NuBits (NBT) will be delisted from Poloniex on Jan 4th

NuBits
#21

JordanLeePhoenix, you have failed this community.
I attribute this downward movement to your attitude towards the community, your complaints about incompetence here, a purported Augeas default (that never happened!) there, combined with a complete unwillingness to have anything improved by the community.
You are an egomaniac.
It’s always you who needs to give directions and win the laurels.

If my analysis regarding the history of liquidity provision is correct, it started fully centralized and was transformed after losses at exchanges to a decentralized liquidity provision scheme.
Then that scheme was questioned by the community because of its lack of reliability during heavy Bitcoin volatility.
Remark: the dependency on BTC was your fault; switching from the NBT/USD trading to NBT/BTC trading was not approved by shareholders, it was introduced by sole discretion of JordanLee . or did I miss the motion?
It was questioned by the immense costs as well.
Now you have a cheap and reliable fully centralized liquidity provision scheme again and don’t even consider thanking the community for its foresight!
It’s cheaper than the decentralized scheme was (operation wise).
The costs from risks are low; not much funds are at exchanges or other single points of failure, right?

If 0.6% is the right spread, then you were incompetent commanding it at 1% before!
Why does the difference between 0.6% and 1% not render you incompetent, while you try to use the same logic to call masterofdisaster incompetent for going above 1%?
Are you going to say that the spread needs to be set situation aware?
Be careful with that! :wink:

I bet you will give an elaborated and misleading answer.
Why wouldn’t you? You are stubborn and a die-hard believer/promoter in/of perpetual motion machines.
They don’t work!
Neither in a physical world nor in an economical world.
You spent time and money in CN-NBT instead of focusing on revenue.
You failed.
You shoot down skeptical opinions, ignore advice and are self-absorbed.
The NSR rate is a direct consequence of Nu not having revenue and no prospect of having revenue!
Who would possibly like to invest money in a company that isn’t designed to make revenue?
Only people who believe in being on the better informed side of the “greater fools game” do that.
The only person who profits from information asymmetry is you, JordanPhoenix - as it was from the beginning of Nu.

If anything that’s related to the Nu idea, Nu spirit and Nu community has a chance to succeed, it’s Augeas.
Thank you, @woodstockmerkle for having created it, uniting those that aren’t afraid of facing inconvenient truths, those that aren’t afraid of questioning the position and have the courage to adjust and improve.

I understand that Phoenix is afraid of Augeas and tries to discredit it wherever possible; I’d be too, if I were him!

I suppose you are speaking of Augeas. If so: count me in!

1 Like
#22

Even tomjoad disagrees with phoenix about the NSR sell,

Is it fair/moral to blame FLOT not understanding the liquidity engine model? If someone should be blamed, it’s Jordan who didn’t educate FLOT well about the model. A good leader usually takes responsibility even the fault isn’t really from him.

1 Like
#23

Also, I have received feedback from others before on it, so no need to tell me what you think again. Just because I wrote all that doesn’t mean I continue to believe it’s true. I’m just looking for Jordan/Phoenix to comment this time.

#24

If this is the end, we should distribute the remaining money with an orderly fair procedure.
If we do not initiate an orderly procedure, those with the greatest confidence will have the greatest loss.
Without Poloniex, Nubits are dead. Or am I seeing this wrong?

#25

Have you considered that maybe Poloniex just noticed that this NBT thing is just some guy with a moderately big bitcoin address who may or may not pay 1 USD per token in future while taking a lot of care to be untraceable? On top of that he is in control of far more than 50% of the staking token which is supposed to secure the transaction network of NBT.

It is good to see that now less people can be fooled into the NBT scheme and I hope it willl reduce the money Jordan is able to make from it by some amount. He still of course has all the dev funds but this ship has sailed a long time ago.

I really would like to say that Jordan could have had a chance to avoid this delisting by not abandoning the entire community, but in this case even a large email spam wouldn’t help. The few fools who bought NSR in the last time probably have already recognized that they really should do their homework before investing in a crypto currency.

#26

Could you stop your ego for god sake? The market capital of NSR is as small as a BMW car, naturally it’s way easy to manipulate,

if myself issue a private currency with only one dollar, I promise it can be 1000 times of it’s original value, so am I proper for the Economics Nobel Prize? Come on! Stop your day dreaming and face the reality! Even USD Tether can withstand the 100% USDT dump in one day, so they can win the Nobel too?

F A Hayek was one of real Nobel winners, while some of us have little common sense of business. Clowns.

3 Likes
#27

A number of people are beginning to echo this perspective. It is an improvement in the sense that it tacitly acknowledges FLOT was in error while our liquidity model was solid and reliable all along.

