what these proceeds will be used for? is any development being currently done that needs that much NBT?
2 Likes
First of all, let me report total funds under my control, which constitutes the complete B&C development fund:
49,108 US-NBT
196,000,000 NSR at SSajkovCPXwdw46nyJ7vpTDkwtRZJzyY2z
The original NSR were purchased for 53 satoshi. About a third of it was sold for US-NBT at various prices, all much higher than 53 satoshis. With NSR prices now at 37 satoshis, it is prudent to sell most of the US-NBT for NSR once again. The result will be more NSR in the fund. I plan to sell around 30,000 US-NBT for NSR very soon. Another 10,000 US-NBT will be parked soon. These actions are expected to have almost no impact on peg support for US-NBT or the NSR price. This is because it won’t change the quantity of funds in the network. It merely switches them from US-NBT to NSR.
I wish to draw attention to this trading pattern for a number of reasons. First, it shows that providing liquidity in NSR can be lucrative to those who are patient and simply sell on spikes while purchasing on dips. It is a good illustration of how we create win-win scenarios. B&C provides liquidity to NSR (which means peg support), and it gets more NSR.
We will see a continued pattern of NuShare holders selling NSR low and buying it high. While this may seem stupid, it isn’t, because it makes providing liquidity to NSR very profitable. There is a sort of arbitrage to be had there by players such as B&C. Competition for this arbitrage should continue to grow. That will take the form of even greater NSR liquidity and smaller differences between the shareholder buy and sell prices. NuShare holders selling low and buying high is generating NSR liquidity. NSR liquidity is the most important factor in peg strength. We have created a synergy between B&C and Nu in this way. I encourage everyone to do the same. Anyone can.
So while @jooize keeps selling granted NSR for BTC, which subsequently are being traded for NBT, you then take these NBT and buy NSR for a significantly higher price back?
It is stupid except for the person who knows exactly when the market actions are taking place. Why don’t you just stop posting and take all the money you have right now? I mean you know no one will come after you and you also know that you don’t have a voice here anymore. And that’s ok, you made good money from this, just let it go now.
Is that because you are alienating shareholders? Emotional people do sell low, yes. However typically shareholders don’t sell low and buy high with exceptions excluded. So I don’t believe that is a sustainable mode of operations.
Having all (or almost all) B&C funds in NSR is ridiculous, you are just gambling with development funds. Although I understand better as most that there is a strong relation between Nu surviving and B&C development, I don’t believe this is a good move. You should work much harder in regaining confidence to NBT holders instead of continuing to manipulate the markets and creating ever more NSR. That is a vicious downward circle in case you didn’t notice after creating 1.2 billion NSR and still going.
Any forecast when you think that will end?
Do you actually know how many NBT still to buy back assuming almost nothing is being sold?
2 Likes
What motion empowers you to do that?
1 Like
There are quite a few motions that empower him to now do exactly whatever he wants. Prime example:
https://discuss.nubits.com/t/passed-motion-to-begin-nsr-buyback-immediately/2654
I beg to differ.
We are here talking about B&C funds and I’m not aware of any motion granting him discretion about development fund usage.
1 Like
Well, the deception of the initial distribution and the buyback event decisively helped to finally put the Chief Bird in an incontestable position regarding major decisions for both Nu and B&C. You ask for motions. I’d like to ask you for your opinion on the meaningfulness of motions within both networks (that actually have been merged to one network because in terms of assets B&C literally is Nu, and Nu is compromised and bankrupt)?
I tend to agree regarding Nu, but don’t recognize Phoenix in that position at B&C.
Either this motion passing
and seeing this motion in addition
is a trick or shows that B&C isn’t in the hands of Phoenix.
What I was trying to highlight with my question for the motion is this:
there was a motion that empowered Phoenix to trade NBT for NSR: [Passed] B&C Exchange should trade all US-NBT for NSR
There’s no motion that I’m aware of that allows any of what happened (or is announced to happen) to the B&C dev fund NSR afterwards, e.g. this:
or that
Phoenix is in the position (not by right, but by power) to play games with the B&C dev funds, but he shouldn’t think he can do so unnoticed.
I’m looking forward to seeing the dev funds in the hands of RSOT and at the same time wonder if that will ever happen…
1 Like
The truth is that there is no way to put pressure on @Phoenix to comply with anything as long as there are little birds intentionally failing to see the facts. It doesn’t matter whether we complain or not, there will always be someone like @jooize who values a bonus higher than his integrity (or what is left of it) and who is willing to keep the system running.
This is music to my ears! 
"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.
@Phoenix, just in case you have overlooked that question:
What motion empowers you to do that?
And what motion empowered you to do that:
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.
2 Likes
Game over then.
I agree it would spell the end of hope
1 Like
I voted for phoenix’s motion of transfering NBT to NSR of dev fund.
But I am disappointed that he transfered NSR back to NBT again without motions, so I would not support him holding B&C fund.
1 Like
In case anyone is confused, JL just activated his BKS, giving him a disproportionate vote like explained here:
Now, after my motion reinstating rsot gains back the proper sdd portion of the votes, we should see it pass, nullifying the blocking motion.
Clearly these monkey games are simultaneously wasteful and the only way to get anything done on the peershares platform.
2 Likes
Monkey games, psychological experiment, Chief Bird and Baby Birds, corruption, centralization, unjust enrichment, scam, stupidity etc…
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
1 Like
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.