must protect privacy”.
By now I think you understand that a liquidity operations business will only serve a very small community that accepts all this scammy activity by @jooize and @Phoenix. Never would it grow and turn into a global stable digital currency with that level of transparency provided by @jooize and @Phoenix.
Anyone buying Nubits must be completely nuts, as @jooize is sitting on Nu assets worth well over a million dollars. He protected one of the biggest scammers in crypto, which is @JordanLee /@Phoenix. He even protected him, when @JordanLee told the community that he has been hacked three! times within 2 or so months and “lost” significant shareholder funds, among which is the complete B&C dev fund.
@JordanLee played this smart and @jooize keeps it going as it is a steady stream of income for him. Front-running buybacks, writing checks to himself, and always the option to run off with a million dollars in Nu assets or just tell the community (like @JordanLee did) he has been hacked and everything is gone, whatever the final outcome will be, there are good reasons why Nu is at where it is at today. No exchanges, ridiculous market cap, and a single person sitting on over a million dollars of Nu assets calling himself Vice Chief of Liquidity Operations.
When you ask for transparency, they answer two things: 1) we must protect privacy and 2) we are the most transparent business in the world already. They make fun of those asking legitimate questions. They argue with “NuLaw” and let you look like a clown. They wear fancy titles (which actually makes them look like clowns, but they are super anonymous, so it doesn’t matter). When you ask for a refund of the B&C dev fund, they contradict themselves. It would take so much time to reconstruct everything (what? the most transparent business in the world makes it hard for you to come with true numbers?). When @Phoenix lost hundreds of millions of shareholder Nushares, he said “I apologize”. That again is making fun of people who have invested their hard earned money into a project they believed in. No consequences for him, nothing. He could have easily dumped most of those shares into his own hands by putting very low buy orders on an exchange. Someone reported to have bought NSR at a price as low as 1 satoshi. “I apologize” and that’s it.
They don’t reveal their identities, I understand that :wink: But here is the thing: even in crypto the world is changing. NEVER EVER would anyone with decent pockets and a normal brain touch an ETH ICO aiming at providing a stable currency if the devs were not willing to disclose their identities. There are good reasons that everything is like it is. @JordanLee has scammed people for years now (special seed investors get Nushares and Blockshares at a discount, you know?), and he has many reasons to remain anonymous. Btw, as a consequence of embezzling shareholder funds for three times within two or so months, he handed over most of Nu’s assets into hands of another single actor (@jooize), who ultimately is subject to @Phoenix by motion, as @Phoenix never resigned despite his failure. Are you getting how funny these guys are? It is absolutely ridiculous.
I come back from time to time only for the reason to keep making people aware. I know when I was new to crypto, and it is so easy to be scammed then. You can’t judge the situation and you put your focus on the idea and not the team in the first place. Then you like the idea and get scammed because the team consists of scammers. That has completely changed for me. Team is absolute priority, then idea. It should be like that anyway, but we are all human beings and admittedly, @JordanLee has played this very, really very well. Congrats for that @JordanLee.


Overall I don’t see what else should have been done instead of what we do. Mistakes have been made, a few of them severe, and I certainly understand the anger about the stolen NuShares.

Our authority stems from the following motion passed by shareholders.

We’re doing what we really think is best for Nu and NuBits. Occasionally, people want to decide, but they rarely do well to establish confidence. Shareholders could fire us any time they wanted. Do you think anyone other than the shareholders should have power to make decisions? If you don’t agree with the shareholders, you either convince them, purchase enough NuShares to influence the vote, or accept that they want something else.


Why can’t you simply propose a motion for all of the questionable actions you choose to take? Why doesn’t the motion system work? How many days did it take for you previous grant to get passed? Do you honestly believe the non-existant NSR market would collapse in that span of time or are you afraid shareholders would choose a different path (which is their right to do) ?


My comments would have occurred in a discussion thread, had you of given shareholders a chance to discuss it. Is that not what @Proteus was encouraged to do, being just a regular nobody who owns the NuShare, instead of having a title?


Do you idiot actually know the difference between a “mistake” and a “crime”? Now you can come up with a smart answer and tell us that a crime officially requires proof. You are very right about that. But you are even too dumb (or not willing) to provide proof about the stolen Nushares, and you got allll the insights. It’s 4 or 5 months ago and you keep saying that reconstructing the exact amount of stolen Nushares will require more time. You realize that you aren’t quite smart, don’t you?
And btw, losing shareholder funds in the eyes of law never is a “mistake”. It is either grossly negligent, negligent or non-negligent, and all categories qualify as “crime”. Maybe in the eyes of your funny “NuLaw” that is a completely different story. You fucking clown.


