[Passed] Phoenix compensation to change from USNBT to NSR

Cybnate 2018-01-01 22:27:27 UTC #8

Looking forward to your proposal for a better leader with credentials doing it for less. I’m afraid most are tied up in successful or promising existing coins (on of those 250 in marketcap ranked above Nu) or are trying to setup the latest ICO earning them millions.

I doubt he will be working 40h/week on Nu, but maybe @Phoenix like to comment on this aspect I’m also interested in.

DavidMc0 2018-01-01 22:54:57 UTC #9

I could put forward some ideas, but any firm proposal would require significant work & that wouldn’t be worthwhile without an indication of support from shareholders… perhaps I could put suggest a motion to fund scoping out a potential team for Nu that could add significant value to Nu, and once the scoping is complete, shareholders can choose between the proposed team & Phoenix’s proposal.

If any significant shareholders are interested, please let me know so I can consider whether it’s worth putting any time into.

jooize 2018-01-02 01:18:31 UTC #10

A post was merged into an existing topic: AngelaLee’s removed posts

dysconnect 2018-01-03 17:53:19 UTC #11

To make Nu work and justify this kind of spending on JL you’ll need to make JL accountable for his actions and require more devotion. Tier 6 liquidity is fragile unless Nu can earn an income, most likely through being a hedge fund or through profitable market-making type activities, otherwise it’ll be like bank loans - they shove it to you almost for free when you need them the least, and be extra stingy when you need them the most.

But Nu has suffered from poor relationships with exchanges; Poloniex effectively squeezed all liquidity value from Nu and offered little in return, and the community couldn’t even lobby Poloniex to treat it on par with Tether in the good days. The hope is of course he can make the money-printing machine running and bootstrap both Nu and BCE. But he has failed to hire a consistent level of labor for the development of BCE, failed to answer questions on BCE and the missing development funds and the bad decisions that put BCE development in jeopardy and Henry and NuLagoon. Two years has passed and BCE is not even a toy. I can’t say that shows an adequate amount of commitment to the success and legitimization of Nu, nor that he is resourceful enough to complete that vision he prizes himself so much for.

If you trust JL, as a startup you’ll need to make bold choices and require JL to use every ounce of his energy to push everything forward effectively. If he can do that, I’m sure you won’t mind even paying him millions. If he can’t, it’s hard to justify even 100k. Just remind yourself how much you get paid and how much you’ll be screwed by your boss when you can’t meet your milestones. I don’t say this in a way that assumes Nu is a scam - if JL is really so important, you should bargain to get a lot out of him and dangle an even bigger prize in front of him if that’s really needed. Also remember he’s probably hiding shit loads of NSR and BKS and might not really need more incentives, the same way Zuckerberg takes virtually no salary.

Phoenix 2018-01-03 19:14:49 UTC #12

It is very curious for a multisig signer who had power and responsibility in Nu mid 2016, and used it to dramatically and unexpectedly defund B&C Exchange in a plainly illegal, foolish and anti-social manner, to criticize me for all I have done for B&C Exchange, in spite of the very difficult circumstances @dysconnect has personally handed BlockShare holders. @dysconnect was a signer for Nu’s BTC and NSR, as I recall. We were one signer short of operating as planned. @dysconnect made the decision to defund B&C Exchange, which was funded with NuBits, by choosing to abandon the peg, and he had the power to do that. So, don’t forget the deplorable and highly destructive role @dysconnect has played in this endeavor. What a petty attempt to shift attention from your own extreme guilt @dysconnect!

After imposing this kind of severe damage to the projects through destructive, unpredictable and dishonest actions, @dysconnect is certainly unwelcome here. As such, he has no interest in seeing the projects succeed. Quite the opposite. People who abandoned the peg like to blame the network design, so they don’t have to take personal responsibility. But the network design was superb. It works very well, as we have proven over the years.

