This overall marketing plan sounds attractive –
@Cybnate Do you still maintain the same liquidity tiers as before, Tier1-Tier3?
I understand that Tier5-Tier6 are modified in their workings
This overall marketing plan sounds attractive –
I think there are 3 reasons, to me, as a NSR FLOT member, as already explained here.
- the decrease of the buy side happened too fast: we could not react in time. Instead of taking time to unlock funds from T5 and T6, we decided somehow to increase the spread
- I honestly forgot about the 25% (buy side /total liquidity ratio) threshold and parking rates higher than 0 for 30 days condition
- I was subconsciously reluctant to dilute
But I think the main reason is that bitcoin rise happened too fast, decreasing suddenly the buy side significantly within a few hours.
T6 could not be unlocked in time to replenish the buy side. Instead increasing the spread was allowed.
So I have a big concern about your proposal. Even if there is commander that takes care solely of the liquidity operations, making the process faster, that would not erase the fact that unlocking funds from T6 would still take a few days.
If the buy side is depleted in a few hours, how are you going to cope with that?
In other words, one of the main issues is the rapidity of the T6 unlocking process, which is not solved in your proposal.
So we need here some computing assistance?
To be more elaborate – the liquidity tiers model and the way they work,
particularly Tier5 and Tier6
That was an initial description (2014, when NuBits was released) from @Yurizhai but it still holds and helps look at our issue.
The basic idea is that:
The price of NuBits is pressed downward by shareholder elected ‘custodians’ selling NuBits for $1.
The price of NuBits is pressed upward by anyone who owns NuBits being able to take their NuBits out of circulation (called parking) for a limited time in exchange for a monetary incentive, the incentive amount chosen by shareholders which will reflect how needed parking is at the current time.
I believe one day we will have issues with reacting in real time with the market and selling NBT
but what broke the peg this time is our inability with taking our NBT out of circulation in real time with the market.
And electing @Phoenix as Chief liquidity officer because of purported expertise wont solve essentially the problem because @Phoenix is still a human being, that cant be online 24/7, and is certainly error-prone.
@Phoenix Unless you have invented a tool (an AI or a software? in which case it would make sense to share it with others for the benefit of Nu) that makes you much more reactive, much more enduring and error-free, there is no reasonable reason to think the same issue wont pop up again.
Fairly simple. Immediately after JL attacked FLOT 2 of the 8 FLOT members resigned (25% of a system that operates off >60% consensus), including the most active FLOT member. This was a direct consequence of the attacks made by THE LEAD DEVELOPER, not just some schmuck. This caused signings to stagnate and the system to fail. This seems super obvious to me, I’m unsure how anyone could fail to see it.
But it seems the attack started after the liquidity crisis burst not before, so after FLOT appeared to have failed at its tasks.
I agree that the attack did not help in any case.
PS: I am trying to protect JL in any way.
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.
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. Naturalists often point to the inherent “watch-like” precision of uncultivated ecosystems and to the universe itself as ultimate examples of this phenomenon.
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. In economics and the social sciences, spontaneous order is defined as “the result of human actions, not of human design.”
There are two types of orders.
- Planning order
- 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).
- What’s concretely that attack? I still dont get it
- What would be the incentive for Jordanlee to initiate this inside job?
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.
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?
A touch of humour does not hurt –
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
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.
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?
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?