Wasn’t B&C Exchange starting with like $200k dev fund?
What have the $80k been spent for?
It’s hard to keep the US-NBT rate up by selling NSR, which are worth less and less.
Wanna know how to increase NSR rate?
Get the revenue stuff sorted out instead of playing tricks and trying to hold BKS owners in custody!
I consider the recommendation to introduce revenue to Nu highly constructive.
If you want to stay immune to recommendations that help beyond the effect of tricks, would you please kindly write your thoughts on a piece of paper and flush them down the toilet?
This would help the forum to stay more clean, at the price of being almost completely silent.
If I had a choice, I’d prefer silence.
True, I already have that choice, but I still don’t think all is lost - maybe Nu and B&C Exchange can get rid of malevolent actors and claim control again.
It was just too tempting to get in control after you realized that a lot of shareholders don’t want to participate, right?
Might have worked out, if you knew your job.
Alas, you don’t…
Your main flaw is that you don’t listen and blindly follow your own belief.
To state the obvious: because @Phoenix == @JordanLee.
How else should he know how many US-NBT are left or how many have already been spent on development?
It’s a pity that there’s no reporting about the details.
Bad job, very bad job by the architect.
Bad job by the shareholders not to demand those reports. Why should anybody listen to random people in a forum?
Nu and B&C are not mainly doomed, because there’s somebody who wants to be a leader and pulls the strings to become one.
The main reason is that the shareholders don’t stop him and he frankly says they don’t because they appreciate his job.
I say they are too lazy or not informed.
Anyway, a DAO where the “D” failed has lost the “A” and the “O” as well.
Nu had a “D” in the form of a FLOT that was meaning well, acting as a kind of delegate, but unfortunately without a proper mandate.
It looks like there’s not much left of FLOT, which is a pity. FLOT could have been used as “board of directors” if set up properly.
Interesting idea. @Phoenix, a report on the NBT that has been spent so far would be a good first step for this process.
One thought: the claimed value of the NBT is based on current price, which is so thinly traded that it can easily be manipulated up or down by 10%. It’s quite a leap of faith for both BKS and NSR holders to agree on a valuation.
That’s a lot of NSR. It seems that it would be able to push any motion through. Would it be used to mint?
Guys, be sure to use toilet paper. Regular paper clogged my toilet, too.
@ConfusedObserver your comments are just exactly the sort of negative, angry and unrelated rants I was hoping would be flushed down toilets instead of infecting this important workspace.
You have addressed quite a few topics, but none are related to the topic at hand.
It is obvious you are determined to see this project fail because you couldn’t play the role you wanted to within the project. You are creating a hostile environment. I would guess you aren’t a shareholder. People who aren’t shareholders, want the project to fail, and work against us by derailing important conversations and creating a hostile environment should not be participating.
Moderators, can we get @ConfusedObserver’s inappropriate comments removed from this thread please?
On a more positive note, thanks to @Cybnate and @Sabreiib for your constructive comments. I will have to respond to @Cybnate’s comments later because I spent this time dealing with a counterproductive distraction.
I have always been of the opinion that the level of disclosure and reporting provided by Angela has been suboptimal. I have made repeated requests to her for more reporting. Those reports don’t appear to be coming. So, we have two choices: accept what Angela is doing or set up alternative operations that don’t rely on her. The later has been discussed, but we haven’t arrived at a consensus on how to conduct alternative operations yet. It will happen before too long, I believe.
However, the paranoia in the community has been quite high the last couple of months. I’m confident Angela’s service was pretty much entered into with the attitude that no one else was willing to do the important work, so she would be self-sacrificing and help out. She isn’t scamming us and it is apparent she has no attachment to her work. The problem is people coming in here and demanding someone else provide a solution they want, and for free. I say you want a solution? Go provide it yourself.
Ladies and gentleman, I have been absent for quite some time. But to everyone in the world I always promised that once I find someone who is more funny than me, I will show up, applaud and disappear again! Hats off @Phoenix, I don’t think I have any joke at hand that even has a tiny chance to compete with yours in any way. Even though I am a shareholder, I indeed don’t care anymore about my investment as I had my ROI. How? Well, if I had to pay ticket prices for comedy shows that in aggregation deliver the same amount of amusement as you currently do, I really start appreciating more and more that I found this place in the past, although for quite a high price.
Just because my posts make you angry that doesn’t make them a rant.