#28

Thank you so much for taking the time to try to bring understanding to the the important topic of our liquidity model. I can see you have put a lot of time and effort into your report. At the moment I am focusing on exchange listings for US NuBits and Chinese NuBits and I don’t have the time to give you the thoughtful response you deserve.

I will return to this matter once more urgent matters are attended to. Thanks for your patience.

#29

There was a time in February 2015 when we lost our three largest exchange listings (BTER, CCEDK and Excoin), that together compromised about 99% of all NuBit trade volume within about a week. It was difficult for the project and certainly retarded our progress. However, you can see that we were able to get listed on Poloniex and create a lot of volume after that problem.

It is a major setback, but certainly not the end. We are a blockchain network not dependent on any single exchange.

We will increase our liquidity support at other exchanges. I will give details in the coming days.

1 Like
#30

I said FLOT failed to follow your model, but I don’t believe your model is correct at all.

You model has serious flaws

  1. It assumes most NSR holders act like a same person to buy& sell NSR at around same time and roughly same price level, this is impractical in real world due to “the tragedy of commons”, while the commons is the NBT reserve @NSR buyback (In BTC) and new issued NSR@ NSR official selling. E.g, if I listen to you and buy NSR two month ago, I lose money today. The more people don’t listen to you, and delay to act during Buyback/selling, the worse price for Nu’s commons.

  2. This model discourages NSR holding very much, any long time loyal NSR holder will find himself heavily diluted from time to time. Why? Because some selfish NSR holders will always sell NSR at higher price than those naive believers of your model, and selfish NSR will always buy NSR at much lower price at official NSR selling. In fact, people will find that your model believers are stupid milk cow for Nu’s ecosystem. You are running out of such low IQ milk cows, and you will find it costs a long time to recover from a crisis, and a crisis(big NBT dumping), will be very frequent in Nu’s world.

  3. It seems Nu/B&C only get support from a relative small group of people (more than 100+?) When most of them find your model’s weakness, it’s very possible that you will never sell any large amount of NBT in your whole life.

1 Like
#31

An example to demonstrate my opinion.
Assumptions for simplicity of analysis.
1)Assumption1: bitcoin price is constant at $500 in my analysis.
2)Assumption2: all the nushareholders involved in NSR buyback and sale, although some of them trade only a portion of his/her NSR while some others trade all of their NSR.
3)Asumption3: Initial NSR price is $0.1.

Nu decides to buyback NSR with 75% reserve, ie 500BTC, Jordan calls on every nushareholder to sell NSR so that he can store the value into NSR market capital.
The 500 BTC buy oder initallly placed on $0.1/NSR, then some Jordan’s believers sell a portion or all of their NSR at $0.1 price, but some shareholders(smarter)) placed sell orders at high prices from $0.2 to $0.6, when the buyback finished, the average buyback price is $0.3 and highest is $0.6. This is because Jordan has to spend all the BTC to accomplish the buyback. In the end, Nu spend 500BTC (common wealth) , ie $250,000 money to buy 833,333NSR as a reserve.

After buyback finished, the NSR price drops to original level = $0.1 per NSR. Three months later, a big NBT dump occurs, and break the buy wall on poloniex, then Jordan starts the NSR sale for BTC to help the peg. Jordan calls on each nushareholder to buy NSR with their BTC. Jordan places 833,333NSR selling order at $0.1. Some naïve model believers indeed buy some NSR at $0.1, but many of them placed buy order at from $0.1 to $ 0.016. When Jordan sell off all the 833,333NSR, he found the average selling price is $0.033, which means he only retrieve $27,500 from the NSR capital pool with same amout of NSR sale. That is to say, he only get 11% USD value back, and 89% of Nu’s common value leaked into those “bad””smart”’selfish” NSR traders’ hands.

Jordan need more NSR sale to help NBT peg. He persuades the community to pass a motion to issue more NSR and continue to sell & press the NSR price to a extremly low level. This hurts the naïve model believers a lot because they buy NSR at $0.1, sell at $0.1, so they get nothing profit. But when extra NSR put into market, they heavily diluted. For those sell at $0.3-$0.6, and buy at $0.033 to $0.016, they can only spend 1/9 to 1/36 BTC to get same amount of initial NSR.

Therefore, Jordan’s model has two bad results

  1. The Nu’s common wealth loses 89% value due to “buy high & “Sell low”. Like a stupid trader. The lose of Nu’s common wealth is fatal to whole ecosystem. Isn’t this the most stupid transfer model in this world? How about power company transfer only 10% electricity via grid while 90% lost on the wire? How about you send $100 to overseas friends and $90 charged by banks as fee?

