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

[crypto_coiner]

I have already suggested we address this by relying much less on a smooth functioning liquidity engine. This can be accomplished by raising reserves to full.

I did not get that one – please elaborate

[Cybnate]

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]

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.

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.

[Phoenix]

Still hoping for some transparency and vision here.

I feel this way as well.

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 3 possible scenarios here.

I see a fourth:

4. 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]

I’m angry you and others are trying to turn NuBits into a scam by destroying NuBits holders needlessly.

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]

Sorry guys. I can’t relate to this

Sorry to hear that

Who has provided half as much vision around here as me in recent weeks? No one.

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 angry you and others are trying to turn NuBits into a scam by destroying NuBits holders needlessly.

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]

I’m just trying to find ways to make Nu a success based on DAO principles and known liquidation principles.

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.

[Phoenix]

There needs to be a way to make enough revenue in the future so that liquidity provision can be sustained long-term.

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?

[GreatScott]

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

[Cybnate]

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

Bitcoin has miners which benefit from the ever increasing price of Bitcoin. It is an entirely different model with increasing scarcity build into the protocol. One of the reasons Bitcoin is successful because investors can build business models and services around the blockchain. E.g. exchanges, payment providers and provide buisness the means to distinguish themselves.

Nu doesn’t have scarcity built in and no miners who continue to invest because of the increasing price. Continuous dilution of Shareholders is not a sustainable business model. Something better will need to be found to cover the cost of deep liquidity at a stable price.

[Sentinelrv]

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?

This 100%.

[cryptog]

What does phoenix fails to explain to shareholders is that he or she is focusing on liquidity provision without thinking about the business models (the revenues models).
Because he or she thinks that it is not the role of Nu and probably he or she does not have the business acumen to implement business models.
Phoenix appears to be a new type of banker in a crypto world. (with poor social skills and high self esteem btw .Not surprising for a banker. )
That is ok.
Nu is a (de)centralized central bank that lives in the Internet.
Its role is to provide a peg.
Not more not less.
In other words, its role is not to build an ecosystem in which we see plenty of businesses using NuBits.
Businesses need to be built by entrepreneurs.

The revenues models are multiple and infite, mainly derived from the following 2 methods:

• tx fees
• burning

Well basically if NuBit is used as a currency on the Internet, Nu has won.

Of course, the question is how to get there, and within how many years?

Also, should we wait to have a large liquidity before implementing business models?
Of course not.
On the contrary that would help us keep the peg by increasing our reserves.

Also, we have the problem of the peg against Bitcoin.
If Nu wants to be the currency on the Internet, that is very narrow-minded to use only Bitcoin as the pegging pair.
This is something phoenix wants to focus on solely. .
But does it mean we should not start finding ways to peg directly against FIAT? Of course not.

Therefore, I do think we need to do 3 things right now:

• get back the peg via liquidity provision
• finding revenues models
• finding ways to peg against FIAT

For the next 12 months, let us not remake the same mistakes as when we failed to keep the peg:

• too much dependency on the BTC pair
• absence of businesses that use NuBits (besides the mere hedging which is given for free to hedgers)
• too much dogma into a leader who has plenty of flaws. (now that jordanlee is gone, that is solved)

It appears that some centralization is needed for liquidity operations at least to reboot the peg.
I hope we ll see more decentralization over the next months.

[creon]

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?

Wow, you already showed us your skills when you said that the fed has no revenue model, now this, you really misunderstand the very fundamental concept of economic systems. First, bitcoin does not need to pay LPCs and therefore the only cost to keep BTC alive is the consensus, which is compensated by a block reward (which will halve in a couple of hundred blocks btw, one reason why NBT is not at 1 USD, but I think that would go to far for you to understand).

After this reward goes to zero, the consensus mechanism should be kept alive through tx fees, because blockchain security is naturally related to market cap. If you think that consensus (POW operations) and liquidity operations are the same, wouldn’t your imaginary shareholder friends agree with me that you are certainly not a good candidate for this position?

[Sabreiib]

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?

Bitcoin’s revenue is pre buried by Satoshi on the road to AD 2050, that’s the incentive to drive the whole system going.

FED, eh, they have guns, tanks, and nuclear warheads, do you have such equipments?

These two models comply two big economics theories: gold standard and national credit currency.

