Also a good idea to get them into a multisig address to prevent more losses maybe?
These NuShares were privately owned. They will not be used for Nu shareholder purposes.
It’s another 200 mil for the mysterious private investors to dump on the market. Just shut up and vote for it without all these questions.
I honestly don’t get it.
The address quoted here has a final balance of 1,770,300 NSR
It received in total 15,552,620 NSR
I’m too lazy to research that for all addresses, but wouldn’t it convenient to ‘lose’ funds, sell most of them, let some be locked by an urgent client update and get a nice reimbursement a few months later?
Oh, that would require that the NSR haven’t really been lost.
What do I know…
I want to put the B&C Exchange shareholder fund in a multisig address. So, we need a functional multisig team first. @Cybnate has put some good work into organizing that for us recently. I am going to advocate that grant be at least 237 million NSR, currently valued at $319,000. There is some sensibility to the notion it should be higher because Nu multisig custodians didn’t maintain the value of the B&C Exchange development fund as they were obligated to, which was in US NuBits. It is undeniable this caused B&C a lot of loss. I am considering advancing a motion regarding the matter.
My hope is we will have one or two full time developers working on B&C Exchange within a number of months. To make that happen, it is important to keep the NSR value up.
Multisig consisting of @Phoenix, @jooize and @Cybnate? That would actually be the funniest clown parade on the internet, but not a reliable multisig team to handle funds for investors. You failed big time, Mr. Scam Architect.
The same old story.
Still a lie.
Please note that the question of whose nsr we are reimbursing was artfully dodged.
No MaVo, you failed in your persistent and open attempts to bury Nu and B&C Exchange. Demand for Nu’s products has grown about 800% so far this year. That is a big success, one which I am clearly more responsible for than any other individual. Which of our competitors is paying you for your lies and slander?
You’re going to need to elaborate on the circumstances and show your work if you expect me to think anything other than this is your usual shenanigans, @Phoenix. Per usual you have created a situation where the entire network needs to trust your horrible reputation here.
Right unreliable multisig team according to you. What did we have before? Multisig is as reliable as the underpinning contracts for the team participating in it. I believe we can do better than what has been shown previously.
At least it is better than having funds in the hands of a single actor with all its risks. Don’t let get the perfect in the way of the good I would say.
My imagination tells me @Phoenix locked a shareholder out of their funds and now is claiming them for himself. We’ll never know the truth unless @Phoenix looks up what transparency means in the dictionary.
That isn’t plausible. All the shareholder would have to do is come to the forum with a signed message and say so. That isn’t happening.
Prove it. This shareholder can explain to his peers what is going on with a signed message.
I paid $20,000 for BKS. Where is my money? Did you “lose” it or did I “lose” it?
Oh, and btw: willing to purchase my BKS at $4 a piece?
I’d also like to point out that any discussions and the fork that blacklisted the funds was not authorized by Nu Law. The scope of your authority is limited to Liquidity Operations until you voluntarily gave up the responsibility of managing private keys holding shareholder funds after you lost 300 million NSR. (allegedly)
Implementing a quarantine of funds requires a fork with more minting power (shareholder support) than any other fork. Whether a fork, motion or custodial grant, the standard is the same: majority support by minting NuShare holders. This case was no exception.
I find that very hard to believe. We use proof of stake to align the interests of everyone who has control on the blockchain. Your behavior certainly doesn’t align with shareholder interests. If your claim is true, that would mean you are working consistently and purposefully to undermine your own compelling interests. Are you suggesting you are stupid enough to undermine your own interests?