What in particular do you have in mind, which you consider negative - besides my assessment of your job and your achievements so far?
The revenue topic is the most important topic. Stop throwing these smoke grenades.
If you want to save Nu, you need revenue.
If you continue your way, you continue to look like running a ponzi scheme.
What do you dislike in particular? Being unveiled as JordanLee once again?
I fear you did that yourself.
Calling it paranoia is an attempt of putting this behaviour on the irrational side.
But it’s far from being irrational having doubts about the well-being of Nu if people see the network run mainly by a single individual, which was once called JordanLee and now wants to be called Phoenix.
The attempt to leave responsibility behind ad continue with borrowed reputation rings alarm bells.
The option to purge you, @JordanLee == @Phoenix from both Nu and B&C Exchange has been discussed.
It looks like this needs to be done, if a business with revenue shall replace your ponzi scheme.
I bet it’s only a matter of time until
Nu fails completely (making B&C Exchange a collateral damage) or
“bad addresses” get removed from the blockchain by a hard fork
First step is to get the B&C funds moved to a multisig team so B&C shareholders can actually asses what funds are left, a motion to do so has already been proposed.
@Phoenix I’m not sure about this proposal I see more merit in a proposal that would require an x% of funds (let’s say 50’% as an example) raised by NSR sales to be dedicated to buying back NBT from B&C dev fund at 1 dollar a piece. That means we’re giving B&C a better price then we can currently get Nubits from the market but then again Nushare holders have a stake in B&C as well. On top of that it was mostly B&C raised BTC that was used for the NSR buybacks so the least Nu could do is buy those Nubits back at the price B&C bought them for.
With this it would mean B&C would get a steady return of funds to be used for development. We can then asses how much funds we have (roughly 120k NBT right?) and make plans with @sigmike if this is enough to fund the remaining development.
One problem is no developer will accept BKS as salary, if even developers don’t have faith in BC, why not we find some other developers who accept BKS?
At least, B&C is better than XPM which has $ 1,100,823 Market Cap. Even the development stops, what would we fear?
I will vote your motion joining RSOT. BTW, I suggest all members compromise and step backward a little to accept persons you dislike into RSOT, this is democracy.
We are on same boat, fighting each other isn’t productive.
3 @Phoenix burns the 120,000 B&C Exchange US-NBT and disburses the NSR as needed for development.
This motion will put all B&C development fund to @pheonix which creates the same situation in Nu – one person gains overwhelming power. The motion should state that the fund should be transfered to a multisig address of a group controls that address is formed.
To call this overwhelming power is probably a bit extreme. Shareholders maintain complete control over the value stored in the market cap and any BlockShares and BlockCredits created. Shareholders maintain complete control over the protocol and transaction processing. I don’t have any control over these essential shareholder functions.
I agree, however, that this represents some concentration of power. It should just be temporary until we can form multisig groups. After ample time to attempt to form RSOT, we are not even close to a consensus on how to do that. While we work on that, development needs to continue. I am providing a solution to facilitate the much needed money flows to support that. It appears to be the only immediately viable alternative. I would caution shareholders to not reject using me as a custodian with the mistaken notion that a multisig group can and should be used instead. While that is very appealing on a theoretical level, on a practical level, it simply isn’t working. Let’s step back and figure out why. In the mean time, we need to provide a way for development funds to flow in an accountable manner. I have provided a practical solution. No one else has.
Without accountability and funds in the hands of a single actor it is hard to explain to others that you won’t have any control. I suppose you meant the same level control as you have with Nu?
I think this is the only way to get a tiny bit of credibility which we will need when we start raising funds. Unless of course you are willing to stump up the difference between the actual cost to get B&C started and the available funds.
Remember, this motion is different from any other we have had. It is a contract between BlockShare holders and NuShare holders. Therefore, this motion must pass on both the Nu and B&C blockchains. Please put this hash in both of your clients.
Ideally we should turn these nubits into block shares but right now we do not have any exchange to convey value to those block shares.
So I am fine with that proposal though it will destroy nushare value but do we have another choice?
The motion has me hold B&C US-NBT in escrow until an NSR grant is passed. B&C Exchange needs to keep enough funds to function during the escrow period. One way is to keep some NuBits and spend them as needed. Another is to trade a small amount of US-NBT for NSR right now, with the NSR being used to pay expenses during the escrow period.
