[Passed] NSR sale and NBT burn

My apologies to @Nagalim for this. I hope you don’t feel I am stepping on your toes. The discussion you started was quite useful and you can see my content is based on yours and reflects the results of your discussion as well.

This is a modest rate of sales that will result in less than 0.4% dilution per month.

Motion RIPEMD160 hash: e91340fdbda5c2a7a1362c66eece05b9c67d2496

=##=##=##=##=##=## Motion hash starts with this line ##=##=##=##=##=##=

1 million (1,000,000) NSR will be auctioned weekly until the buy side liquidity is equal to or greater than sell side liquidity. Bids are due by the end of each Friday UTC and settlement must complete by the following Monday UTC. Minimum bid size is 500,000 NSR. Payment must be made in NBT. All proceeds will be burned no later than three days after the settlement date. The burn transaction will be publicly posted to discuss.nubits.com.

=##=##=##=##=##=## Motion hash ends with this line ##=##=##=##=##=##=

Verify. Use everything between and including the <motionhash></motionhash> tags.

I am comfortable with this for now. I only doubt the continual language of the grant, but realize that 1 week is enough time to pass a motion revoking the continual selloff.

You aren’t stepping on my toes, but I am not revoking my motion. If you wish to add a line nullifying my motion should they both pass, I would not be upset.

1 Like

I’ve just added Jordan’s motion to my datafeed. Although Nagalim’s earlier motion is good, I like the continuity of Jordan’s motion until the buy side is greater than sell side. The current situation requires this imo.

Thanks for continuously ignoring community efforts and questions. Its really totally worthless to put any time or effort in this community, since every discussion is either completely ignored or its just overwritten by a powerful member like in this case here. There was even the claim that it is the shareholders fault, while it is obvious that we would have gotten our burn for weeks now if the B&C auction did not forbid any NSR sale.

Now the community made a motion for it, and the whole discussion is made obsolete by just posting another motion instead of participating in shaping the original one. Its not in the slightest similar to the original proposal, and it has all drawbacks we tried to avoid. It is not transparent for us, and totally manipulable by both seller and buyer as described numerous times - but hey, its surely being voted on while Nagalims approach will be forgotten. Not sure how any regular shareholder is still motivated to move things in this DAC. I for my part am totally disillusioned by the events over the last weeks and particular this here. I learned a lot here, good and bad things, and will surely benefit from it on my future way.

Good luck!


Both motions are up for voting. Nagalim’s motion informed my position so just to say it is totally worthless is not true imo.
There is a choice and the discussion can still continue as it still not clear whether this motion passes.

It is a bit weird to set a 0.5 million minimum bid size while the auction volume is 1 million. Most likely only one person will be able to buy anything.

It is a weekly auction so everyone has a chance to bid each week. The minimum is to make it manageable for Jordan. People buying smaller amounts might just buy on the open market.

Jordan, if one bidder fills 750000 NSR, will a lower bidder have 250000 of his bid filled as well, even though that portion has become below the minimum bid size?

Since the action of this motion is based on the liquidity info, can all custodians verify the accuracy of their own liquidity info currently reported in the Nu client? People knowing which custodian is operating where should also be able to verify that.

This includes past custodians, as their liquidity info can remain in the network up to 6 months if it hasn’t been properly reset.

To get the breakdown of the liquidity you can type getliquidityinfo B in the debug console.

I doubt others share your perception that there is centralized control here and lack of relevant discussion.

Everyone is free to advance a motion, say what they like about one, and every shareholder can vote for any motion they desire.


Thanks for providing another motion that aims to help getting rid of the NBT oversupply.

But I need to say the only aspect I like better at this proposal is the continuity, providing Nu with an ongoing mechanism to balance the NBT volume.

I don’t understand why selling the NSR should be limited to an auction, though.

That part is basically the same in the motion provided by @Nagalim
But while @Nagalim’s motion proceeds with selling NSR at the market (in case they can’t be auctioned), here is proposed to sell the NSR by auction and only by auction.

Thinking about the results of the different motions, I came to think of two basic scenarios:

  1. there’s big demand for NSR and they are sold like hot cakes (offers over $0.0025 / NSR)
  • there’s not much demand and the offers stay below $0.0025 / NSR

In the first scenario both motions lead to the same result. NSR will be sold in an auction.

In the second scenario

  • the NSR might be auctioned for a price below $0.0025 according to @Jordan’s motion
  • are offered for sale on an exchange according to @Nagalim’s motion

So only in case the NSR are not auctioned or over $0.0025 per NSR a transparent procedure kicks in - if @Nagalim’s motion is the one on which the NSR sale will be based upon.
Effectively this motion here is only necessary in case they wouldn’t be sold at “Day 1”.

With both motions NSR might be sold at low prices.
In one case at a visible market price.
In the other case in an auction.

Is there so little confidence that NSR can be auctioned at over $0.0025 per NSR?

Does Nu need to conceal the effects on market price that selling several million NSR could have?

The low ask volume at exchanges might be interpreted like NSR is not one of the super hot assets at the moment.
But the low bid volume at exchanges tells for sure that the NSR holders haven’t abandoned Nu either. They hold. They discuss. They vote. All in order to improve Nu.
Obviously NSR holders are more interested in creating a solid business than to make a quick buck.

