"Our governance model is absolutely superb. The governance model of Peershares (B&C Exchange is a Peershare) is better than all other blockchain governance models. All shareholders are true peers and there is no authority in our system other than the collective will of shareholders. Shareholders can choose to compensate developers or any one else with grants of BlockShares or BlockCredits in any amount. Shareholders can pass motions that set various rules of operation. For example, a completely decentralised vote to halt BlockShare sales was passed by shareholders some time ago. B&C Exchange’s governance is decentralised, flexible and powerful.
Peershares such as NuBits and B&C Exchange are the most advanced form of decentralised blockchain governance to date. The work I have already done establishes me as the leading innovator in decentralised blockchain governance." --> said the Chief Bird!
Particularly when you consider the RSOT motion and the Re-evaluation of RSOT motion. Everything is so hilarious.
This motion is potentially going to pass as it has the majority of votes for more than a day by now, although the SDD is very high so it may change. Anyway it likely means that there is a majority of shares controlled by Phoenix or in his hands. Not so great.
And I have been part of this because I thought it is
sufficiently transparent, a crypto-business experiment, a network led by an impressive architect with capable supporters, performance-oriented, fostering decentralization, win-win for everybody, designed with good intent, smart etc.
I thought I had a clue what due diligence is, but JL played it extremely smart. Damn it, time to refine myself
First of all, as a servant of BlockShare holders I care what @Sabreiib thinks, as he has made convincing public claims of being a large BlockShare holder.
@Sabreiib, is your concern based on a desire for shareholders to have more control over changes in the composition of the development fund, or is your concern based on being opposed to the purchase of NuShares specifically at this time? I suspect it is the former, and that is concern which is difficult to address. To get input from shareholders takes at least a week. With proper debate and modifications, getting shareholder input on a change in fund composition could easily take 3 weeks or more. Adjustments in fund composition need to be made faster than that, due to the high volatility of NSR. Do you agree the slow speed of shareholder input would make the input suboptimal, because the input would necessarily be outdated given the fast pace of change involved? Essentially, shareholders should control the general direction of the enterprise, but can’t be involved in day to day operational decisions due to the slow speed of input. It is practical to draft a motion that specifies I have ongoing authority to switch funds between NuBits, NuShares and Bitcoin, for instance. Would that help address your concern?
The recent action of selling US-NBT and purchasing NuShares at 36 and 37 satoshis is compliant with all motions, regulations and can be expected to be in the interest of BlockShare holders. The passed motion in the OP states:
This establishes asset exchange as within my mandate. While the passage only mentions BTC and NBT, the motion itself is for the purchase of NSR, implying reallocation among these assets is indicated.
On a practical level, the actions are easy to defend. NSR purchase was originally at 53 satoshis. Sale prices varied widely, but my guess is the return was about 50% on average. Now I am purchasing low again at 36 or 37 satoshis. I wish to make a public example of the trading pattern as a demonstration of how to successfully trade NuShares in a way that strengthens Nu and the trader (B&C in this case). It brings liquidity to NSR, which more than any other factor, is the strength of the peg.
I realize many would want the funds in other assets, such as BTC. At this time, that would produce a poor outcome for B&C, because it would directly lower the value of the fund’s NSR. Selling US-NBT without buying NSR with those funds necessitates an NSR sale by Nu.
@Proteus at some point @JordanLee even introduced a completely unknown character called “Angela” to the community. “Angela” out of a sudden was some kind of accountant for Nu. Nobody ever heard that name before. This network turned into a comedy show because he started blaming this imaginary character to not have provided sufficient accounting data Then again, he calls himself the greatest architect in crypto of all times somewhere on bitcointalk. It is not even funny anymore. @jooize keeps quiet even when the most ridiculous stuff is being pulled off by @JordanLee / @Phoenix. The NSR bonus granted to @jooize obviously took effect.
Angela was the name of the person I dealt with for raising invoices in the early days of Nu. Communication happened by BitMessage and took place on a monthly basis for me and the other participants in the Nu team at that time. Who Angela is/was and what relationship exited with Jordan Lee I don’t know, but to say that Angela was an entirely unknown entity before the above post is not strictly true. Given my experience of contact with Angela over quite a long time, the version of events presented by Phoenix seems completely plausible.
@woolly_sammoth you are trying to protect your investment and your position on the payroll, and that is completely comprehensible. It is the first time now that you step forward and call Angela a seemingly existent and reliable person within the Nu network. Where is Angela now? How much of the funds did she hold? Did she disappear along with @JordanLee? Did Angela “lose” control to all those dev funds? Who the heck is Angela and what was her role? My god… @AngelaLee, could you help us out here?