[Passed] Elect Phoenix as Chief of Liquidity Operations (compromise version)

cryptog 2016-06-29 02:54:01 UTC #90

This is a double edge sword. No system is perfect i concede. We ll see.

Sabreiib 2016-06-29 02:58:39 UTC #91

This crisis is a good leason for us, next time when we vote, we may become smarter. Now, almost every shareholder cares about revenue model, this is the improvement.

Anything cannot kill you only makes you stronger.

cryptog 2016-07-01 09:33:07 UTC #92

This proposal has only 0.3% of vote according to the block explorer.

@Phoenix does not want to be a chief of liquidity operations any more?

well this has been replaced by [Passed] Elect Phoenix as Chief of Liquidity Operations (compromise version)

This proposal should be withdrawn.

Phoenix 2016-07-01 20:33:48 UTC #93

Sorry for the confusion. I didn’t want to mark this as withdrawn because this thread is where me being elected is discussed. It might make someone think I am not campaigning anymore. That isn’t the case. The other thread linked to in this quote doesn’t have any replies.

jooize 2016-07-02 20:10:37 UTC #94

Can @staff move the discussion to that thread?

Phoenix 2016-07-02 20:12:08 UTC #95

Good idea.

Sentinelrv 2016-07-02 20:55:03 UTC #96

Done

@Phoenix, can you please edit the 2nd post in this thread to mention that it’s an outdated post?

jooize 2016-07-02 20:55:13 UTC #97

Thank you, @Sentinelrv.

@Phoenix: I suggest you link to this one from the previous version and edit the title to say [Replaced] or similar.

Sentinelrv 2016-07-02 21:00:22 UTC #98

I just did this. For some reason though the original post from that thread was moved as well and is currently the 2nd post in this thread.

jooize 2016-07-02 21:02:52 UTC #99

Great. Oh, huh. Even says posted 10 minutes ago. I guess @Phoenix can remove it if undesired.

Phoenix 2016-07-02 21:10:25 UTC #100

Done

crypto_coiner 2016-07-03 01:20:28 UTC #101

Taking a look back to the peg crisis, you have realized that decentralized liquidity is just not possible and you think that it is the cause of our crisis – others think that failure in making revenues is the cause.
Interesting.
Truth be told, Nu technical dev team is hierarchical with sigmike being leader. Recently, ppl are voting for sigmike to lead bcex development and this is not controversial.
A decentralized dev team would certainly have a hard time producing work.
Analogiclally, your proposal is having such a leader and its team for the liquidity operations. That makes sense.
That could work and cant know if we dont try.
But it has risks.
Shareholders must gauge the possible returns vs risks

crypto_coiner 2016-07-03 01:26:35 UTC #102

Phoenix:

Decentralized systems are expensive (due to redundancy) and tend to have slower response times than centralized systems. Decentralised systems excel at being censorship resistant. They can be more reliable if their tasks are simple and well understood by all participants, such as is the case with Bitcoin transactions in the Bitcoin network (every Bitcoin node knows exactly how Bitcoin transactions are formed and interpreted). However, if knowledge about the tasks is not well distributed or not well defined, decentralized systems can markedly under perform centralized structures when expert knowledge is required to make competent decisions. That is our situation. We decentralized liquidity operations. The twenty or so participants who make decisions simply don’t have the expert knowledge needed to manage the liquidity. So you get incoherence, massive violations of NuLaw (perhaps in most cases due to ignorance of the law) and failure to function.

We must gauge the benefits of centralization vs benefits of decentralization.
What is centralization good for?
What is decentralization good for?

crypto_coiner 2016-07-03 01:27:39 UTC #103

I did not get that one – please elaborate

Cybnate 2016-07-03 01:45:49 UTC #104

You can only raise reserves to 100% by finding a source of income. That will attract investors who might be able to back you. With costs higher than income, Nu will eventually fail again. But I suspect you are still not telling the other Shareholders and the public everything you told your investors. Still hoping for some transparency and vision here.

Sentinelrv 2016-07-03 02:18:24 UTC #105

I feel this way as well. As much as I don’t like the current path we seem to be headed in, I still feel as if maybe there is something we’re not being told. I see 3 possible scenarios here…

Phoenix/Jordan just doesn’t get it, but believes he does.
His intentions are dishonest and everything he does is for the goal of ripping off shareholders and NuBit users.
There is something about how the liquidity engine model is supposed to work that he hasn’t revealed to us yet that would make the whole thing make sense.

We can only hope that it’s #3 if this passes and that something will be revealed later on that makes this model profitable, or else we’ll end up right back in the same situation as we’re in right now.

Phoenix 2016-07-03 02:28:10 UTC #106

Sorry guys. I can’t relate to this. Who has provided half as much vision around here as me in recent weeks? No one.

We release every transaction. How can you be more transparent than that?

I see a fourth:

I am extremely competent and am already enjoying great success in restoring the peg, even though I haven’t even been elected yet. I just want to see the project succeed instead of having it shut down without reason and in violation of our promises to customers. I’m angry you and others are trying to turn NuBits into a scam by destroying NuBits holders needlessly.

Sentinelrv 2016-07-03 02:33:26 UTC #107

I never said I was in support of Cybnate’s motion. I’m just afraid that if the peg is somehow restored through NuShare sales, it will only be a matter of time before the costs for providing liquidity add up and we’re back in the same situation. We need a longer term plan than just restoring the peg. There needs to be a way to make enough revenue in the future so that liquidity provision can be sustained long-term.

Cybnate 2016-07-03 02:40:44 UTC #108

Sorry to hear that

The only vision I have seen is about restoring the peg to the way before it broke. I haven’t seen a vision for a sustainable way forward. Or do we need to believe that you are single handedly able to provide a revenue stream for Nu just by liquidity provision?[quote=“Phoenix, post:106, topic:4218”]
We release every transaction. How can you be more transparent than that?
[/quote]
It is not about transactions, it is about a vision on the way forward.

I’m disappointed that you still think that. I’m just trying to find ways to make Nu a success based on DAO principles and known liquidation principles. I’m good to concede that it is not a great way, but I don’t see alternatives within DAO principles. Maybe Nu Inc. is indeed the way to go as most Shareholders think. I’m not against that, it is just another business model which comes with different risks and issues.

GreatScott 2016-07-03 02:42:53 UTC #109

I notice this and appreciate it a lot. Just letting you know that. I appreciate what you are doing here and I cant prove it, but I imagine a lot of others appreciate it, too.