You’re having visions of me selling NSR, but fail to open your eyes and see what’s going on around you.
Just another unsubstantial post by @serfer to reinforce his belief in the ponzi scheme Nu is at the moment.
@Phoenix, wouldn’t you like to make some comments here?
This is happening quite a bit. I have opened a discussion with @Ben, the forum owner, to see what we can do to fix the problem.
And now, back to the topic at hand:
This proposal has 57% support by block count, but only 47% by share share days. It is a good show of support given the short time ago the grant request was made. However, let’s make sure this passes as soon as possible so he can get started.
Hopefully @sigmike can remove the share days requirement from the protocol fairly soon, as has been requested by shareholders.
No, because everything you have mentioned is off-topic. This is the thread for discussing @sigmike’s proposal to develop a version of our client that supports multiple currencies.
As you say, chief of ponzi operations.
The economical attributes of Nu’s products play no role when discussing about new currencies.
Wait, really?
This discussion is about new currency tokens, that will be sold, but there’s no way to buy them back unless greater fools come later and give you the money you need.
The discussion about revenue is from a business ethical point of view perfectly right here.
The new currencies are just the hunt for new greater fools that bail out NBT owners.
It’s about time to give up on Nu and “advertise” Nu for what it is outside this forum.
Thank you for not doing anything that would make it hard for me to hold the position that Nu is nothing short of a ponzi scheme run by you, @Phoenix.
This finding is based on what you do and what you don’t do.
@Phoenix/@JordanLee, you’re a manipulator, a liar and a scammer.
You understand neither business nor ethics.
Talk about unsubstantial… Calling Nu a Ponzi scheme? Really?? Is that the best FUD you’ve got? No ones ever said that about any coin or currency ever… (sarcasm)
I agree with that, but this thread goes a bit further than that.
I believe that a share buyback scheme on itself is not an issue as long as the funds used for it are from real profits e.g. transaction fees. The sales of new currencies are not profits. However the funds can be used for e.g. further development. It would be basically a loan from NuBits holders. As long as adequate reserves are held and as part of the new development new revenue can be generated to pay off those loans I don’t see a problem.
A problem I do see is that the current investment in development funds is unlikely to generate adequate fees as long as trading is happening off-chain. Besides no other vision or plan has been developed to generate revenue (e.g. spreads or burning NBT) is sought at the moment. So we can’t pay back the loan, that really does bother me.
The only way to generate revenues from trading comes when B&C exchange goes live as transactions fees. So before any Nu share buybacks should take place, investments to finish development in B&C should be made. The other proposed option has already been rejected so I don’t see another way out.
Finally I just like to state, for what it is worth, that I won’t support any other directions lacking generating revenues to fund the ongoing liquidity and development costs of Nu. But I do accept some investments appreciating the reserves to be able to generate revenues in the future as this proposal basically does.
I’ll support the motion to arrange a portion of B&C revenue to Nu if B&C is finished.
I do not know whether Jordan/Phoenix is following the correct course, but he does not strike me as a scammer
If this has anything to do with the censorship of your biggest critics, as a moderator here I won’t have any part of it. @Ben, don’t give in! This is just wrong.
It is completely irresponsible and unethical to even consider introducing new products when you have no solid plan for generating the revenue necessary to support them long-term. If you go ahead with this and no workable model for sustaining liquidity operations is introduced in the future, then you’re putting all new currency holders at risk of losing all their funds in the future.
@sigmike, please don’t treat this as just another paycheck. Real people could lose their money here. You don’t want to be the person responsible for giving Phoenix the power to do more damage to unsuspecting people. Let him first introduce a real plan for revenue to support these new currencies. You can always burn the funds that are granted to you if you change your mind.
It’s not censorship to shun repeated disruptive posting. The problem is not the criticism, but when the same keeps getting posted over and over again all over the place. It’s relevant because it’s about the operations as a whole, but disturbs communication.
We’re aware of the criticism. There’s little constructive use in hearing it again.
Can we not keep those specific discussions about revenue, dilution, and how Nu is fundamentally unsustainable to their own threads?
I don’t find it unethical to introduce a new product that will function with 100% reserve. The reserve requirements have been changed via recent motion to between 25%–50%.
Nu, as other companies, may not immediately be sustainable long term. Yes, customers take risks in using our products, just as with any novel crypto product. We do not intend to fuck people over, although some believe @Phoenix does.
Many seem to have completely lost hope in Nu because the peg failed. Nu didn’t even follow the model as intended and critics presumably judge the whole model by that. It’s of course possible they have evaluated it since, and gained better understanding, but that’s not the impression I get. I’m no expert though.
With new currencies we can evaluate the model under guidance from one who seems most likely to understand it.
Nu is getting more centralised, for now. Neither @Phoenix nor I want Nu to be centralised long-term.
@Phoenix may not know everything, do everything right, or handle everyone properly, but he’s about the only one I see around here that has any idea what to do and can consistently produce a plan other than abandoning liquidity operations and US NuBit holders.
It’s hard to say this isn’t reasonable.
@Phoenix may not know everything, do everything right, or handle everyone properly, but he’s about the only one I see around here that has any idea what to do and can consistently produce a plan other than abandoning liquidity operations and US NuBit holders.
This may be true but his behavior is so bizarre and nontransparent that it’s hard to be anything but cynical at this point.
If you think there’s a chance unsuspecting people could loose money we should warn them with a pinned topic or something. I don’t think adding new currencies makes this more likely to happen though.
I see two major risks:
First the liquidity operators could run away with the reserves (or loose them somehow).