I can’t foresee the future and I’m not able to tell what happens if the NSR market price plummets by selling millions of NSR at exchanges.
I for one consider it a necessary evil and would rather see a hit in the market capitalization of Nu than an nontransparent mode of sale.

Nu is here to stay and so I think it needs to allow the market to rate its value!

May the NSR holders decide…


Auctions and selling on the market have the same end result, in my opinion. Perhaps the charts will not show it, but I mentally drew a large red candle based on the little information we were given about the results of the last auction. I have read opinions insinuating that this is not the case, but I must disagree. Especially if it is going to be an ongoing activity, then it will effect the market just as if the NSR were sold on BTER instead of Poloniex.

I prefer to end this ‘blind auction’ concept in favor of a more transparent approach also.

It is my opinion that the NSR price is suffering now due to the preference of NSR buy backs instead of dividends during the opposing end of these cycles.


Voted. I prefer this over @Nagalim’s concurrent motion although I definitely appreciated the discussion there. This auction is simpler, and as I pointed out in the other thread, more complexity would not necessarily lead to a higher return for shareholders. I look forward to our shareholders finding automated solutions to the issue of NBT burning in the future however.


At first I wanted them both to pass because sometimes you just want to see the whole world burn (nubits). However, the more I think about it, the more I realize the depth of @GreatScott’s point: this motion is the same as mine minus the care, risk analysis, and transparency.

If no bid is submitted, what happens? Clearly, Jordan will buy them himself for $.0000001/nsr. The case where my motion gets complicated is the same case where jordan’s motion simply fails. And in the case where his motion fails, Jordan profits personally. Why are we rewarding him for failing us with the b&c auction?

Why would anyone vote for this?
Because Jordan proposed it.

Make no mistake, this is the most important vote of Nu history because it is the first with real competition. And if you care a lick for democracy in Nu, vote for my motion alone

Maybe I tried to use too many words to explain it (or chose the wrong words), but my rationale for voting in favor of @Nagalim’s motion instead of this one was aiming into the same direction.
My understanding is that @JordanLee’s intention for this motion is to keep it simple and I think that’s a good reason for this motion.

But shareholders that vote for this motion instead of @Nagalim’s motion need to be aware that this simplicity in this case comes at the cost of transparency.


Using less words is not simpler. There are 3 cases, represented by my 3 different bins for days:

Case 1: NSR value is above market orders. The two motions pass in the same way except Jordan’s is 7 days where mine is 6 and mine expires in 30 days. A trivial difference in my opinion for the first burn motion.

Case 2: NSR value is at market orders. My motion spells out what happens, it is simple. Jordan’s motion allows him to really do anything he wants as far as putting in his own bid is concerned. He could place his bid slightly above the highest one and get all the shares for market price. I’m not saying he will, but there is virtually no incentive for him not to.

Case 3: NSR value is below market orders. My motion clearly wins in this scenario as it allows Jordan to sell it to whomever he can find, including all market orders.

My motion is simpler and better for many many reasons, besides it would make history for Nu’s democratic process. Nothing personal to @JordanLee, I just think he’s wrong.

Edit: I guess all I’m trying to say is that I conflicts of interest are not simple, and I’m saying it specifically to @tomjoad

Most importantly, I encourage everyone to keep discussions civil and respectful.

Those who see bids for blind auctions are required to submit bids just prior to the beginning of the auction.

I would be delighted to have a motion pass directing someone else to oversee NSR distribution.

I do believe that the person proposing the motion and the person distributing should definitely be different people. That said, I simply don’t trust any blind auctions where the selling price is at or below market orders. My motion fixes that issue.

I would prefer an automated solution in the future as well. I’m very optimistic we’ll discover a solution that works with our protocol as a result of the ideas put forth by thoughtful individuals like @Benjamin and others.

I’m disappointed to see personal attacks on @JordanLee however and I think he is responding here more politely than I would. You can easily disagree with his approach without insinuating that he’s engaging in fraud or theft. A certain level of trust must already exist for shareholders in trusting that the initial distribution of NSR was sufficiently widespread. If you believe Jordan conducted a fair distribution (which I do) and didn’t secretly hoard hidden NSR for himself, then there’s no reason to believe he is suddenly robbing shareholders. Thousands of hours have gone into developing the Nu network to match Jordan’s vision and it’s absurd to think he would try and steal from a 1,000,000 NSR auction.

Democracy in the Nu network is solely decided by blockchain voting. One voice does not equal one vote. If you care about democracy in Nu, vote for what you believe the best idea is, not just the most firmly stated demand. In this case - given that I trust Jordan completely - I value the simplicity of his proposal over the slightly reduced transparency. I’ve already pointed out to you why structuring different phases of an auction is unlikely to result in a better outcome for shareholders (because of auction revenue equivalence theory) and was greeted with a dismissive hand-wave.

Let’s politely debate the merits of each motion and cast a vote. Blockchain consensus is indisputable; if either motion reaches a majority it is because the majority of NuShareholders’ financial stake believes it is the best course of action.