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

NuShares
#1

It has been 1 month since the previous poll that was conducted, so I was interested in seeing how the sentiment has changed around here in regards to Nu’s future. Things have been pretty quiet over the last several days, so the results should be interesting.

  • I don’t believe in the project anymore and have sold or will sell all my NuShares.
  • I don’t believe in the project anymore, but will keep some or all of my NuShares in case a miracle recovery happens.
  • My confidence in the project has been harmed, but there’s still a chance for recovery, so I will only sell some of my NuShares.
  • My confidence in the project has been harmed, but there’s still a chance for recovery, so I will keep all of my NuShares.
  • I still believe in the project. I believe we will find a solution to get going and pivot, therefore I am not selling any NuShares at this stage.

0 voters

Show results
#2

I personally chose the 2nd option, which is a large jump from my previous sentiment. The events over the past month have left me disillusioned. I don’t believe the project in its current state will succeed. Even if a recovery happens, revenue needs to be made or else the system will once again collapse. I will continue to hold all of my NuShares and mint with them in case there is some kind of miracle, but my confidence has pretty much been completely lost. This thread has a lot to do with my current feelings…

I feel as if I’ve been deceived by Jordan Lee and he’s been running a long con on all of us. This network is not what it appeared to be. It was made to look as if shareholders had complete control in making decisions when in reality Jordan Lee controlled such a large portion of NuShares. The whole thing is like a big sham and I feel nothing but disappointment. Who knows if BlockShares have been compromised as well. Nobody will trust B&C now.

@Yurizhai, @masterOfDisaster, @Ben, @CoinGame, @mhps, @Cybnate, @cryptog, @crypto_coiner, @jooize, @Nagalim, @willy, @Sabreiib, @woodstockmerkle, @sigmike, @tomjoad, @Dhume, @Chronos, @desrever, @woolly_sammoth and others who I may have forgot.

I encourage you all to come back to Peercoin. At least we know Sunny King isn’t the kind of person that will milk his invention and take advantage of us. There are great things happening right now. The bitcoin halving caused PoW difficulty to skyrocket to a new all time high and inflation has been significantly reduced because of it. CoinDesk is taking an interest in us and is writing an article. Lots of projects are under construction, PeerAssets, PeerKeeper, PeerApps/Message and possibly some secret project Peerchemist is still in talks about with Sunny. There are talks of rewriting an expanded version of the whitepaper as well, which includes detailed descriptions of economics, protocol and PoS algorithm.

The point is Peercoin is a trusted environment which is still hopeful, especially since lots of things have been happening since the release of v0.5. I won’t completely leave this forum in hopes the situation can turn around, but I’m probably going to spend a lot more time now back at Peercoin where I started. I encourage you all to join me, especially those who feel disillusioned, lack trust in Jordan/Phoenix and were slandered by him and driven out of the community. There is still a welcoming place for us: https://www.peercointalk.org/

4 Likes
#3

With all due respect to SK, he shows a lack of willingness to communicate on pointy issues, to which Jordan Lee is similar. I am not saying his intention is necessarily not good, but it certainly adds uncertainty.

Nu is certainly much larger than Jordan Lee / @phoenix. In terms of man-hours JL might have contributed 10% ? Look at infrastructure

[and more listed in the resource page]

Making a client and setting a protocol is the easy part of a fiat-pegged cryptocurrency. All the infrastructure and operation execution slog is the hard part. All these can be run without JL/@Phoenix. You could use the same Nu protocol with a new genesis block, and have another pegged currency, as long as you have the operations team. (You may also want a new brand. “Nubits” is too odd a name for mass adoption anyway ). It goes to show the point I try to make: the whole Nu thing is much larger than what JL may have done under the cover.

3 Likes
#4

I agree.

PS: to mhps assessment above.

#5

I have BKS and still, the Hayek dream, so I’ll try to make BKC the first hayek coin in this world.

BTC/PPC are good for hoarding and speculation, but they are shit money, completely impossible to become accounting unit. Economics will become chaos if insane people listen to BTC/PPC’s price signal to guide their business, totally disaster for social resource allocation!

If Hayek money fail, I’ll quit the whole cryptoworld. I’ll never go backward!

3 Likes
#6

That is your opinion, but shareholders have made it clear they understand the peg was compromised by clowns who refused to use reserves, parking and NSR sales to protect our currency. To use these methods was our plan, codified in numerous passed motions. The results of not using them were very predictable and should never have been in doubt. Of course the peg would fail in an environment of even slightly reduced demand without the use of reserves, parking and NSR sales. Of course. That was what happened. We didn’t learn anything about the liquidity engine in this case, except the obvious fact that it needs to be used.

