POLL for NuShareholders: What is Your Current Sentiment on Nu's Future? (Updated Version - July 2016)

[Sentinelrv]

@Sentinelrv your suggestion to return to the Peercoin community says a lot about what motivates you. You want to be a part of a positive community. That is how most of our unemployed decentralized liquidity providers feel, I believe. The truth is they enjoyed being a part of the community but lost sight of their purpose: to support our currency. Their interests are different than that of shareholders.

Care to elaborate how this long con works? Or is this just another baseless and poorly articulated conspiracy theory advanced because you are displeased with the cessation of decentralized liquidity operations? You value the community here more than the success of the project. I don’t. I want to make that very clear. I care about the project, NuBit and NuShare holders more than keeping this community large and happy.

I think you assume too much about my motivations. I am here to build a business and get rich while at the same time helping millions of people around the world. I’m not here to feel needed and I’m not here to make friends. While that would be a nice benefit, it is not required. I understand this is a business first and foremost and things aren’t always going to be pleasant when money is involved. My views and the views of other shareholders will eventually misalign and cause heated debates. That is inevitable.

I also don’t care about the cessation of decentralized liquidity operations. A centralized liquidity operations team that answers to shareholders makes sense to me and I agree with your logic there. It will need to become more decentralized though as we grow larger.

The reason I suggested people return to Peercoin has more to do with the findings of @mhps rather than any positivity you’ll get from that community. I can withstand being defeated through motion about the future of Nu as long as it’s fair and truly the will of the majority of shareholders. If however the initial NuShare distribution really was compromised by Jordan Lee, then Nu’s voting system is worthless and nothing but theater. All confidence in the system is lost, because voting doesn’t matter anymore. Not only does it open up the risk of 51% attack, but if one person can pass any motion or grant by themselves, what is the point of any other shareholder participating?

And please don’t tell me this is a conspiracy theory. You’re really going to tell me that practically every active shareholder on the forum voiced their opposition to your plans, yet somehow some unknown shareholders from outside the forum all started minting and voting and overrided everyone on the forum? That sounds ridiculous. Where have all these shareholders been since Nu started and why have they remained hidden? The invisible shareholders who support you makes more sense now because of the findings from mhps.

[irritant]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created-phrase-conspiracy-theorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge

[mhps]

It is understandable that where most active forum participants were decentralized liquidity providers, most active forum participants would vehemently oppose the cessation of decentralized liquidity provision at this time, which is necessary due to our small scale. It destroys their role.

This is the third time you brought this view up so maybe you are serious. Anyone who got a grasp of how Nu liquidity worked knew that the compensation to nbt/btc LPs was not sufficient. Exchange risk alone is 4% per month assuming a total loss every two years. The the LPs have to bear opportunity cost and, worse, BTC volatility cost. BTC appreciates 40% and LPs lose ~40% in their principal value. Putting money in nbt/btc liquidity provision for a 7% per mon compensation is a money losing deal in the long run. This hasn’t included the time spent tending the ALP client which crashes once a few days.

Even ignoring exchange risk, most forum posters care about where Nu is going beccause they are shareholders. LP profit is chicken feed compared with their share value. Those LPs who are not shareholders just packup their money and go to somewhere else and won’t spend time arguing.

You don’t know all this because i think you never fight in the front line as a pool namager or an LP. Now it is pay back time.

What is important is that liquidity operations be subject to expert guidance, because the failure that occurred was due to ignorance and incompetence of decentralized liquidity providers.

Where was your guidance before May? There was strong resistance against selling NSR. What did you do? Be thankful not everyone is as smart as you are, or you will be a no-body.

[Sabreiib]

then Nu’s voting system is worthless and nothing but theater

Before the crisis, how many Nushareholders queried the liquidity engine model of Jordan? How many knew how to do business? How many had basic accounting knowledge? Seldom! A voting system is worthless if majority of shareholders are dumb.

“smart majority in a community” better than “a few smart leaders + stupid majority” better than > “stupid majority in a community”

I still believe majority of Nushareholders are not smart enough to be successful businessmen.

[Cybnate]

I still believe majority of Nushareholders are not smart enough to be successful businessmen.

And maybe you have a point here. Shareholders are shareholders and not necessarily a board of directors or practical in operations. The Shareholder voting might need to be separated from the business operations voting, however our current voting system doesn’t allow that. So we get a very diverse mix of proposals only few can follow.

I think Shareholders should only vote for or dismiss Board of Directors, performance related items/salaries for that group, dividends, share buybacks and larger investments/developments/business cases.

Operational issues (e.g. gateways, daily operations, website, forum, marketing) and ongoing expenses should be voted for only by board of directors.

[backpacker]

More I think about the situation, more determined I become that our current peg failure, share price plummeting and share redistribution happened because of this motion not passing:

[Passed] 1% Maximum Spread in Shareholder Funded Liquidity Operations

Motion hash: b71a585de0b5e552648036fbc8282e11fea4a1cc This finalized proposal is being managed on Daology here. I will quote it here for convenience: Normally I provide some context and explain the reasons why motions I advance will help the shareholders. In this case, that context was provided in my recent thread about the importance of liquidity and tight spreads. However, I will briefly say that this should dispel the notion that liquidity providers will widen spreads when the peg appe…

it would be great to see what kind of voting was happening for this and competing motions, I remember that JL’s motion had votes with a lot more share days destroyed than competition, yet it couldn’t pass. MoD’s motion passed first, then 4 days later, on 25th of June, JL’s.