  2. Those least loyal traders sell all of their NSR at high price, they may use 1/9 – 1/36 BTC to get back their NSR and just watch what will happen. If Nu succeed, they are happy, if Nu fails, they still happy for the extra BTC earned. Furthermore, their BTC may not be spent into Nu’s ecosystem again, there are lots of alt coins, “don’t put all eggs in one basket”, they are smart, but least loyal.

Jordan may argue that his model is to encourage people to speculate on the NSR price especially in official buyback/sale period, in fact he encourage to harm the common wealth: Nu’s reserve in BTC or new issued NSR.

With this toxic model, the most victims are Nu’s common wealth and Jordan’s most naïve believers. Is this system sustainable? I don’t think so. If bitcoins continuously hurt its common wealth(hash rate) and loyal BTC holders, bitcoin already died.

No vonder Jordan(phoniex) feels lonely on this forum, because the active members(Nu’s most believers) get hurt most, while Jordan still in his dream of winning an economics nobel prize.

This is the story from me, after wasting two years here.

#32

Finally all we understood how capitalism works except of JordanLeePhoenix. It was a hard lesson.

#33

I agree the model’s flaw or issue is mainly in the value transfer between NSR and NBT. The more buybacks and sell-offs in a given period the more money is lost for those loyal. I believe that in the past the amount amount of buybacks/dividends were recklessly high given the small scale we operated on. With more prudence we would have been in a different space. The question now is whether it is possible to bounce back from the deepest depths.
I believe that the transaction fees could eventually pay for development and other infra costs. After all it is not too expensive to run a blockchain. The cost for liquidity is another thing, that has been way too high to be sustainable at the scale we operated in the past. I believe upscaling is one of the real challenges here and…

There will be a high pressure by shareholders for buyback as soon as some NBT are being sold and basic reserves are met. This will quickly dampen the sales as NBT holders see their risks increase when the reserve disappear. I believe there will need to be a much longer period or more modest buyback scheme in order to build confidence with NBT holders and buyers. At the end of the day they will drive the shareprice. Once an equilibrium has been found between raising shareprice (=confidence/demand NBT holders) and sharebuybacks (confidence NSR holders) the model could work. It will require a lot of guts and almost abstaining from FUD and greed to do this. I’m on the fence whether this is humanly possible, if anything I believe modelling this into the Nu protocol somehow will work eventually.

Just my thoughts.

BTW @sentinelrv, @sabreiib I like both your recent contributions in trying to describe the Nu (intended) model. It is complex and different for sure. I like to add the scaling and finding the equilibrium into the mix. It is clear to me that extreme swings are too costly as described by Sabreiib and should be taken out of the model one way or the other.

3 Likes
#34

LP cost may be compensated by spread trading; NSR-NBT directly transfer can be replaced by short term loan(park NSR to borrow NBT from protocol), all Nu’s issues can be solved.

Merry Christmas!

1 Like
#35

We need to keep in mind that the recent extraordinary sales of NSR at extraordinarily low price are not part of our model. Indeed, we can say with confidence this type of thing will never happen if the model is consistently employed. These extraordinary NSR sales are precisely the result of the complete abandonment of the model in late May and June. The lesson to be learned is that we need to cling to the model, and this will never happen again. To try to avoid it by making changes to the NuBit / NuShare transfer model is instead likely to result in a similar sort of disaster.

Right now our equilibrium is a 48% reserve. The chances of ever eating through that while employing the model are quite small: it takes a complete default to produce that kind of contraction in circulating currency. With proper management, NSR sales will be rare and small. The problem being described by @Sabreiib and @Cybnate is actually quite small.

Furthermore, I will point out that share buybacks and sales are conducted by thousands of publicly traded companies throughout the world every year. They generally follow the pattern of selling low and buying high. Yet, these companies continue to thrive in most cases. This is not an experimental part of our solution.

Additionally, though it is a cost for us, we get something important for it. It is a phenomena similar in some respects to arbitrage that will deepen NSR liquidity, which is the primary factor in the strength of our peg.

I believe people are just feeling bad about their losses that resulted from the senseless and unnecessary Augeas default. People are looking for something terribly wrong with the solution to explain their terrible feelings. In reality, it is just bear market psychology that is causing this concern. Those who understand the solution and are level headed are taking advantage of this great buying opportunity.

#36

In real world, companies spend their business profit to buyback shares, while Nu has little profit. Nu used its main capital to do such a thing, which is very rare in real world I’m afriad.

#37

“Little” profit? Nu has always had negative profit. :confused:

#38

times up

#39

Was it delisted?

#40

yes and seem bter also delisted NBT and NSR