[Passed] B&C Exchange should trade all US-NBT for NSR

backpacker · November 8, 2016, 8:42am

I agree it would spell the end of hope

Nagalim · November 8, 2016, 1:49pm

Lotta votes with 440-450 sdd.

Sabreiib · November 8, 2016, 1:53pm

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.

Nagalim · November 8, 2016, 2:30pm

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.

MaVo · November 8, 2016, 3:33pm

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

Phoenix · November 8, 2016, 3:41pm

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you agree the slow speed of shareholder input would make the input suboptimal, because the input would necessarily be outdated given the fast pace of change involved?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.

ConfusedObserver · November 8, 2016, 4:09pm

@Phoenix, just in case you have overlooked that question:

What motion empowers you to do that?

And what motion empowered you to do that:

What development is to be paid with the BTC?

Sabreiib · November 9, 2016, 12:12am

In real world, a CEO/team makes decisions for daily operations because shareholders voting is slow. You may pass a motion to handle the B&C fund via trading BTC/NBT/NSR etc.

ConfusedObserver · November 27, 2016, 7:53pm

bump

@Phoenix, just in case you have overlooked that question:

What motion empowers you to do that?

And what motion empowered you to do that:

What development is to be paid with the BTC?

ConfusedObserver · November 30, 2016, 2:22pm

bump
@Phoenix, it’s amazing how you don’t answer these legitimate questions.
Can we at least have a flimsy excuse?

Sentinelrv · November 30, 2016, 9:25pm

Unfortunately, he doesn’t give a shit and will do whatever he wants to.

ChrisS · December 6, 2016, 11:38pm

This project has gone from a rotting corpse to the devil’s graveyard. You should all be ashamed for participating in this scam.

MaVo · May 20, 2017, 3:26am

Phoenix:

This motion has been finalized on Daology.

Motion Hash: 94c2541e909b1240ac478571305809cd23295a21

Please note that voting is taking place on both the Nu and B&C blockchains.

Currently B&C Exchange has around 120,000 US-NBT as its
development fund. These are worth around $80,000 USD at current market
rates. It isn’t enough money to finish the exchange. Hence, it is
difficult to find developers to devote themselves to the project with a
reduced chance of success.
These funds are also a menace to the Nu network. The last thing
NuShare holders want to see is the B&C Exchange NuBits hitting the
thin US-NBT buy wall as they inevitably will as development picks back
up at some point.
Exchanging these 120,000 US-NBT for about 280 million NSR (using
$0.70 for US-NBT and $0.0003 for NSR) provides compelling benefits for
BlockShare holders, NuShare holders and US-NBT holders.
Benefits for BlockShare holders
As it stands, the B&C development budget is insufficient to
complete the project with a current value of $80,000 USD. Progress can
be made which could spur further investment, but the lack of funds is
suppressing enthusiasm for the project. Furthermore, US-NBT has low
liquidity. NSR has much better liquidity in recent times. A more liquid
asset is a safer asset in many regards. If NuShares merely return to 100
satoshis again, B&C will have the type of funding that would make
it practical to finish the initial implementation. There is a very good
chance of NuShares being 100 satoshis or much more in the relatively
short term. They were over 500 satoshis just 3 months ago. Since then,
major improvements have been made to liquidity operations and costs have
been dramatically reduced. Chinese NuBits are being developed with 100%
segregated reserve, and are about to be released. We have recognized
and fixed the governance problems that led to the crisis of June. There
is a lot of new value that will be recognized once it is clear we have
restored the US-NBT peg.
If NuShares go down before B&C Exchange spends their NSR, the
situation will not be fundamentally different from what will occur if
B&C Exchange holds on to its NuBits: in either case additional
funding will be needed to complete B&C Exchange. Only the case of
buying NSR and having it regain some of its historical value is
additional funding for B&C Exchange unnecessary.
Benefits for NuShare holders
Because NuShares are a speculation on the future probability of
issuing additional NuBits, anything that increases the perceived
probably of future NuBit issuance will benefit NuShare holders. With
this deal, the US-NBT supply will drop below 400,000 in just a couple
weeks, down from a high of around 820,000. Most of the reduction was
done in just a couple months. It is an impressive rate of currency
supply reduction that bodes well for our ability to support currencies
in the future, now that our major governance problems have been solved.
With a 400,000 US-NBT supply, our current daily burn rate of 1500 US-NBT
means 0.375% of all US-NBT is being removed from circulation each and
every day. Such a pattern is sure to bring US-NBT back to $1.00, if it
can be sustained long enough. In just approxiately 4 months, the US-NBT
money supply would be halved once again to under 200,000. However, our
goal isn’t to purchase all US-NBT in circulation. Rather, by making it
an attractive product we increase demand. If people percieve that it has
little downside risk, but nearly a 50% upside at $0.70, it is an
attractive product. Hopefully the US-NBT money supply will never come
close to being as low as 200,000.
Benefits for US-NuBit holders
If the 120,000 US-NBT held by B&C Exchange are brought against
the US-NBT buy wall in the short term, it is sure to lower the US-NBT
below what it would have been if US-NBT are instead burned. This will
protect the value of US NuBits and increase confidence in their value.
This is a win for everyone involved. Let’s do it. Here is how it would proceed in practice:
A single motion that constitutes a contract between BlockShare
holders and NuShare holders must be passed on both blockchains, by both
sets of shareholders. This is that motion.
Once the motion is passed on both blockchains, B&C Exchange
NuBits are transferred to @Phoenix. A custodial grant of NSR is created
by NuShare holders. 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. For instance, if @Phoenix is custodian to 120,000
US-NBT in B&C funds, the US-NBT price is $0.70 and the NSR price is
$0.0003, then NuShare holders would be bound to create an NSR custodial
grant in the amount of 280 million, because (0.70 * 120000) / 0.0003 =
280,000,000. @jooize will post the applicable market prices after the
motion passes on the second blockchain.
@Phoenix burns the 120,000 B&C Exchange US-NBT and disburses
the NSR as needed for development. It is regularly sold for BTC or NBT
that is used to pay for development. The NSR remain shareholder funds,
and will be handled in any manner specified by shareholders, including
transfer to a multisig group created by shareholders.

Please offer your constructive suggestions and observations. If you have something negative and counterproductive to say, please kindly write it on a piece of paper and flush it down the toilet.

MaVo · July 10, 2017, 5:26am

Phoenix:

Would it be used to mint?

Absolutely not.

Chronos:
a report on the NBT that has been spent so far would be a good first step for this process.

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.

@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.

woolly_sammoth · July 12, 2017, 7:23pm

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.

MaVo · July 12, 2017, 9:54pm

@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?