[Passed] 2,000,000 US-NBT Grant for Liquidity Operations


#1
Request: 2000000 USNBT
Address: BA82T18qnhtmAmJG3U5rcmzvqdUJ6YTd3d

Demand for US NuBits continues to rise rapidly, and half of the recent grant for 1,000,000 US-NBT is already sold. Liquidity Operations has less than 500,000 US-NBT remaining for sales and peg support. Shareholders may want to grant an even larger amount than two million.


#2

As Chief Of Liquidity Operations, I endorse this grant of 2,000,000 US-NBT to BA82T18qnhtmAmJG3U5rcmzvqdUJ6YTd3d. It is necessary and urgent. Not passing it quickly will endanger our peg to the upside. I urge all shareholders to mint and vote for it immediately.

Moving these funds to multisig group management is one of our priorities. It will still take some time to do properly, but that is certainly where we are headed, with proper contracts describing rules for operations and proof of share ownership by signers.


#3

What has been prioritized above this? Asking to gauge how serious of a problem having a single point of failure for the entire network is. I feel trust is the antithesis of crypto.


#4

@lissajous if you move those funds to a multisig group, you cannot pull off the big one in the end anymore. This community has been presented insane stories in the past, and there is one more that goes beyond everything we have heard so far: once @jooize does not show up anymore for a month or so, @Phoenix will make an official statement to let us all know that the highly reputed member @jooize most likely suffered from sudden death. If someone who calls himself the greatest crypto architect of all times (@JordanLee/@Phoenix for those who came later) advocates such a single point of failure for a project that is meant to provide a stable digital currency on a global scale, that is nothing but ridiculous.
You must be completely nuts to purchase a reasonable amount of NBT if part of your financial safety depends on a single person (and this person called @jooize is a well-known scammer in crypto, which makes it even more ridiculous).


#5

don t we have the sale issue with tether?


#6

No, there’s no single person at Tether on whom the whole business depends.
Tether is centralized in the way that you rely on the issuing corp, but at least Tether won’t die from having no income (pegs to USD instead of to USD via BTC and keeps USD reserve; reliable income is made from spread at Tether) or from losing one single employee.
Just imagine the same that happened to JordanPhoenix thrice happens to jooize once…
I’m speaking of “losing” funds.


#7

Which is a huge risk if you own Tether. When the banks say it’s over it is over, they have no control whatsoever.
This was in the news today: https://news.bitcoin.com/tether-coin-may-be-a-precarious-us-dollar-peg/
Please make your own risk assessment.

Having said that I’m extremely worried about the centralisation regarding the centralised holding of the Nu funds. Given the huge sales, the highest priority should be given to address this. I know it is been worked on, but I would strongly recommend to increase those efforts above anything else for now. Maybe it is even better to pay a trusted 3rd party (as long as it is not a bank) to secure a part of the funds temporarily. Might not be easy to find one though, maybe a lawyer or notary and ideally more than 1? Addressing the single point of failure would reduce the risks and put us in an even better competitive position in comparison with Tether.

On-topic:
Will support the grant as we have to maintain a peg. No discussion about that, although you might expect some sell back while BTC seems to be bottoming out after the Chinese forbid ICOs yesterday.

In the mean time I just might send a doctor to Jooize just to ensure he is healthy and get someone to help him crossing the local road :wink:
Making a joke out of it but I hope it emphasises the urgency of action on this. Every shareholder should care about business continuity.