@dysconnect you ought to take responsibility for your destructive actions here, not try to deflect blame to me. Remember, I am the guy who grew B&C Exchange’s funding from its low of about $20,000 after your destructive and illegal acts, to its current value of about $2.5 million. It is plain to see who is a friend of Nu and B&C Exchange, and who is not. I have done some amazing things to recover these projects from the damage you imposed, and I am very proud of that.

Sabreiib 2018-01-04 00:38:35 UTC #13

Good news! I know it consists of BTC, NSR and NBT. How about having a portion of other stable currency such as bitUSD Or Tether? In this kind of extreme Bull market I worry about the sysmatic price collapse.

dysconnect 2018-01-04 01:00:22 UTC #14

Look, we can go on and on about it and also that I remained one of the most active signers towards the official end of FLOT, and you talked about killing FLOT and I just made that better for you by firing myself first.

But that is not the point. The point is that if you’re taking a big salary, Nu shareholders would rather you work full time and shoulder responsibility. And if you do, your followers would be willing to hand you much more than you asked for. No startup thrived with a part-time CEO… especially not in today’s cryptoland. FLOT went the route of being underpaid and overworked, had great responsibility but no terms of accountability. You’ll make big promises and keep them and be ready to answer questions when you can’t deliver, and with the knowledge it could cost both your reward and your skin in the game. Otherwise that salary increase would rather go towards development of Nu market-making research and BCE, remembering BCE core dev was budgeted at 200k and like 50 NBT per man hour.

Sabreiib 2018-01-04 01:16:36 UTC #15

Even FLOT made mistakes, they are NOT vicious, their intention was to protect pegging not destroying it although their behavior consequences in real world is another story.

@phoneix The past is the past, let us be friendly to each other. IMO, violent revolution never solves core issues, but compromise does. Britain people behead “Charles I” but a new sort of king Cromwell came. Only the Glorious Revolution- a peaceful compromise gave Britain a bright future.

BTW, I’m happy that I supported the motion of changing B&C fund from NBT to NSR, and believe 2.5 million USD is enough to finish this project, so let’s nail it down, how about holding several stable currencies for the fund?

lissajous 2018-01-04 01:58:39 UTC #16

I’d argue that the basis for your objection to his compensation is precisely due to your willingness to let NBT customers suffer the consequences of a lost peg and for having the finger pointed at you.

I have aired my own opinions on the liquidity model, but if NSR becomes highly liquid then Nu will finally have recovered from the collapse. Only then will we move towards definitively knowing one way or another whether the model has merit, without the presence of human emotions protecting self interest (NSR price). I think we can trust @Phoenix will not let emotions get in the way of his vision, so I am going to vote for this motion.

dysconnect 2018-01-04 02:48:38 UTC #17

I’m not arguing against his compensation per se, but would remind NSR holders of their rights and what it takes for the whole system to succeed. If NSR has total faith on somebody then it’s more rational to pay a lot and ask for total devotion, rather than look at the hourly wage and feel good about not having to pay for full 40-hour work weeks. And it would be advisable for JL to offer a price for his full commitment.

And well, Nu was nearly out of BTC and had lots of NSR nobody wanted to buy. I resigned when there was almost nothing left to sign for and still kept signing until I handed over all my duties and “power” to others and forfeited my fee. If JL is implying otherwise he’s making stuff up.

lissajous 2018-01-04 03:00:52 UTC #18

They also had nobody willing to sell NSR, so the premise of your argument is an assumption.

dysconnect 2018-01-04 06:31:31 UTC #19

Not true. If you dig out posts on NSR FLOT you can see that FLOT had acted according to schedule and come to agreement to provide NSR and was forced to use discretion beyond their own assigned authority due to the lack of sufficient directives (which by the way was still being discussed in a motion draft prior to the event) despite a strong emphasis on checks and balances and processes.

Then NSR prices just dropped more and more quickly as Nu was closer to insolvency. Some actions were judged to be mistakes, and I assume responsibility (in the form of my forfeited fee and shying away from the glory of the reborn NSR which I’m not going to touch again) for whatever of those that were true and made by me.

