@Phoenix, it needs to be made clear in your motion that you don’t have the power to hold the reserve or NuShares for sale by yourself, meaning you cannot order FLOT to send them solely to yourself for any reason. They need to be kept under multisig control with FLOT. You can give FLOT orders on how to proceed with sales or liquidity operations using the reserve, but you cannot hold either yourself without multisig protecting the funds from theft. Can you please add something like this into the grant?
Yes, FLOT will continue to hold the bulk of the NSR in multisig. I plan to ask for 5 or 10 million NSR from FLOT to begin with, to be split in single key addresses controlled by myself and one other person (it won’t be a secret who this is, but the person hasn’t been selected yet, but I will say I am planning on having a conversation with @jooize about filling this role). This NSR will be sold, likely through auction and Poloniex.
That’s great. Can you please put the above limitation of power that I described in your grant just so it is official and shareholders have protection?
Sadly, I think that is wishful thinking.
If this motion passes - as Führer/Duce of Liquidity Operations - will Phoenix have the power to delegate his liquidity operations to unknown/non-reputable individuals?
BTW this seems to lead to a Guided/Managed democracy way.
This reminds me of some thoughts from Hayek: he claimed that a limited democracy might be better than other forms of limited government at protecting liberty but that an unlimited democracy was worse than other forms of unlimited government because “its government loses the power even to do what it thinks right if any group on which its majority depends thinks otherwise”.
@Phoenix, important parts of what you are going to do
describes behaviour for which @JordanLee created a post called “Make Firing and Replacing Incompetent Liquidity Providers Our Top Priority”
That doesn’t make much sense unless you want to
- be marked as incompetent
- acknowledge that this behaviour (especially increasing the spread) is the only reasonable behaviour, if the funds are low on buy side
Do you plan to make the spread symmetric?
And if, what for? To prevent Jordan’s motion text from strictly applying to what you do?
Or would you be trying to match the market needs?
Finally some reason…
I’d rather see somebody more competent than you apply for such a role and hope you don’t get much support for this motion. The only good thing is the transparency promised by this motion.
Are shareholders desperate enough to elect a pseudonym fro this job that registered a few days ago?
There are some good threads that try to deal with the situation:
This motion here isn’t among them.
@Phoenix is @JordanLee. I believe I’ve read enough of his replies over the last several years to know the way he writes. Jordan would have called this person out a while ago if he was an impersonator trying to trick shareholders. I still don’t completely understand why he’s using an alternate identity. I thought he was trying to make a point about authority yesterday, but it doesn’t really matter. Voting for this grant means you’re putting Jordan Lee, the architect of Nu in charge of liquidity operations.
All logic dictates that we cannot take this as truth, and must assume that @phoenix has built absolutely no trust with the community and may easily steal all funds entrusted.
Voting for this grant means centralizing all Nu’s power in some rando that just joined up a few days ago.
This 100%. It’s completely against what cryptocurrency tries to achieve, decentralization.
But even if we had the proof needed to feel confident knowing this is JL (we don’t), the fact that he is doing this and completely dodging questions about it still makes it unacceptable to vote for him.
@Phoenix, please just drop the act and start using your @JordanLee account again. I’m 99.9% sure it’s you and most other people aren’t falling for it either. You write the same. You say the same things. You give long speeches about decentralization and liquidity. You act stubborn. You dodge questions about revenue. You put threads up for voting with no chance for shareholders to help in the drafting process.
It’s you. We all know it. Whatever the reason for this is, I have no idea, but it’s only hurting your chances of getting your motion passed. Just come back out as @JordanLee so we can get things done.
Why not starting with providing airtight accounting information?
Or a comprehensive description how to use the discretion?
We can gather about JordanLee that he has an understanding about liquidity in theory, but no practical experience.
On the contrary: he has an immense lack of knowledge, that others have.
This would be your first choice as dictator of liquidity operations?
Are you out of your mind?
Did @JordanLee ruin enough to present himself or even better - a sock puppet - as the best solution that’s available and you believe that?
Why not having @Cybnate in that role? Or @jooize? Or @mhps? Or @Nagalim?
Because they’d first think and act then in a reasonable manner?
Do you think you need somethign crazy now?
Maybe you should vote for @Phoenix or @JordanLee
Bitcoin invented the permissionless mining.
Nubits has invented the permissionless ideation and leadership.
This crisis is a tremendous opportunity to be all leaders, identify the cracks and fill them, one by one.
I don’t know if Jordan is correct or not. All I know is that if I can’t trust the architect of Nu to know what he’s talking about, then I don’t see much hope for this project succeeding anymore. We’ve had almost 2 years to come up with revenue models and nothing has been accomplished.
Jordan talks a big game. He thinks shareholders have been doing it wrong and he’s the expert on how his system is supposed to run and knows what needs to happen. I say we give him his big chance to prove whether he really knows what he’s talking about. If he succeeds, then great. If he fails, then we know for sure that he’s wrong and we can either try to find a different approach or close up shop and move on. I feel like we’ve got nothing to lose at this point, so we might as well give him his shot to prove himself. Maybe I’m right. Maybe I’m wrong. That’s just how I feel.
But we need the real @JordanLee to stand up if he wants this to have any chance of passing.
You have to feel so much, because there’s missing facts.
There’s no accounting.
How often has it been requested?
Why do you think a single person can be that important?
Jordan abandoned this community and this project for all we know.
The time for big mouth talk is over.
You ran out of money.
If you want to recover, you have to prepare a plan that is better than “give me control over all your NSR and all discretion and I promise…”
pst… I still think incentivizing nubits burning through gamble proceeds could work.
Shareholders should demand to see competence measured in verifiable metrics. As it stands the agreement (not even a motion) promises nothing on the quality of the service. All it does is grabbing power, not only limited to liquidity operatiions, but extend to all nushares any one owns by being able to demand unlimited nushare printing.
This is an extraordinary request to Nu DAO and ot should not be granted lightly.
I am not ignoring the positive thing in the proposal – that @JordanLee appears to plan to put his own effort in day-to-day liquidity provision, which could have helped to avoid today’s situation by taking effective T5 and T6 action when the buyback pool became negative.
I agree it would be better if the grant was altered to show that payment for services can only be received if the chief hits milestones, for example every time he gets the peg to rise up $0.10 with the full reserves to cover it. The grant should be made to FLOT instead, and they should be instructed to hand out NSR payment upon completion of these milestones. This way we’re not paying for work that hasn’t been completed yet.
He can’t demand that shareholders vote for a new grant of NSR. Shareholders don’t have to comply. If he doesn’t conserve the newly printed NSR, shareholders can simply vote to terminate him for his wastefulness. They can terminate him at any time if he does something that shareholders don’t like. Shareholders still have the ultimate power here. They’re only delegating their responsibility for liquidity operations to the architect for a temporary amount of time. They can pull that responsibility back to themselves through termination any time they want.
If you allow possibility of bad agent you should not forget possibility of voting for anything with those 100m if he orders them to his wallet.
How confident are you that you can get the peg back to $1?
How long do you think it will take to get back to $1 with full reserves?
Do you have an idea on the amount of NuShares it will take to build our reserves back up to 100% at $1?
Shareholders don’t want unnecessary dilution through wastefulness of NSR. Will you conserve printed NSR for sale as much as possible?
How long do you expect your role as chief of liquidity operations to last? Would it only be until the $1 peg has been returned, or do you plan to stay in the role sometime after that?
If you plan to stay in the role after the $1 peg has been returned, will your payment method be changed to NuBits, or will it stay with NuShares in order to help maintain the 100% reserve?