I work with the potential of each new starting point. You suggest giving up the entire model of our stable currencies, and are upset that shareholders disagree.

The nature of address ownership with cryptoassets is such that it’s logically impossible to prove the theft. Assuming there is evidence, you need to trust the provider in order to have confidence in it. I don’t have more insight than you, other than my conversations with Phoenix giving the impression that he’s telling the truth. We can only have the owner (or thief) sign a statement saying they wanted the address blocked to secure remaining funds.

Perhaps we should implement some kind of revokation as a security feature. The owner could then negotiate with shareholders for recovery at least of remaining funds. A conflict where the thief uses the same private key to prove ownership to shareholders is possible. Shareholders may resolve it by determining who’s likely to be the real owner by analyzing transactions connecting addresses to the owner, or decline.

It is bad that we still haven’t determined the losses. We’ve focused on many other necessary things instead.

I’m not sure what more to say. We are not the scammers you make us out to be. NuBits has kept incredible integrity, and has been slandered for executing the only plan and mechanism in place to fully back circulating NuBits. People are simultaneously upset that the peg failed to be supported by the previous liquidity team and that shareholders chose to replace the team with Phoenix who guided shareholders to let him perform the necessary and expected sales of new NuShares.

If you’re upset about the ownership distribution, there’s really nothing you can do but move on. You’re responsible for your own risk assessment. Today, every investor should certainly determine whether they trust me.


Try to convince a judge that you hit a person with your car three times within two months accidentally. Whatever you are trying to tell him, I promise you - you end up in jail. There will be no way out for you. You hit the person once? Maybe you can get away with it (regardless of your motive - may it be intention or accident, you could just lie). You hit the person twice? It’s going to be really tough. You hit the person a third time? It’s over 100%. And you know what? If you go to that person and say “I apologize” after you hit him or her for the third time, how convincing does that sound? Oh and to give you a little more context: you publicly call yourself the greatest formula 1 driver!

It was theft! Period. Don’t try to convince newcomers on this forum that JordanLee was unlucky in administrating shareholder funds. You seriously can’t believe that yourself, can you? And that’s not all: You make payments close to 10,000 dollars, four of them within weeks, @sigmike and @woolly_sammoth and @Cybnate step forward and say publicly that they literally earned nothing during that time-frame. No services have been rendered to Nu during that time frame. You and @JordanLee/@Phoenix are using this project to self-enrich you in a way that is not acceptable in the slightest. You will not be listed anymore on Cryptopia, and I would be willing to pay for that @Withboredom. Every exchange supporting this project is guilty, too. Enough is seriously enough. And if there is anything I can do to stop you scamming and making innocent people lose money, I will go for it. The 20k dollars you embezzled from me is irrelevant, it doesn’t hurt me financially. It hurts me morally because you keep treating people like dumb sheep and clowns while you keep cashing in at their cost. Blockshareholders lost 100% of their investment, literally every single penny as of now. And you say:

Really? It’s just not fun right? To correct things that you have destroyed in advance? Is it more fun to focus on things that protect your steady stream of income and your neck deep position in Nu? I have no clue how many different shareholders there even were as JordanLee most likely pulled off a massive sybil attack anyway. But those who invested money with great hopes and expectations were simply fucked like shit by Jordan Lee in the first place, and now you keep the scam going as the lemming who acts as the innocent successor who just wants to protect the genius model. You are protecting it not because you are visionary, you are protecting it because you are greedy and lack morals.


Let’s clarify for everyone. I realized simply saying theft doesn’t specify from whom. The claim is that NuShares were stolen from wallets in @Phoenix’ control or shareholder in contact with him. The allegation is that Phoenix stole those NuShares himself.

  • Phoenix is elected Chief of Liquidity Operations by Nu shareholders (voting owners of NuShares).
  • Phoenix held NuShares on behalf of B&C Exchange (its development fund).
  • Phoenix held NuShares on behalf of Nu shareholders (backbone reserve shares).

There is no question Phoenix failed in his job to secure shareholder funds.

  • First, a theft of 200,000,000 NSR from shareholders in contact with Phoenix (he claims). He posts a statement plus a follow-up, and NuBits v3.0.1 is released blocking those addresses to secure the remaining funds. Relevant is that he began minting with the NuShares owned by B&C Exchange to protect NuBits’ network from impact of the stolen shares.
  • Second, a theft of NuShares belonging to B&C Exchange, and Phoenix’ private shares. NuBits 5.0.1 is released.
  • Third, a theft of all the Nu shareholder backbone reserve shares. Phoenix gives a statement.