The liquidity engine has always worked when used and the peg fails when neither the liquidity engine or reserves are used. Testing the peg with no supporting liquidity and no reserves was perhaps the stupidest experiment I can recall seeing conducted. Why was this, the most stupid experiment of all, conducted on our production environment? It was a rebellion against shareholders, and that rebellion is ending, as all rebellions against shareholders can only have a life measured in weeks at the most.

To see shareholders wrest control of liquidity operations from the failed decentralized model is very encouraging to me. The results of doing so have been spectacular so far. In the week before my election, NuBits rose from about $0.20 to around $0.40, as the market priced in my probable election. It has now been about a week that I have been Chief of Liquidity Operations, and NuBits are hovering around $0.90. I oversaw this incredible and rapid transformation with zero accessible reserves, no park rates and a highly compromised ability to sell NuShares due to the 80% drop in the NuShare price due to the stupidest experiment of all.

So, now we are conducting an experiment on the limits of the liquidity engine when damaged and broken by the stupidest experiment of all. The results have been very impressive. With tiers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 still inoperable and tier 6 (NSR sales) at only 20% capacity, we have raised the pricing level of NuBits 350% in two weeks. Most of those two weeks we weren’t even using NSR sales much (because I wasn’t Chief of Liquidity Operations and couldn’t access sufficient shareholder NSR). This shows the liquidity engine is indeed extremely powerful, resilient and effective.

You can keep parroting the ridiculous notion that Nu ran out money to support the peg, but the events of the last week make it particularly clear this was not the case. Even starting with zero accessible reserves as we have, we had enough power to raise the pricing level of our currency 350% in two weeks, even after confidence in our product has been badly damaged by the stupidest experiment of all.

While the stupidest experiment of all certainly shook my confidence in NuBits, shareholders have instituted major changes in liquidity operations that will prevent it from happening again. We are the first DAO, so it shouldn’t be that big of a surprise that we uncovered some undocumented features of the governance model of our DAO.

@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.

Tether has enjoyed more success than us to date. We need to be honest and frank about why. Their model was much more centralized and efficient. We are leaving control of transaction processing, creation of NSR and NBT and motions completely in the hands of decentralized shareholders, but it is time to accept that decentralized liquidity operations didn’t work. It is OK to administer that using a hierarchical structure accountable to shareholders.

NuBits have done well when we have provided good liquidity. Adoption has declined significantly with each of three drops in liquidity in February 2015, March 2016, and June 2016. With me as Chief of Liquidity Operations, I will not permit liquidity to drop as my highest priority. That will lead to success.

One more thing: we have to focus on serving the needs of our NuBit customers. They don’t care that much about whether liquidity operations are hierarchical or peer-to-peer. What they care about is that they can buy and sell NuBits for $1 reliably and easily. I will not lose sight of that.

At current NSR pricing levels, I am very optimistic about our future.

#7

I think this captures my sentiment in so many words. 0% reserve, high expenses as it related to liquidity operations, and a tight spread subject to abuse were all things that I was not comfortable with, and we received negative feedback from outside the community, including being termed a ponzi.

It was plausible that these were not necessarily showstoppers. But to suddenly see hundreds of millions of NSR to spring to life for minting, and motions pass that were not popular by the majority by count in the community has left me in shock.

Phoenix claims it’s the will of the shareholders, but my interpretation is subtly different: it was the will of those holding the most shares. History repeats; when the next disagreement happens, the community will go in directions that nobody can predict, and that makes NSR a very poor investment.

All that being said, I believe there are many good ideas, some good technology, and some great thinkers and doers here.

I have contemplated if a fork could be done.

For a fork to succeed:

  • We’d need public advocates, developers, troubleshooters,
  • We’d need support by exchanges, and people to run liquidity ops.
  • We’d need a business model and an accountant
  • We’d need to measure growth thru standard business metrics.
  • We’d need a fair distribution of ownership.
  • We’d need a new name.
  • We’d need to define a few roles with checks and balances, and perhaps those roles are only filled for 1 year – i.e.: head of development, head of community relations, head of funds, a FLOT

All of the above are solvable, and it is interesting as to how many of those challenges are related to building a great organization first. People aren’t the problem – they are the solution.

3 Likes
[Voting] No Nu Liquidity Without a Revenue Model
#8

Mmhh… it would have been the job of the shareholders to raise the park rates, right?
So the shareholders are clowns? Why didn’t you dig out the loads of NSR to interfere back then? Because it’s easier to get control after the mess is even bigger?
But with the shareholder clowns not raising the park rates, the 25 BTC reserves would have saved the peg, true. Does anyone - even you - really believe that nonsense?
And a lot more NSR should have been sold, although the “Standard and Core” motion regulated the amount.
Phoenix, you are talking nonsense - once more!
You are moving focus from the main problem: missing revenue.

