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.
Didn’t you forget the RSOT motion?
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.
This motion has been hashed:
94c2541e909b1240ac478571305809cd23295a21
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?
This passed.
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.
I will say more about how to move forward soon.
Good to know funds are still there. How many NSR will be traded? BCE can be finished if NSR value don’t drop?
The quantity of NSR will be a function of the number US-NBT being traded and market price of NSR at the time the motion passed on the second blockchain (B&C in this case). I haven’t worked out those details yet. However, I suspect I will propose that about 20,000 B&C NuBits be traded for NSR already in my possession while the remaining 100,000 be traded using a custodial grant I will advance shortly. This will give B&C funds to operate while the NSR custodial grant is being passed.
I hope to have more details in the next day.
That seems unlikely. It can likely be finished with a significant increase in the value of NSR. It can also be finished with additional BlockShare sales. You might think there is no demand for BlockShares, but our high quantity of NuShare sales recently illustrates the point that there is always demand at a certain price point.
Why not devote part of the proceeds from the current NSR sales to buy back Nubits directly from B&C fund at 1 USD for 1 Nubit. While this would be more costly than buying Nubits on the open market it would improve the chances of B&C getting finished with in turn should have a positive effect on NSR price and possibly Nubit demand (if NBT pairs get added). When B&C gets finished I personally (and I suspect many other BKS shareholders) won’t mind using some of the B&C revenue to invest in Nushares thereby creating a positive feedback loop and a continues long term increase in NSR demand. Your plan would instantly devaluate the B&C fund by 15-20%.
There are still 25,74 BTC left in the FLOT multisig valued currently at roughly 15800 USD. I propose you burn 15800 B&C fund Nubits and we use these bitcoins to get development started on B&C again as soon as possible. B&C is standing still and the competition is closing in lets get development started again now!
IMHO thats the most logical way to go:
You have a cryptocurrency/cryptoasset project;
You promote an ICO exchanging your token (e.g. BKS) for Bitcoin (the unquestionable most accepted cryptocurrency);
You use those BTC for development, marketing and for stuff related to project.
So I also support Burning those NBT and using BTC for the remaining B&C’s development costs.
BTW burning those B&C’s development NBT funds will help NuShare holders anyway…
While your overall proposal has some attractive elements, we ought to keep the issue of fairness at the forefront of the discussion. In this context, fairness means treating all US-NBT holders the same. If we give more to a select holder of US-NBT, all other holders will receive less. That wouldn’t be fair.
The way to make it fair is to give all US-NBT holders equal access. One way to do this would be to place the BTC on Poloniex. In theory, B&C NuBits could be sold to receive the BTC on Poloniex. In practice, it is possible that other US-NBT holders would consume the BTC liquidity, as fairness requires. There is also the issue that B&C will not have possession of any US-NBT in a few days. This motion mandates the transfer of B&C Exchange NuBits to me at this time, with the understanding that the funds will be in escrow until they are exchanged for NSR, which will occur when NuShare holders pass a custodial grant. However, a form of @Dhume’s proposal could work if and when B&C acquires additional US NuBits.
It worth pointing out that this is a proposal that appears to have considerable FLOT and community support and might also use the BTC for the shareholder mandated purpose: purchasing NuBits. So, I am keen to see a form of this proposal move forward that would bring the value in these BTC under shareholder control. However, I am struggling to discover a way this could be done that is both fair to all US-NBT holders and complies with the shareholders directives in this motion.
Fairness really? You do realize that the expensive inefficient Nushare buyback program that made a few NSR holders able to cash out at insane prices was pretty much completely funded by the B&C ICO crowdsale right? It were the BTC raised by the B&C ICO that without shareholder vote were 100% turned into Nubits and then used for a 555 BTC Nushare buyback program. We are way beyond fairness here, if Jordanlee hadn’t messed with the funds there would still be literally beyond 600/700 Bitcoin left in the B&C developer funds and we would have 0 issues finishing this product + additional features.
At least other Nubit holders actually chose to buy Nubits themselves, B&C shareholders were unknowingly forced into this by the now missing former lead architect. I’m amazed how you keep defending Jordanlee’s actions when we all know he sold the B&C dev fund bitcoins at nearly the bottom of the BTC price for Nubits and then initiated a buyback program that drained the Nu reserves. You can try to swing it any way you like but the fact is the financial difficulties B&C is in now are the direct result of his auctions.
Let’s move beyond the concept of fairness “other” Nubit holders have a vested interest in seeing Nubit price return to 1 dollar a piece as well. Finishing B&C exchange will be a major step forward and will have a positive effect on NSR and by association NBT price. If other Nubit holders are smart they willingly let B&C step in front of them at the payout line to increase the chances of themselves receiving a full pay out as well.
Anyone could have cashed out at that time. It was the publicly traded market price. Bad decision, maybe, but not unfair to “a few NSR holders”.
You’re not getting my point I’m not saying it was unfair to a “few NSR holders” I’m saying using B&C raised development funds to fund an expensive inefficient NSR buyback program is the problem here. We paid for B&C development not an NSR buyback program yet that is where a lot of the funds went.
You’re right on that point, in my opinion. In hindsight, storing the B&C dev funds in NBT was not in the best interest of B&C shareholders.
I have asked @jooize to post the prices we will use for the exchange, as mandated in the motion. Once he has done this, we can calculate how many NSR B&C will receive for its 122,288 US-NBT. In order to make sure B&C Exchange has operating funds for the time it will take to finalize the deal with an NSR custodial grant, 12,288 US-NBT will be traded for NSR I have on hand from the last liquidity operations NSR grant. The other 110,000 will be placed in escrow until the NSR grant passes.
I will proceed by creating and backing up NBT and NSR wallets so that I can give addresses to send funds to.
I interpret the motion as though the prices shall be set according to what they are when this motion passes on the second blockchain, i.e. B&C’s because it passed on Nu’s first. Am I mistaken?
The exact final amount will be determined by the market rates of NSR and US-NBT at the exact time this motion passes on the second blockchain.
[…]
@jooize will post the applicable market prices after the motion passes on the second blockchain.
— https://daology.org/proposals/6d9ced9ebd643d2e727f659424a3ececa093bf7f