#8

I feel you don’t realize we are talking about millions of dollars here @cybnate. We don’t know who the buyers were, whether they know the situation at Nu or whether they just noticed the peg mechanism on Bittrex and made use of it. Let’s assume it’s all people with good intentions using Nu’s product. I wish they would check out this forum thoroughly and see how ridiculously reckless you guys here are dealing with an insanely dangerous single point of failure. You must be kidding the whole world. We are talking about millions, may I remind of you of that one more time? MILLIONS! And a person that does not even know the term “NAV” is sitting with his ass on those millions with sole control. Even worse, this is a decentralized business where the whole world could participate and therefore the group of stakeholders at risk is even fully out of control. I can’t believe that you “recommend” or “wish” or “whatever”. You should use your shares, start a motion and force anyone against decentralization of control over the funds to be fired by voting for your motion. I don’t have shares, even though as a BKS holder I was supposed to be entitled to a decent chunk of NSR. They got “lost”, you know.


#9

I agree the situation is precarious, but on the other hand there are more people in this world controlling millions single handedly. It is not unique, but still a risk. As said I know work is been done in the multisig space, but resources are thin and it needs to be done safely otherwise we just swapping one risk for another. There is a reason why Nu is hiring in case you missed it. At the moment I’m advocating to change the priorities of those scarce resources by lack of a better alternative right now. Watch this space.


#10

@çybnate, it can’t be worse than it is now. Even a 1 of 2 with someone like you would improve the situation… (I really said that, really).


#11

Is there anyone other than you & confused observer who are convinced that jooize is a scammer? If it’s well known from projects outside of Nu, please put details here… though please don’t go on a rant about why he’s a scammer with Nu, as you’ve made your point many times.

Nice to see you making a mildly positive suggestion :smiley:

To be honest, there’s no excuse to not have funds in a multisig group.

I’d also be happy to be a part of a multi sig group if it doesn’t take much time, and I’m sure others would be as well. Is there any reason a 3 of 5 / 2 of 4 group couldn’t be set up quickly and easily?

Given the huge risk (if 1 person gets ill, hacked, or makes a significant mistake, a lot / all could be lost), there needs to be a very good reason why the funds can’t be put into a multi-sig group sooner rather than later.

Can you please explain why this hasn’t happened already, and why it doesn’t appear to be being put in place right now @jooize & @Phoenix?


#12

Didn’t you forget the most obvious risk? I mean, @JordanLee most likely wasn’t ill (well, that could be up for debate, he could well need a psychiatrist), he wasn’t hacked THREE times (sorry, I can’t believe that and he can’t prove it), and he didn’t make significant mistakes (in terms of fund management. A mistake is different from deliberate action). He scammed the community, and I am always surprised how that seems not part of your repertoire when talking about Nu’s history. Jesus what’s wrong with you… And once you get that correct, you will also know why there is no multisig now.


#13

Yes, prevention against theft is another very good reason to implement multi-sig ASAP.

This is especially important when theft either by @Phoenix or those that hacked @Phoenix has had a huge negative impact on Nu up until now.


#14

Nu already is in a very dangerous situation, because Nu gambles on BTC rate by pegging to USD through BTC.
It becomes even more dangerous, because all assets are in control of one single person. There are plenty reasons why this single point of failure is a bad idea.

Once there was multis sig. It worked well, without flaw and way beyond what the signers pledged to do.
It got disbanded by JordanLee himself.
Now there’s lip service of working on multi sig.
Do you really believe that?

On behalf of the NBT and NSR holder I hope that multi sig is in place and controls the vast majority of assets before the next breaking point fails.

And one needs to hope that BTC doesn’t make a big drop. If the NBT holders then sell NBT (what would make sense) Nu is another type of trouble.
It’s such a bad idea to have BTC assets if you peg to USD…


#15

… that doesn’t know what NAV is, but you hope that this single person understands that


#16

Yet shareholders aren’t interesting in making sure that the NBT and assets are being kept in multisig.
I mean, there’s not even an attempt for a motion.
That does mean something.

And you don’t seem to be uncomfortable holding that much money, otherwise we’d see creating multisig groups being prioritized by you.
That means something, too.

Thank you for chiming in, Chief of Losing Funds.

Then do it!

How far is that process?
Where is even a draft of it?
Lip service…

Nu is no business, it’s a risky and ultimately expensive joke.