[Passed] Temporarily cap NBT supply with full reserve

You know my guess about what - or rather who - started that crisis?

That was what @JordanLee successfully planted in your head.

FLOT was already busy with preparing NSR sale etc. if I read the posts from that time right.
E.g. on 29th May a transfer of NSR was initiated to have them sold for BTC:

But then FLOT was hamstrung by an attack started by @JordanLee.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, what do you think is it?
…in this case the answer might be: a Phoenix.

Phoenix can’t give you more help than you received from JordanLee, who played many crucial roles to bring Nu where it is now.
JordanLee made so many mistakes that I have a hard time to believe this was a mishap each time. It doesn’t take much imagination to see a plan behind all this.
The attack on FLOT in a time of crisis instead of providing support alone speaks volumes.

1 Like

Spontaneous order, also named “self-organization”, is the spontaneous emergence of order out of seeming chaos. It is a process found in physical, biological, and social networks including economics, though the term “self-organization” is more often used for physical and biological processes, while “spontaneous order” is typically used to describe the emergence of various kinds of social orders from a combination of self-interested individuals who are not intentionally trying to create order through planning. The evolution of life on Earth, language, crystal structure, the Internet and a free market economy have all been proposed as examples of systems which evolved through spontaneous order.[1] Naturalists often point to the inherent “watch-like” precision of uncultivated ecosystems and to the universe itself as ultimate examples of this phenomenon.[citation needed]

Spontaneous orders are to be distinguished from organizations. Spontaneous orders are distinguished by being scale-free networks, while organizations are hierarchical networks. Further, organizations can be and often are a part of spontaneous social orders, but the reverse is not true. Further, while organizations are created and controlled by humans, spontaneous orders are created, controlled, and controllable by no one.[citation needed] In economics and the social sciences, spontaneous order is defined as “the result of human actions, not of human design.”[citation needed]

There are two types of orders.

  1. Planning order
  2. spontaneous order

Satoshi’s 21 million BTC quantity and timely rewards halving are planning order, it is the result of human’s design. However, the miners minting activity and BTC holders’ hoarding are spontaneous order, Satoshi don’t need to pay them manually.

Nu’s liquidity providing is a planning order, nushare holders pay for LP, there is no spontaneous order at all, if Nu’s ecosystem attract customers/speculators to provide liquidity automatically, that’s spontaneous.

E.g. Nu provide spread at 5% for official liquidity provision(result of human’s design), and free market automatically generate some LP with 4.5-1% spread competition(result of human’s action).

1 Like
  1. What’s concretely that attack? I still dont get it
  2. What would be the incentive for Jordanlee to initiate this inside job?
1 Like

The NSR price is low, because people understood that Nu was run like a ponzi scheme that just couldn’t keep the NBT peg any longer.
NSR price will increase once there’s a credible and reliable business plan.

This is wrong.
On 29th May FLOT started to sell NSR:

And another sale was held as auction by @jooize.
The next one is being prepared.

This could have run better, but your purported alter ego @JordanLee put some obstacles in the way.
Well played!

In 2015 the financial situation of Nu was completely opaque and the cult was at full speed.
It’s different now. The financial presence of Nu is transparent. Only the history is still as opaque as it has ever been.
@JordanLee, @Phoenix do you want to shed light on that?

NSR were sold according to the standard and core motion.
When will you stop lying and deluding people?

1 Like

A touch of humour does not hurt –

Now, the same can apply to MoD.
“If it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, then what is it”?
That’s right it’s mod. @ConfusedObserver = @masterOfDisaster

1 Like

The time line will tell you (it told me - I wonder why you can’t see it) that FLOT stopped performing like it did for months after this post was being heavily discussed:

I have no idea what it did to FLOT members, but being confronted with accusations like that, some might have started to reflect upon their role.
Messages from @masterOfDisaster and @dysconnect indicate that.

Greed, money, the hunger for power.

This inside was possible for anybody, but only few people had in-depth knowledge about the financial situation of Nu and only few people steered Nu in the direction, which made this attack possible and makes me think it was an inside job.
Of course the NSR holders that didn’t ask enough questions (they still don’t - where’s the complete accounting of Nu and B&C?) and voted for motions played their part, but they didn’t know better, while others did know very well.

We don’t know how many NSR JordanLee held before the NSR buybacks (which have been his idea), but we know that the NSR buybacks provided a means to get BTC for NSR.
BTC were exchanged to NBT.
100,000 NBT were be dumped on the buy side.
The NBT rate collapsed and so did the NSR rate (which was on its way down for some time).
At the current NSR rate one can buy NSR cheaply.

You can have more NSR than before the attack, still have plenty of BTC left and whether Nu survives this or not, you have made a financial gain and possibly more shares to vote with.