@mhps would you be able to provide data on this?

[cryptog]

current peg failure, share price plummeting and share redistribution happened because of this motion not passing:

How so?

[GreatScott]

Share redistribution is probably the biggest problem - you cannot just remove the coins that voted for his motion because he can move them. In fact, the only safe solution I see would be to only acknowledge the shares that voted against it during this period, so it basically be a whitelist and not a blacklist that would be implemented.

That is good thinking. I never put much thought or desire into a Nu fork until you posted this.

[backpacker]

it seems that being unable to talk people on the forum into voting for tighter spreads and having no sufficient resources to force this motion by “shareholders” made the peg failure necessary to prove the point and get cheap shares for “shareholders”.

[cryptog]

I see. Not sure if it was premeditated or not though.

[backpacker]

that’s why I wanted @mhps to have a look at the voting patterns.

[ConfusedObserver]

That is good thinking. I never put much thought or desire into a Nu fork until you posted this.

Let’s spend some thoughts on this.

The problem with a white list is that it punishes assertedly evil actors (and accomplices) as well as inactive shareholders.
At least if you make a white list based on votes since phoenix was born that were not voting for phoenix’ motions or grants.

It would be a hard cut, but would likely segregate active and opposing shareholders from the rest of the madness that’s going on here.
The number of shares and the difficulty of the hard fork would be below the (maximum) difficulty of the other fork.
It could be hard to communicate this and be accepted as the “real Nu”.

If you issued a warning and announced a window, in which votes were to be inspected, you’d allow evil actors to adjust and blend in.
It’s only possible to make this segregation with votes that already happened and ideally with the most controversial/“malevolent” motions and grants.
The choice of window and motions/grants will be of great importance.

It won’t be easy to get this hard fork done (not only technically), but it’s one of the few options that seem to have a future with shareholders that care for a reliable business with revenue (visible by voting participation and choice of votes).
…a future that will leave a lot of shareholders behind…

[GreatScott]

The number of shares and the difficulty of the hard fork would be below the (maximum) difficulty of the other fork.

The way I interpreted the idea, a new blockchain (client, name, website, etc) could be birthed in a similar fashion to the way B&C blockchain came into existence. Coins would be ‘air dropped’ to the active shareholders who were trying to fight off the power grab, but ignoring ‘the Phoenix list’ and apathetic shareholders/exchanges. Fork of the code, not the blockchain.

(I assume at least Polo doesn’t mint, which is why I excluded them)

I think it would be very easy to make the case as to why we took this action, even if it is a minority of share ownership.

[ConfusedObserver]

Coins would be ‘air dropped’ to the active shareholders who were trying to fight off the power grab, but ignoring ‘the Phoenix list’ and apathetic shareholders/exchanges. Fork of the code, not the blockchain.

That would not make the distribution very wide, I fear.
And wide and fair distribution is the major issue with PoS networks.

While it would solve some problems (for those who do the fork and have shares in it), it introduced new problems that need to be taken care of.

Maybe you reduce the shareholders by selecting the active and ‘ignoring phoenix list ones’ effectively to a kind of board of directors.
One of the jobs besides working on a reliable accounting and sound revenue scheme would be share distribution to make the PoS more secure.

This share distribution would have to be transparent and fair.
But how to make a fair and publicly verifiable distribution - if shareholders want to stay anonymous - and fight sybil attacks at the same time?
I have no answer for this and there should be an answer, before you spend efforts on such a hard fork.
Without an answer to it, you could end up in the same situation too early.

[Sentinelrv]

it seems that being unable to talk people on the forum into voting for tighter spreads and having no sufficient resources to force this motion by “shareholders” made the peg failure necessary to prove the point and get cheap shares for “shareholders”.

So you believe that the distribution was never compromised from the very beginning? Instead, shareholders would not listen and implement the 1% spread motion, so instead it was decided to collapse the system in order to plummet the NuShares market cap so that enough cheap NuShares could be bought in order to go around shareholders and implement the correct motions?

[sigmike]

Another way to separate the shares could be to create shares on the new blockchain when NuShares are burned to a specific address on the Nu blockchain.

[ConfusedObserver]

Another way to separate the shares could be to create shares on the new blockchain when NuShares are burned to a specific address on the Nu blockchain.

Could you make only a set of addresses eligible for that burning?
What’s the benefit of ‘air dropping’ shares of the forked blockchain ‘B&C Exchange style’?

[mhps]

that’s why I wanted @mhps to have a look at the voting patterns.

saw something telling. will post soon.

[GreatScott]

What’s the benefit of ‘air dropping’ shares of the forked blockchain ‘B&C Exchange style’?

I would say that the actual community here with a similar vision would already have a stake in the new DAC and would still be able to “hope for a miracle” with JordanShares.

I think requiring to burn the NSR would hamper the far and wide distribution issue you mentioned. We also do not know for certain that JordanLee used the entirety of his shares to pass his motions.

Perhaps this idea deserves it’s own thread. Then again, look at the OP.

[sigmike]

Could you make only a set of addresses eligible for that burning?

Yes but the idea behind the burn is also to make that blacklist not necessary. You can probably expect that shareholders who like the current Nu will not burn their shares.