[Passed] Temporarily cap NBT supply with full reserve


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.


The motion to peg at $0.10 is being withdrawn because the situation has now changed and I favor simply purchasing NBT with NSR sale proceeds.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I still says [voting], should we change it to withdrawn?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 Pegging to $0.10 has been withdrawn.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.


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:

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


Whoa! Someone is with me?!

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


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.


Please drive by more often.

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

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.


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


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.


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.


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.




Take a look at


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).


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.