My reply to a censored discussion with MaVo and Sabreiib

Continuing the discussion from Conversations removed:

MaVo’s comment along with a few others were censored without any provided reason. I think all shareholders and forum members deserve to have their voices heard, so I made a new thread to reply to them. Ironically, the thread these posts were censored from was about the totalitarian governance structure of Nu and it’s relation to hard forks in the blockchain. I think they are as relevant as ever.

@MaVo, the only single metric where Nu is doing well is in the crypto-asset reserve. It is above 100% of circulating NBT. Wouldn’t you agree that at the current BTC/USD price, this could be viewed as a success?

My response to this is that you are absolutely correct. I think it would be a waste of time to help this project with any actual time and effort until the people who run the network start listening to the reasonable arguments made here on this forum. However, to someone who trades crypto-currency markets this doesn’t mean that it is a bad idea to continue activity in the trading pairs. The idea that everyone who disagrees should sell their stake in the network is wishful thinking of the totalitarian leadership.

They were removed because they were off topic.

I intend to lead a discussion about standards for forum content soon. It isn’t quite my priority today: multisig is. I suspect it will lead to the advancement of a motion to hire a forum moderator to implement the standards.

For now, I will say the multisig group failure in June 2016 was a result of power getting unhinged from proof of stake on the blockchain. There was a mostly separate social organization operating on the forum, based on “proof of forum post”, so to speak: multisig signers demonstrated a tendency to follow the loudest voices on the forum. There was a problem with unprofessional and unaccountable behavior by people who demonstrated they didn’t have any investment in the outcome of the project. There was a disrepectfulness, viciousness and acrimony that was uncharacteristic of a group of people successfully working together. You would not see that kind of behavior at any workplace I can think of, and it shouldn’t be tolerated here either, because this is where the people advancing Nu and B&C Exchange work.

The forum had long been administered by American @Ben, with a priority on free speech, consistent with the values of that culture, regardless of the effect hostile speech might have on people’s ability to work effectively here, and to want to work here. I know one prominent Canadian in the community left the group at that time. That is a characteristic Canadian response to what was happening in June 2016. Part of the reason for hiring contractors in Vancouver, Canada is to infuse Nu and B&C Exchange with a more respectful and civil culture that results in greater trust, cooperation and social cohesion. I believe these attributes of social interaction can bring impressive financial returns for shareholders.

To be blunt, I want to make this a Canadian forum, because of that culture’s impressive ability to create trust, cooperation and social cohesion. Nu and B&C Exchange need those attributes to be successful. We are in the business of creating trust. The American values upon which the rules of the forum have been based for most of its history have not served shareholder interests well, where trust is key to the kind of financial product we are offering.


You are the last person on this forum that is fit to lead a movement based on trust. It is probably your biggest weakness.

1 Like

@Phoenix in that case, you’ll be happy to be reminded that I’ve been out as an administrator of this site for a considerable amount of time. As far as I’m aware, the admin team in place now is comprised of members from all over the world. I’m not even sure if there are any Americans who continue to hold any position of moderation.

I don’t think it will make a difference though, because ultimately a “civil culture” arises from trust within a community. In that respect, actions speak much louder than words. Poor operational security, missing funds, and opaque accounting harm shareholders in far greater ways than the less-than-cordial comments on the forum which have beguiled you.

If you, personally, want to focus on Canadians in your interactions and efforts, by all means, go for it. I’m sure that alienating those long-term members in Asia, the Pacific, South America, and in Europe–who have all put up with years of challenges–in favor of those in the northern portion of North America is a Good Strategy™ to reboot the network.

It’s the truth that I’ve always wanted the best possible outcomes for the Nu shareholders. I count many of them to be friends, even if we haven’t communicated as frequently as we did in the past. I learned a lot during my time with Nu and I’m better for my experiences, good and painful.


BOOM! :joy:

I’m not sure why having a concentration of contractors work in a physical office in Canada would alienate other contributors in other parts of the world. Sorry if it made you feel that way. @Ben you have done a lot of great work for Nu in the past.

Some cultures are high trust and others low trust. There is a very wide variance among them. Nu’s business revolves around credit and trust. We need people who can create a high trust environment, so we ought to use people who come from a high trust culture.

1 Like

I would like to say that in my opinion this has been standard operating procedure for Nu even when you were active on the team. I have always despised it, yet there is little I can do about it. Perhaps since the start of this project, I have had too strict of a vision to what a DAC looks like. A corporation makes profit and has customers to answer to. All this time I had wanted Nu to function like Dash does. But that is a DAO and not a DAC. They do not have profits besides that from the valuation of their token. It is much neater and has fewer responsibilities than a DAC has.

Upon coming to that realization and in the face of Nu’s success on the liquidity front, I learned that a DAC will always have some level of centralization and it is necessary. This schism only bothers some old team members now because Phoenix has been granted the authority to choose his own new team, instead of the original small group of core shareholders who made the major decisions in the past. That same core group chose to hold back on NSR sales during the loss of the peg because they didn’t want NSR devalued. From a customer’s standpoint that is a deal breaker.

I’ve had a lot of doubt about this project, but it is turning into trust. So much that I have started using NuBits again in a small capacity, and by doing so I am relearning what a great product Nu offers. If we are ever able to look towards the future of Nu instead of the past, I believe we have a lot of success down the road.