[Passed] Phoenix compensation to change from USNBT to NSR


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.


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.


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.


@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.


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.


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.



This motion passed.