The only way out for Nu/B&C is Hayek concurrent currencies theory, but you are not a fan.
Sad truth is that you are an IT expert without decent economics background.

[crypto_coiner]

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?

It is interesting why Bitcoin network is still going on.
NSR=BTC
Liquidity custodians=miners?

[qucubert2]

cryptog,

I use your post to convey my understanding of the issues facing Nu, generally. I trust you don’t mind my using your message to agree, mainly, but offer a competing theory with some complementary elements.

• too much dogma into a leader who has plenty of flaws. (now that jordanlee is gone, that is solved)

That is optimistic. And what novel decentralization are you implying would solve this leadership-dilemma?

Because he or she thinks that it is not the role of Nu and probably he or she does not have the business acumen to implement business models
…
In other words, its role is not to build an ecosystem in which we see plenty of businesses using NuBits. Businesses need to be built by entrepreneurs.

This point about developing NBT as a currency is vital; wider use would have prevented her loss-of-peg by scale.

Conclusion, refraining from insulting the acumen of Developer. I can’t agree that the leadership issue is solved with a new Chief because it’s function should be somehow decentralized. Could it be possible to address one issue with the other through creative programming?

With out much use, there is not much point to the peg. The key factor to getting more use (and preventing loss-of-peg) is end-user applications:

• To find a way decentralize the role of Chief to incentive-ize developers to work with Nu

That would by my suggestion.

[Sabreiib]

This attitude strikes me as very strange, because most cryptos have no revenue at all, just constant dilution through block rewards and expenses (mining).

Most cryptos don’t guarantee the price stability, if NBT price is designed to free float, there is no crisis now at all.

[Sentinelrv]

Liquidity custodians=miners?

As @creon said above, liquidity providers for Nu and miners for Bitcoin are not the same. Bitcoin is diluted in the form of block rewards to pay miners. The block rewards decrease over time, increasing Bitcoin scarcity and value of the coins. As the block reward drops to zero, transaction fees are supposed to take over in sustaining mining operations. If the value per Bitcoin dropped below what it cost miners to sustain their operations, Bitcoin’s network security would be threatened, thus security hinges on the value of Bitcoin.

In Peercoin, security of the network is paid for by diluting Peercoin around 1% a year. People mint with their Peercoin in order to maintain their wealth in the face of this dilution. The cost of maintaining the security of the network is extremely low, therefore Peercoin’s security model is not dependent on the value per coin to the degree that Bitcoin is.

NuShareholders act in a similar way and people mint in order to escape dilution. Since the reward is constant, rather than 1% per year, minters might actually profit from minting. However they also mint to vote in order to have their say on which direction the network is headed.

The liquidity provision of NuBits is entirely different from all of these. All we have is the money people give us when they buy our NuBits. Even if we have 100% reserve, we will slowly spend that entire reserve on liquidity providers who maintain the walls until all the funds run out. The only way to prevent the reserve from running out is to figure out how to earn revenue, such as through transaction fees. There needs to be enough transaction fees in order for Nu to reduce its liabilities under what it costs to maintain the network. That seems to be the only way for Nu to obtain self-sustainability.

[Phoenix]

I currently have 49.54% support for being elected Chief of Liquidity Operations under grant address ShrB92Q61TiL9ZaQXZQCMB2qszYKqTMkGU, while support is trending at 52.7%. Unfortunately, support for my previous grant to become Chief of Liquidity Operations is trending at 12%. Every block I examined that had a vote for the old grant address did not have a vote for the new grant address, ShrB92Q61TiL9ZaQXZQCMB2qszYKqTMkGU. This means due to confusion votes to make me Chief of Liquidity Operations are being split between two grant address. It means my actual level of support is probably trending around 65% right now.

If you are only voting for SWm1xC4n5jSGjRRdSKfzroUBgTto2zRA8X and not ShrB92Q61TiL9ZaQXZQCMB2qszYKqTMkGU, it is probably a mistake, because the latter is much more restrictive and is the one with an imminent chance of passage. Please add ShrB92Q61TiL9ZaQXZQCMB2qszYKqTMkGU in your custodial grant window if that is the case.

[GreatScott]

This means due to confusion votes to make me Chief of Liquidity Operations are being split between two grant address.

Perhaps shareholders are awaiting a response from you in your post: Statement of Policy (Liquidity Operations)