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

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well this has been replaced by [Passed] Elect Phoenix as Chief of Liquidity Operations (compromise version)

This proposal should be withdrawn.

#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 I didn’t want to mark this as withdrawn because this thread is where me being elected is discussed.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.

1 Like
#94

Can @staff move the discussion to that thread?

1 Like
#95

Good idea.

#96

Done

@Phoenix, can you please edit the 2nd post in this thread to mention that it’s an outdated post?

1 Like
#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.

#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.

1 Like
#99

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

#100

Done

#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

3 Likes
#102

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

1 Like
#103

I did not get that one – please elaborate

#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.

2 Likes
#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…

  1. Phoenix/Jordan just doesn’t get it, but believes he does.
  2. His intentions are dishonest and everything he does is for the goal of ripping off shareholders and NuBit users.
  3. 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.

1 Like
#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:

  1. 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.
#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.

1 Like
#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.

3 Likes
#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.

1 Like
#110

This attitude strikes me as very strange, because most cryptos have no revenue at all, just constant dilution through block rewards and expenses (mining). Nu and B&C are quite special in their capacity to source revenues from a wide variety of activities, which have been discussed a great deal here.

Where is Bitcoin’s revenue? If they are always depending on dilution to fund operations (mining), surely Bitcoin will go bankrupt or go to zero, right? :wink:

2 Likes
#111

Bitcoin is not a DAO that can vote itself a raise, like you did with the NSR buyback.