[Passed] Temporarily cap NBT supply with full reserve

[Phoenix]

I am going to replace the current motion requiring 100% reserve for NuBits quoted in the OP with a modified version modified version that is currently a draft:

The script underlying the output that is the focus of this thread:
Supply, Reserves, and Equilibrium
shall be changed to reserve 100% of outstanding NuBits instead of the current figure of 15%.

A minimum of 0.5% of the total NuShare supply must be sold each week while so long as either one of these two conditions exist:

1. There is not a buy wall equal to or greater than $0.99
2. The 100% reserve requirement is not met.

This minimum applies to the aggregate NSR sales by all custodians.

Stating the weekly NuShare sales requirement as a minimum permits the negotiation of a sale of a large block of NSR to a single buyer, which would be tremendously helpful in meeting our primary objective: restoration and maintenance of the $1.00 peg.

Please comment on the proposed modifications as this is a draft at this time.

[GreatScott]

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

Whoa! Someone is with me?!

I may have to do more than a casual drive-by of this burning building called Nu.

[backpacker]

Do you must change the current motion if it’s in voting already? I believe it’s confusing people me included.

Also, I still think that including $0.99 requirement for buy wall removes the main source of revenue and means of increasing the reserves instead of continuous dilution of shareholder stake.

[cryptog]

casual drive-by

Please drive by more often.

the current motion if it’s in voting already?

The hash will be changed. So the voting will have to start from scratch.

$0.99 requirement for buy wall

The proposal mentions a buy wall at 0.99. Well I think it is ambiguous.
We can have a buy wall at 0.99 and a much bigger wall at 0.96 using the parametric order book so this proposal allows for a lot of spread, I feel although i do not think it is the intent.

[backpacker]

But let’s imagine old motion passes, does it mean it doesn’t have to be followed if majority voted for it if author decided that he wants to change it?

Sounds dodgey

[cryptog]

I know what you mean.
At the end of the day, passed motions are just the current sentiment of shareholders.
Whether or not such sentiment must lead to action depends on some factors, such as whether or not it makes sense and the timing etc.

For example, this passed before this, recently.

Which one should be used right now?
Probably neither of them because that does not correspond to the situation any more.

I agree though that phoenix previous proposal should be withdrawn if the new one is put to vote, obviously.

[GreatScott]

I’ve had some time lately and have been lurking, watching all of you. Pretty overwhelmed by terms like FLOT and forum comments/emotions/claims. Where to even begin? Does Nu have a ‘balance sheet’ new/prospective shareholders can look at? I can see the coin supply, but what assets (debt) do we have, who is paying for what out of pocket and so on.

I think transparency must be at the forefront of any reorganization plan.

[crypto_coiner]

I think transparency must be at the forefront of any reorganization plan.

Good point – this crisis is also a crisis of transparency as for accounting.
Nu has introduced the blockchain-driven voting transparency.
It needs to innovate itself and invent the blockchain-driven accounting transparency.

[cryptog]

blockchain-driven accounting transparency.

This.

[mhps]

Does Nu have a ‘balance sheet’ new/prospective shareholders can look at?

Take a look at

Supply, Reserves, and Equilibrium

Nushares buyback calculation as of Fri Jun 24 23:38:21 UTC 2016 blocks":933544 Total NBT = 1321484.2713 Uncirculating Nubits FSRT multisig Balance of BhCnQrYrA5LZm871dtMQEXeU93gmqbhdrC is 0 NBT FSRT singlesig Balance of BFTnCyMX1nsTNp6X7Bcm1qVocvShdbwtMi is 151500 NBT JordanLee singlesig Balance of B5Zi5XJ1sgS6mWGu7bWJqGVnuXwiMXi7qj is 150000 NBT JordanLee singlesig from liquidity ops Balance of BT9AWq9r1i6kghZc6LtrvNb2wRFh7JLCdP is 64526.134 NBT FLOT 3-of-5 multisig Balance of BqyRzFtWXDmj…

[GreatScott]

Thanks buddy. Is there a motion which demands all NBT held on behalf of shareholders gets burned?

[mhps]

Thanks buddy. Is there a motion which demands all NBT held on behalf of shareholders gets burned?

There isn’t. It’s trivial to do. But it doesn’t reduce Nu’s actual liability, which is the outstang Nubits in the calculation (~660k NBT). outstang Nubits doesn’t include NBT held on behalf of shareholders, because these prisoned nbt are not in circulation. Accidental leak is unlikely because they are held in multi-sig addresses controlled by FLOT NBT (except for Jordan Lee’s $65k).

[GreatScott]

I’d want to be certain no NBT held by shareholders is ever sold for under $1 USD. That’d be brand suicide. This idea that we can just move the peg down 90% is completely unacceptable, please forgive me if that is rude.

The peg is lost. That doesn’t mean we can move the goal posts and have another share buy back.

[crypto_coiner]

Motion Hash: f8b9e060dc73a97fd28a62ecfdd419114892787a

A temporary moratorium on the issuance of NuBits will be observed by shareholders and custodians. This means shareholders should not pass any custodial grants for NuBits. Only custodial grants of NuShares will be acceptable. Existing NuBits in tier 4 held by FLOT, FSRT and Jordan Lee must be held at their current address or burned. Compensation can still be given in NuBits to contractors, but only if NuShares are sold for NuBits purchased on the open market.
This moratorium on the issuance of NuBits will lift when the NuBit price is $1.00 again.

That seems reasonable and therefore I will add this to my data feed.

[crypto_coiner]

Existing NuBits in tier 4 held by FLOT, FSRT and Jordan Lee must be held at their current address or burned.

But, again, now is the time to have a blockchain-driven transparency so that everybody can audit these accounts in real time –
tier 4/ FLOT/ FSRT/ Jordan Lee
etc…

[backpacker]

How can you not monitor a known address? I thought that was the point of block chain already?

[Phoenix]

Also, I still think that including $0.99 requirement for buy wall removes the main source of revenue and means of increasing the reserves instead of continuous dilution of shareholder stake.

I changed the motion text to require a buy wall at $0.98 or greater as one of the conditions that can halt NuShare sales, instead of $0.99 in the original draft. Currently, NuLaw requires all shareholder funded liquidity to be $0.99 or higher, so in practice it will be $0.99, unless that regulation is overturned, which it might be.

The motion is finalized and hashed. Passage of the 100% reserve requirement will show shareholders are committed to protecting NuBit holders and helping restore our credibility. Let’s pass it quickly with overwhelming support to send a message to the market showing our united resolve to defend NuBits.

Motion Hash: 1118f2334d0ef45676b38ebe2daaf30a8a345a7f

Voting has begun! Here is the motion.

[cryptog]

, NuLaw requires all shareholder funded liquidity to be $0.99 or higher, so in practice it will be $0.99,

Wrong.

This passed before your motion here.

[crypto_coiner]

How can you not monitor a known address? I th

Right – I meant automatic audit

[cryptog]

f8b9e060dc73a97fd28a62ecfdd419114892787a makes sense.
Voted.