Adding new currencies doesn’t really make this scenario more likely, except for the fact that the demand may increase, so the reserves and the number of users would grow and that would make the theft more tempting and more damaging. But that is true for any growth of Nu, so to prevent it you would have to decrease or even stop demand on all currencies (and favor low reserves and decentralized liquidity operations).
But I think that’s not the danger you’re talking about. It’s certainly an important risk though, especially since there’s now a single anonymous main liquidity operator.
Second the liquidity operators could run out of funds.
I think that’s the danger you’re talking about. If the new currencies are operated as described by Phoenix initially (with 100% reserve) it seems very unlikely to happen. But he has recently edited the topic to remove all mentions of the 100% reserve so I guess that’s not true anymore.
Anyway since the reserves are increased by selling NSR, the only way to run out of funds would be to run out of NSR buyers. The last months have shown that there’s a large demand, and even one of the most active opponent of the current system said he would start buying NSR if the price was low enough. Low NSR prices are a major blow for the shareholders, but running completely out of buyer seems unlikely. But even if it is, I fail to see how adding new currencies would make this more likely. It may make it more damaging though if it increases demand, but again so does any growth of Nu.
I agree having a real plan for revenue should be a priority, but I don’t think refusing to add the new currencies would persuade Phoenix and shareholders to change their mind about that.
They will run out of funds. Either by losing them in NSR buybacks or by suffering the consequences from providing liquidity without a reasonable spread.
At the beginning there was overwhelming demand.
But then the NSR sale had to be limited to prevent crashing the rate completely.
I could make a guess that a load of NSR ended up in the hands of a certain person, who is very interested in not crashing the NSR rate now that he’s a major shareholder with absolute voting majority.
I would not see NSR as a share of a corporation, but a gamble in that case.
The share distribution is so very bad that it would just be an ultra risky gamble and not an investment.
I tried to turn it into an investment by pushing accounting and revenue, but I failed. NSR will never be more than a gamble considering the distribution.
New currencies can lead to new demand, which will then bring BTC assets into Nu’s treasure chest.
Once the chest is full enough, an NSR buyback will be conducted. This was already announced.
The likely effect on this illiquid market is a rising NSR price - although this time I expect a lot more holders to cash out than the last buyback cycle; I suppose the rise will be not that big. I hope that some people can cut their losses in the next NSR pump.
New currencies will do no good, but cloak and accelerate the race to the bottom.
The NSR buybacks could be activated by an actor buying a bunch of NBT.
But that would raise more eye brows than new currencies being sold.
That’s why JordanLeePhoenix likes the new currencies so much.
Did you follow closely how Nu’s peg failed?
New currencies don’t increase the risk of a new peg failure in a way I could name. But they provide a disguise for the people who abused crashing the peg to benefit from it and do it another time.
That’s why I’m such an opponent of the current system. It’s made to cheat people. As long as NSR buybacks aren’t ceased nobody can convince me of the opposite.
But how could you believe in them staying ceased? It’s all a matter of a new motion to turn them on again.
Instead of developing new currencies, Nu needs to
if it wants to survive.
Funny side note: with NBT/USD trading this scam couldn’t have been made anonymously! 
When exactly was decided (and by whom!) that BTC/NBT will be used instead of NBT/USD?
What were the reasons for that?
I can’t find anything about that major change; the white paper is dealing with USD trading.
Do you, @sigmike, really want to provide Nu with a disguise to continue this scam, this ponzi scheme, this pump&dump?
I mean, for you it’s mainly business. But do you really have no second thoughts supporting this at the moment?
But even if revenue would be announced tomorrow, I’d never believe in Nu as investment. I’d interpret it as another way to pump it.
Revenue is necessary but not sufficient. Only a hard fork freeing the network from JordanLeePhoenix friendly NSR could convince me that Nu has a chance as business.
Nu needs to get rid of this poison.
I think JordanLeePhoenix is voting wise in full control of the network.
I can’t prove that, but I don’t have to draw the obvious conclusion.
That’s why even “officially” ceasing NSR buybacks wouldn’t be reason to start hoping for Nu.
That’s why I’d only buy NSR at single digit Satoshis.
And why you will continue to spread conspiracy and unfounded accusations until the price reaches your target, right?
I have no intention of censoring any view on this forum. I ask that members abstain from personal attacks, but otherwise, this is an open forum where dissent is acceptable.
@jooize’s request should be considered. Dissenting opinions are most valuable when they are considered – if you chose the best channel to get a message out, you avoid it becoming background noise that is overlooked or discounted.
I certainly don’t want to contribute to a scam. It doesn’t appear like an obvious one to me, but maybe I’m blind. It’s certainly not my area of expertise. What do the others think? Am I contributing to a scam with this proposal?
Can you explain with your own words what’s bad with a spread (ideally an asymmetrical one with a big sale offset and a small buy offset)?
I’m sorry that I can’t explain the situation in a way you might understand it.
I’ve given up trying to convince anybody here. I realize that the voting and the forum are disconnected.
It’s more that I’m trying to leave a trail of warnings for those who gather information before investing anywhere.
That’s why I’m leaving information wherever it’s possible.
Thank you for reflecting on my post and reaching out to them. Maybe I’m the one who’s blind.
Bitcoin was a scam and is a scam for plenty of people.
I do not feel nu is a scam more than bitcoin.
I’m afraid it is you that is not understanding. I’m not talking about spread trading…
No you aren’t contributing to a scam, there is no scam. @ConfusedObserver has sold his NSR and is terrified of the new development and excitement surrounding Nu. Please don’t listen to this troll.