There are many things that can be said in hindsight but the one most important thing I wanted to raise is this: the main failure of FLOT was that it wasn’t given the right combination of power, responsibility, incentives and accountability. I think having an real incentivised and accountable leader is a better way than a bunch of near-volunteers that can’t be held responsible because they don’t have real power and don’t get paid. Whether JL is worth it is a problem for NSR holders, not me.

I talked about JL’s past blunders partly to rant, but not really to suggest that he can’t be employed by Nu. Nu wants to move forward, and JL’s tactic of “pump up the market cap and the rest will come” is working to an extent that it still needs a lot of developers, a real business model, and a convincing plan to withstand the next blackswan. It’s sorta ok.

But I’m saying, as Nu gains an organizational structure under a leadership, shareholders must realize the value and price of that leadership, and understand what should really go into this sort of proposal. At this point JL’s KPI as a leader should be in terms of growing the community, developing relationships with exchanges, development milestones etc. all with timely delivery, rather than market cap and volume supported only by minor exchanges, which we all know are funny money until Nu has a real plan to survive a BTC bubble burst or exchange default. If Nu is convinced JL can lead it to all those things then consider to offer him a massive incentive, but also ask that he’ll have to make this a full-time job and be ready to take the most blame and lose the fat comp package when things don’t work out.

So it comes to this: NSR holders, you know the value of these things. A finished BCE, relisting on Poloniex et al, an optimized mechanism for market-making and decentralized liquidity, a business model. You believe Nu’s gain can be worth magnitudes more than 500k if those plans get real, and you probably only have one chance, and you don’t want to blow it on holding a leader to a low standard in order to underpay him. I won’t judge whether JL is that leader; I have no dog in this fight apart from some residual emotional attachment to what happened last year. If you think JL’s worth it, try to negotiate a high bar and compensate him even higher.

cryptog 2018-01-04 08:50:09 UTC #20

Very good points. Tks a lot for your advice and insights, @dysconnect .

woolly_sammoth 2018-01-05 00:32:35 UTC #21

As Requested by @Phoenix, I have created a new topic showing the work I’ve undertaken in the last month as well as the work I intend to do over the coming months

I can confirm that @Phoenix has not been micro-managing me or deciding which work I should focus on as a priority, rather I have been given the trust to focus on what I consider to be important for the network.

I believe that Phoenix is offering that style of management for the wider network too with this proposal.
I firmly believe that the ultimate aim for the network is to regain the decentralised nature that was so important to the burgeoning community we had here in 2014-2015. Decisions will be made by Shareholders and enacted by their representatives, for the good of the Network.
We have seen what can happen though when the decisions made pull the network in multiple directions and it spells disaster for Nu and by association B&C.
Phoenix is offering to be the final adjudicator and to take the responsibility of making the decisions that need to be made in those tough times. The compensation is there to ensure that it is less easy to shirk that responsibility when it is needed most.
The style of this leadership might not have been to everyone’s taste to date but it arguably has shown results. With the formation of a team to carry out the needs of the network and steer it in the same direction there will, I assume, be less and less need for Phoenix to step in in the same style. The compensation requested here is to ensure that Phoenix is there to step in during this transitory period.

That’s just my take on this and has been made without any influence from Phoenix or anyone else. I think the compensation requested seems fair given the kind of role Phoenix has and what my presumed intentions for the future are.

dysconnect 2018-01-05 02:15:32 UTC #22

There are still tons of ideas around the forum gathering dust, many clear developmental milestones being procrastinated on, and I see this would still be the case for a very long time. You’ll need a way to establish what should be done and compel the leader to find resources to get them done.

And decentralisation and authoritative step-in don’t go so well together. When the community goes big, this means you’ll have people neck-deep into an endeavor which then gets called off. It pisses off people. This kind of thing pisses off people in a normal company and the manager would be asked questions about wasting scarce resources; you aren’t seeing a division because the team is just too small and most people with dissenting opinions have simply just left or turned apathetic. And back when Eleven was hired to work for one specific thing, sigmike seemed to have had troubles aligning his work output with BCE’s vision; you can think that a decentralized process when no specific goals are set makes that even more difficult.