Getting another 3 million NSR for “liquidity operation services” is another nice move that fits into the scheme.

Ponzi scheme? please elaborate

Which BTC?

So the attack was the sell-off of 100kNBT along with the simultaneous sell-off of how many NSR?
How many new NSR did jordanlee get?

I think the tier model needs a bit of rethink. E.g. tier 3 doesn’t make much sense on a decentralised exchange. It can still be kept if Nu still wants to manage funds on centralised exchanges to reduce the exchange default risk.
Tier 4 should be only about liquidity reserves to defend the peg (e.g. Nusafe). A separate tier (5?) should be primarily used for reserves tagged for operational expenses and development.
Need to think more about were NSR shares should sit. They probably should be in tier 4 and be used when the reserves go under a certain threshold, not that different from now. More thinking need to go into the buybacks as they are very prone to misuse. Maybe we shouldn’t be too prescriptive with that, but grab opportunities when share price is relatively low and reserves are high. We shouldn’t use it as an important store of value though.

1 Like

I never have been a fan of buybacks. We should have followed the white paper, which is the distribution of dividends.
I will be against future buybacks.

So you re implying that JL or whatever got bitcoins from NSR buybacks and then re-injected those BTCs into NuLagoon or whatever to cause artificially a huge demand for NBT back in Nov 2015, which further triggered new NBT sales and NSR buybacks?

1 Like

How does your proposal play with B&C?

It will use B&C as the main exchange to maintain the peg. It is in my proposal. Are you after anything more specific?


“The JordanLee Attack” refers to a particular thread targetting LPs, specifically MoD, for not performing up to some unknown standard. The peg basically broke when we ran out of money, the occurance of which loomed up slowly and over time. MoDs actions were a response to the depletion of funds, JL’s attack a response to MoD’s actions. That verbal attack caused 2 FLOT members to resign, slowing down the efforts to bring nsr to market (effectively preventing FLOT from acting strongly and unilaterally to dilute to protect the peg). So of course one could say the problem was we ran out of money, but that’s just life. Whether or not MoD acted appropriately, JL’s verbal attacks caused a split of consensus by leveraging the trust FLOT had in JL (remember FLOT is not on a blockchain, all trust there is verbal) at a time when FLOT needed to act swiftly and unilaterally. This is what broke the camel’s back, in my opinion.

Am i the only one around here not sybil attacking the forum?

1 Like

I agree on that.

The confidence that I have in JL leadership has certainly decreased a great deal after the collapse.
But that is ok as long we spread the trust over plenty of nodes.
That is why we need new fresh blood.

I certainly have only one account but cannot prove it sadly.

This was my reason number two why to quit Nu. (first being investment in B&C)

However buybacks gave a lot of shareholders an opportunity to quit Nu, and I think that was the plan all along. To allow exit for those who were behind scenes of Nu all this time. I would not be surprised that entire “leadership” of Nu has quit in those buyback - leaving the community to pay the bill after the party has ended.


With regard to spontaneous order, Satoshi has successfully induced people to mint for profitablity and hoarding BTC for future, this spontaneous order comes from his design.

However, the way Nu doing business is opposite to Satoshi’s, when in 2014 the first two LP refused to continue to work, we decided to pay high reward to LP, that’s opposite direction to Satoshi’s style; and in 2016 when NBT parking fails, some nushare holders want to force customers to hoard NBT for long time otherwise punish them by decreasing balance.

We cannot do business in this way, if Nu wanna succeed, we must learn how to induce people by profitable liquidity providing and induce them to hoard NBT. Never use brute force to do business!

So a spread peg and anti-inflation feature are the must. Perhaps some people believe I am just a brainless Hayek enthusiast, but in his theory, there are a lot of skills to induce/seduce people and do actual profitable business. He was a master aware of human nature.

1 Like

The motion to peg at $0.10 is being withdrawn because the situation has now changed and I favor simply purchasing NBT with NSR sale proceeds. I eagerly support the other two that require 100% reserve and a cap on the NBT supply.


I still says [voting], should we change it to withdrawn? I’m not entirely clear on it as the OP mentions many motions.
My understand is that it relates to this: “Establish NBT Peg at $0.10 USD”.
Hope someone can confirm so the title can be updated accordingly.

Sorry for the confusion. Three related motions were presented in this thread. Pegging to $0.10 has been withdrawn. The other two, 100% reserve and capping the NBT supply are still very important and both are enjoying about 34% support right now.

Not supporting the 100% reserve as I don’t think that is feasible any time soon in combination with $1 peg.

I will add the capping of NBT supply motion to my datafeed as this effectively the case anyway and it is required to have any chance of restoring the peg unrelated to which proposal to establish the peg passes.