That is correct.
Motion hash: 94c2541e909b1240ac478571305809cd23295a21
Motion passed in Nu: 2016–08–30 22:18 UTC
Motion passed in B&C: 2016–09–03 12:43 UTC
Price source: CoinMarketCap
US‑NBT price at 2016–09–03 12:43 UTC: 0.00125073 BTC
NSR price at 2016–09–03 12:43 UTC: 0.00000053 BTC
BTC price at 2016–09–03 12:43 UTC: 574.70 USD
The market price of US NuBits may be considered to have been manipulated looking at the activity around that time. I’m pondering whether to use the price at that exact point in time or attempt to decide a fair price.
US NuBit purchases were performed at around 03–06 UTC that day. 0.001435 BTC was the market price the moment before that which had been quite stable over the last 10 days. After Nu’s daily buy support was consumed the price was pushed further down, which can be relatively easy with the current thin support.
# ~03 – Before US NuBit purchases earlier that day # BTC = 574.95 USD # US-NBT = 0.001435 BTC # US-NBT = 0.8250 USD # NSR = 0.0003 USD (0.8250 * 120000) / 0.0003 = 330,000,000 # 12:43 – Exact prices # US-NBT = 0.7187 USD # NSR = 0.0003 USD (0.7187 * 120000) / 0.0003 = 287,480,000 # ~15 – After motion passed with momentarily stable prices # BTC = 575 USD # US-NBT = 0.00139 BTC # US-NBT = 0.79925 USD # NSR = 0.0003 USD (0.7999 * 120000) / 0.0003 = 319,960,000
The motion specifies “at the exact time this motion passes”. It’s definitely controversial to adjust. NuShare holders will have to agree by passing the upcoming grant.
The exact price is approximately 13% below the quite stable price during the 10 days before. Two hours after the motion passed the price recovered to about 0.001390 BTC (−3%).
This can be very simple by ignoring any potential market manipulation, or more complicated by taking the controversial route that may be fairer. −13% doesn’t seem right to B&C shareholders. Unfortunately, the dynamic makes it beneficial for Nu (whose shareholders are more likely to hold NuBits) to have the NuBit price down for this deal.
I set the US NuBit trading price at 0.00134172 BTC (−6.5%). NuShare price is 53 satoshi.
Actively Maintained Data Feeds
B&C Exchange has 122,288 US-NBT, all of which will be exchanged for NSR under this deal.
0.00134172 / 0.00000053 = 2531.55 NSR per US-NBT
2531.55 * 122,288 = 309,578,186 NSR
122,288 US-NBT will be exchanged for 309,578,186 NSR.
12,288 of the above US-NBT total will be traded immediately for NSR on hand from the last custodial grant. This will give funds to allow B&C to operate in the coming days. Because the liquidity operations team does not have 309 million NSR in our wallets, 110,000 US-NBT will be traded for a custodial grant I will propose shortly. The amount of that custodial grant will be 110,000 * 2531.55 = 278,470,500 NSR. I will provide NBT and NSR addresses shortly to facilitate these transactions. Stay tuned.
Timeline of events related to the peg break 2016
BKS expenditure, where did the money go?
So BKS shareholders receive an additional 6.5% haircut due to a single individual selling 2,5k NBT into the “buy wall” at exactly the right time (how could this possibly be manipulation??). Seems fair though, honestly I mean it’s not like Nu has already totally fucked over BKS in every way possible. Might as well abuse BKS holders some more.
The more I write about revenue and get ignored by Phoenix foremost, the more I’m convinced that this is only a pump&dump scheme, maybe even a scam in the form of a ponzi scheme.
I’m sorry that BKS holders are getting roped into it.
Blocks&Chains at least has a revenue scheme opposed to Nu.
How would you have done it? I see few options and none was easy to choose.
- Completely ignore the market and set the price according to the previous days.
- Pick the price the market briefly recovered to after the motion passed.
- Compromise arbitrarily.
- Use the exact price.
1–3 may be a violation. 4 would be surrendering to market manipulation. I opted for #3. Both sets of shareholders passed the motion. It would otherwise have resulted in a −13% disadvantage for B&C. Ignoring the market doesn’t seem right either.
I urge to use more robust phrasing for price determination in the future.
I’ve already stated how I would have done it use 1 NBT = 1 USD we could have used part of the proceedings from the NSR sales to pay back B&C. This would significantly increase the likelihood of B&C being finished and be beneficial to NSR holders and by proxy NBT holders as well in the long run. Instead now B&C dev fund gets a 20% cut and an illiquid NSR asset that is likely further to devaluate due to increased dilution by phoenix. His plan is awfull but alas he has an absolute majority in minting shares most likely directly under his own control so we can’t do anything about it. His will is law there is no DAO………
The extreme volatility in the US-NBT price at the time the deal closed makes choosing a fair price difficult. There are a number of methods that could be used to derive it. Each has advantages and disadvantages. There isn’t a good way to arrive at consensus on the best approach, especially when the best approach depends on your own personal interests and investments. This demonstrates the advantage of having someone appointed to just make a decision in a transparent manner. Otherwise, we would never be able to move forward. @jooize was appointed by shareholders to make that decision. While there is room for argument about the fairest price, @jooize’s decision is fair and reasonable. I support it. Due to the level discretion that had to be exercized, he is being criticized. Obviously, BlockShare holders want a higher price, while NuShare holders want a lower price. That guarantees a certain level of dissatisfaction.
