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

Sentinelrv 2016-06-16 04:24:33 UTC #43

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.

ConfusedObserver 2016-06-16 04:40:00 UTC #44

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…”

PoP 2016-06-16 07:31:17 UTC #45

pst… I still think incentivizing nubits burning through gamble proceeds could work.

mhps 2016-06-16 10:51:14 UTC #46

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.

Sentinelrv 2016-06-16 18:06:33 UTC #47

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.

MaVo 2016-06-16 18:23:54 UTC #48

backpacker 2016-06-16 18:23:58 UTC #49

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.

Sentinelrv 2016-06-16 18:29:25 UTC #50

@Phoenix

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?

mhps 2016-06-16 18:35:10 UTC #51

How do you know ? Whose words do you take for it? Only his. You would have to trust him because he is the only one who sees all the in and outs. I am not saying he intends to deceive, I am saying there is no reviewing, auditing, or measuring of the Chief’s operation effectiveness planned in the proposal.

Sentinelrv 2016-06-16 19:09:42 UTC #52

As far as I understand what he said above, FLOT would control the funds. He would simply direct FLOT what to do with them, so there is no possibility they could be stolen by a single person or used for voting.

Sentinelrv 2016-06-16 19:26:07 UTC #53

Is there anything you believe that could be added here to improve it? It seems he’s saying that all the data will be provided, but it’s up to shareholders to analyze it.

[Replaced] Elect Phoenix as Chief of Liquidity Operations

Transparency
Money flows in our decentralized liquidity operations were already as transparent as practical (we couldn’t report much on independent liquidity providers using pools as they wish, for instance). Transparency will be even easier with the command model we are moving to for liquidity operations. All liquidity operators using shareholder funds are required to reveal all addresses used to handle shareholder funds and reveal complete deposit and transaction histories for all exchange accounts used to handle shareholder funds. These complete and detailed records will be made publicly available for anyone to analyze, aggregate or summarize. Shareholders are advised to hire an accountant to analyze the raw data we provide to derive the financial reporting they desire. Liquidity providers (including Phoenix) will only be expected to reveal complete raw data.

mhps 2016-06-16 19:35:52 UTC #54

That is the easy part. You never know , for example, if someone is front-running the wall movements, and who are benefitting from betting against nu.

Chronos 2016-06-16 19:54:39 UTC #55

I have an idea. It will never happen with this plan (in my opinion).

100% reserves on 700k outstanding NBT equals, well, a lot of money. And NSR demand is somewhat anemic at the moment. There is a limit to the total amount of money that people-would-consider-buying-NSR even own, and it may be less than that number.

ConfusedObserver 2016-06-17 08:02:20 UTC #56

Maybe the most important part: don’t rely on a single person!
It seems you are hoping that Phoenix could be JordanLee.
After all you know, you should be afraid that Phoenix could be JordanLee!
Don’t rely on single people if you can avoid it at reasonable cost.

JordanLee has successfully targeted FLOT.
FLOT doesn’t work like it did before.
That’s the result of JordanLee’s attacks.

Now you want to rely on a pseudonym that likely is a sock puppet of Jordan?
Don’t let you lure into a trap, just because of having been made desperate.
JordanLee made you desperate! He attacked and then abandonded Nu.
You won’t find salvation in anything that’s related to JordanLee.

Take responsibility. Stop following false leaders. Elect a group of leaders. Don’t let them be attacked. Don’t listen to single evil actors.

cryptog 2016-06-17 21:31:43 UTC #57

I am not a fan of this proposal and most shareholders think the same as well, it seems.
This has only very low support.

The reason I am not a fan is because it gives too much power to a single node.

Sentinelrv 2016-06-17 21:43:40 UTC #58

I was initially voting for this, but I stopped because I realize now that NSR sales most likely won’t be enough to raise over $700k. If it somehow was enough, then it would most likely mean unlimited NuShare dilution. I’m ok with limited amounts of dilution, but not unlimited amounts (billions of NuShares for example). The only path forward that I see of having the most chance of success is helping B&C to get finished and then relying on a percentage of their profit to help lift Nu out of debt…

cryptog 2016-06-17 22:51:14 UTC #59

I do not think we need to raise that much. Why should we be able to buy every outstanding nubit out there?
We should stick to the standard first.

mhps 2016-06-18 03:43:52 UTC #60

With 10% dilution we can gain a fully reserved buy wall at 0.1. Then we start from there. In that sense i s upport @Phoenix’ 0.1 peg that rises. i’d support 3m share compensation in exchange @Phoenix’ promise to carry out his plan, without giving a blanc check of power. He would have to convince shareholders and flot on te way

cryptog 2016-06-18 03:46:50 UTC #61

Maybe this is a solution indeed after all. let me consider it again.

Cybnate 2016-06-18 03:50:09 UTC #62

A rising peg is very expensive without any other measures in place than just stopping new NBT creation. Where would the funds to do so come from and what is the incentive?
It doesn’t make sense to me. I believe creon’s option is more viable.