And just like what was said above it’s getting harder and harder to have an able body contribute valuable labor in a crypto coin for peanuts. From Nu’s point of view as a company, the best thing that came out of FLOT was jooize - for all its tragedies it became a part of the process that brought the best out of some community member, though not without a cost. Now consider what will happen if you can manage to bring the best out of JL.

Cybnate 2018-01-05 02:22:07 UTC #23

What is the point in asking more compensation than? Deceiving us from the NSR and BKS he is allegedly hiding? Bit unlikely imo. You might be looking too deep.

I’m also keen to get some KPIs, skin in the game or similar to measure performance and have some milestones set out in the future.

Appreciate having your views posted here though.

jooize 2018-01-05 04:21:11 UTC #24

@dysconnect: You are articulate and argue reasonably. I welcome that! Even if I disagree on certain points or find you plainly incorrect. Cheers.

Regarding @dysconnect’s involvement in FLOT, they did sign the transaction June 9, 2016 to move remaining FLOT funds to NuLagoon Tube, though within an hour withdrew their signature (which remains in post edit history) referring to an alternative transaction they didn’t seem to sign. A concurrent problem was widening of spread over 1%, but his change of mind was based on the tightening of spread at the transaction’s target exchange platform. They created a transaction to move funds to a new FLOT address. Didn’t sign a transaction directly mandated by shareholders under directions of elected Chief of Liquidity Operations. After the peg had been restored three months later, they signed a transaction to transfer remaining funds to Poloniex at 1% spread.

I was a FLOT BTC and USNBT signer and may have acted inadequately to some degree. I’m not particularly interested in blame, but to establish the real history.

As for a previously surfaced concern that I recall regarding FLOT working without pay, every signer says in their passed motion they will be part of FLOT for at least one year and to be paid by the end of each cycle, of which there had been two completed and paid for.

Nu had 66 BTC, ~38,505 USD according to me June 6, 2016.

When Phoenix and I began selling NSR there was buy support, just not for the entire circulating supply at once. Investors may want to see that their funds are being used as expected for peg support, which absolutely did not happen with the proceeds from FLOT’s one and only NSR sale.

Nu had no other way to back circulating NuBits beyond the value of its asset reserve (tier 1–4), and it appears to have come as a surprise to many that NSR sales was the mandated source of deeper liquidity. Few seem to believe that investors would see value in owning Nu when its asset reserve was depleted and circulating NuBits remaining unbacked. Everything since suggests investors do see value in Nu at some price. They can be greatly rewarded by later demand.

It’s critical to realize that NSR sales is a core function for deep liquidity.

Refer to Park rates are our method for short term peg maintenance and [Passed] NSR sale and NBT burn.

Sabreiib 2018-01-05 06:36:45 UTC #25

The painful continuous NSR sale should be the last resort of liquidity engine, not a daily one. How about combining “pledge mechanism” with debt-to-equity(NSR<->NBT) swap?

Recently, the NSR trade volume is far less than NBT’s, this implies that “liquidity engine” which demands high liquid NSR market has some potential weakness. In “pledge mechanism”, the NSR price will influence LP’s decision(breach of contract or not), while we don’t need a high liquid NSR market.

pledge mechanism for shrinking NBT supply ----> painless because it demands a little NSR liquidity.
NSR sale for shrinking NBT supply ----> painful because it demands huge NSR liquidity.

dysconnect 2018-01-05 08:52:00 UTC #27

Forget about that wall of text I deleted - it was off topic, I don’t wish to argue further and keep in mind the message is to ask JL to define better his responsibilities e.g. what should Nu accomplish in 2018 and set the right expectations, and Nu should not be afraid to pay more if that is needed.

Adieu.

Cybnate 2018-01-09 07:48:49 UTC #28

This motion passed.