Fair enough. I had intended for you to have discretion in the price. Otherwise, the motion would have said we would use the last trade price. I had thought of the possibility of actors rigging the price on the open market for a number of hours, but I didn’t address that possibility effectively in my motion language.
Some people seem to think that Nu and B&C are quite independent. They will have more independence later, but it has been obvious to me that B&C cannot succeed if Nu is in shambles. We have to get NuBits on a firm footing before we can expect to make a good effort on B&C. Whether B&C has NuBits or NuShares in its development fund, it is still dependent on the success of Nu. BlockShare holders, can we all admit we have to support Nu? Is it not obvious where B&C is about to take delivery of 309 million NuShares?
Here are the addresses needed to complete this operation:
All B&C Exchange US-NBT will start at this address under my control: BJLmVRdGFi4q7Zidwzr4CPPsLT6pozR31a. I will transfer 12,288 to another address to be burned immediately.
I will then transfer 31,107,686 NSR from the latest liquidity operations custodial grant to the B&C wallet.
The custodial grant address under my control for 278,470,500 NSR that will belong to B&C Exchange is SSajkovCPXwdw46nyJ7vpTDkwtRZJzyY2z.
I will create a formal grant request on Daology, but voting on the NSR grant for B&C should begin now.
The problem is the only way to get Nu back on track is endless dilution, by transforming B&C’s Nubits into NSR you now make B&C part of that dilution as well. Not only did you make B&C pay for an extensive buyback program by buying Nubits with B&C bitcoins, you then spend those bitcoins on an NSR buyback. Now you request B&C to buy NSR with their Nubits and then keep diluting NSR to pay off the rest of the Nu debt.
You are making B&C pay for Nu’s immense debt when you already made B&C pay for the NSR buyback program to begin with. This is absolute insanity and nothing short of theft, however you somehow managed to get a majority control of active minting shares so shareholder are powerless. Most likely you reserved a large amount of shares for yourself during the ICO. We shareholders can never verify this as you’ve never given insight into B&C finances despite multiple requests.
I wouldn’t characterize it that way, but however we choose to describe the loss of the peg, no one is more responsible than you, where you hold a key to both BTC and NSR reserves but refused to use them to support the peg. You, yes you @Dhume , are responsible, along with a couple other people, for the value B&C lost when you abandoned the peg. I didn’t have a part in that at all. What I did do, almost all by myself, was increase the value of B&C fund by about $80,000 USD when I raised the value of US-NBT from below $0.20 to around $0.85.
You should thank me. I rescued the vast majority of the B&C fund from your incompetent and defiant actions.
Your beyond delusional you are single handily responsible for destroying literally hundreds of thousands USD of B&C raised ICO funds by selling them at their bottom value for a “stable” currency that failed by and large because you the same person decided it was a good idea to waste 555 bitcoins on an NSR buyback program that bought back what? 80 milion NSR. What a great investment, what a splendid idea destroying 2 large project in a single move. Yes pat yourself on the back for bankrupting not just Nu but by your sole auctions but also a complete and viable project in B&C Exchange. We now realize why you are so secret about your real life identity you must be fearing legal repercussions from you illegitimate auctions.
Maybe it’s time you acknowledge that the NSR buyback program was beyond stupid, that putting all of the B&C raised funds 1 basket was stupid instead of trying to shift the blame to FLOT. No one is buying it you can drop the act.
Sorry, I can’t do that. Rather, I am working hard to quickly get NuBit demand to a place where we can have a large, extended NSR buy back program.
Because the first one was so succesfull right? Pure comedy this is.
@Dhume you seem to be upset that the NSR sale prices have generally been lower than NSR buy prices. That is a tendency likely to continue. Rather than being jealous about it, may I suggest you buy NSR now at low prices with the hope to sell them for more in the next NSR buyback? It is the kind of return people who help now, in our time of need, deserve.
I have received B&C Exchange development funds in the amount of 122,287.5057 US-NBT at BJLmVRdGFi4q7Zidwzr4CPPsLT6pozR31a.
Your plan is simply dilute NSR as long as necessary, since there are still many NBT left outstanding this dilution is likely to continue for a long while. By putting B&C Nubits in NSR you choose to dilute B&C fund along with the rest of the N|SR. This is insane B&C should not have to pay for Nu losing its peg rather Nu should make an extra effort to pay off B&C even if that means putting other Nubit holders in line behind them. I’ve stated my reasoning many times the best shot for Nu and thereby other Nubit holders to get out of this mess is to get B&C finished at least then a steady revenue stream (B&C income) can be used to buy NSR continuously.
I really don’t know why you are so against this plan as its much safer than yours. Right now all priority including Nu’s should be to get B&C running as quickly as possible as it’s by far the best chance you have to get both projects out of this mess. Your plan likely leads to further NSR dilution and thereby even less B&C funds meaning this project will never be finished because there are no funds to finish it with.
I heartily agree. Unfortunately, you and a small number of other signers and gateway operators decided B&C would in fact pay for Nu losing the peg. You decided all NuBit holders would pay when you withheld funds to support the peg. I have always been opposed to peg abandonment, but you got your way on this one. How can you complain?