The liquidity engine has worked as long as there was fuel.
No fuel -> engine off.
If you intend to run the liquidity engine with the prospect of future NBT or NSR sales, you make it a ponzi engine.
I’m sorry that a perpetual motion machine is not working - neither in a world based on Newtonian mechanics nor in a financial world.

Read it again: you need revenue!

Your market manipulation worked well and you can buy more NSR with the NBT you still have; neat trick - but who will fall for it?

The only stupid experiment I can find is operating liquidity provision without revenue and wondering why the cash ran out.

And you can keep parroting the ridiculous notion that you can operate business without revenue.
Or will you finally admit that you are pulling off a ponzi scheme?

There have been proposals months ago to transform the liquidity operations:

Finally this vision comes true, but with JordanLeePhoenix running the business; it’s late, maybe too late.
But from the data I gather, it’s been to late in January already.

You won’t be able to afford it, if you don’t finally start to implement revenue schemes.
You claim there are so many of them.
Implement them!
Then again, it’s not that important anymore.

Looking at the situation you’ve manoeuvred Nu into, I’m pessimistic about your future.
You are aware, that the formerly active forum/liquidity provision has been turned by you into a two-man-show consisting of JordanLeePhoenix and @jooize?
It’s so much easier, if you have to lull only one person.

@jooize take care!
Without revenue and looking at the experiences from the beginning of Nu since end of May, one can safely assume Nu is (at least now) run as a ponzi scheme.

In my opinion the valuable idea of Nu has only one chance:
to find a fresh start with fair share distribution, a reliable revenue scheme that works from the beginning (opposed to the tx fees that didn’t work and would only work with mass adoption) and an operations team as good as the one Nu had before
JordanLeePhoenix destroyed it with his intrigues.

The assertion of JordanLeePhoenix having attacked the network (buybacks, peg dreailed, etc.) stands undefeated.
There’s no evidence for it as well, but there’s circumstantial evidence and from an economical point of view it makes sense.
So it’s ok to assume that it’s at least possible.
The voting behaviour and analysis by @mhps (Voting address census: who are voting for what) doesn’t look good for Nu as DAO.

There’s no credible future for Nu, I’m sorry - not even with revenue.

1 Like
#9

would be better off making a new attempt than spending efforts for this lost cause.

Even if it can be sorted out economically (which I highly doubt), Nu has lost its credibility as DAO with sound share distribution.

I might stop my continuous pleas for revenue, because I no longer think this is the major problem of Nu.

If my analysis of the recent months and considering what’s going on at the moment are correct, I expect Nu to recover (at least it will look like this) before it ultimately fails.
This recovery is necessary to provide the attacker with profits that outweigh the costs.
Nu has entered a walking-ghost-phase.

1 Like
#10

Seems obvious that regardless of who was right or wrong, the trust and energy of this community has been destroyed. It was small community that barely anyone paid attention to before, so this is a devastating blow. There’s also absolutely no way that Jordan Lee wasn’t involved with at least a few shady things going on behind the scenes or across multiple identities. Nu doesn’t deserve to survive, let a better more transparent stable currency succeed. I’m still here because of the pathetic hope that B&C could still see the light of day, but let’s be real here…

1 Like
#11

How big is the Tether community that has outperformed us in the market?

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. They aren’t getting what they want and they are quite willing to sacrifice both NuBit holders and NuShare holders to get what they want: a nerdy, peer-to-peer community where they are needed.

Shareholders want a large community of contributors. But not contributors that don’t care about NuBit customers. Shareholders have prioritized having a team that can effectively serve NuBit users over a large community of actors that don’t care about the interests of NuBit and NuShare holders.

#12

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 would like both (to have a large community that carefully protects the interests of NuBit and NuShare holders), but it may be that circumstances don’t permit that.

As Chief of Liquidity Operations, I have a mandate from shareholders to protect NuBit holders. That is my priority.

So, to all forum participants I say:

If you are talented, willing to honor NuLaw and protect the interests of NuBit and NuShare holders, I want you here and welcome you. If you will not honor NuLaw or don’t care about NuBit and NuShare holders, please do leave the forum and community.

#13

Well, Nu will become the first CAO in the cryptoworld.

You believe “decentralized liquidity operations didn’t work” because your decentralized model didn’t work, it doesn’t mean other decentralized models will not work either.

I’ll try a new type of decentralized liquidity model on BKC.

1 Like
#14

So now it is very clear that your want to centralize the liquidity operations.
That is ok.
But how secure it is ?
Centralization means poor security.
How can you expect a NSR market cap to be 1b USD while being at the same time very unsecure.
Something along the lines of bitcoin mining?
Bitcoin mining is centralized and yet the market cap of bitcoin is 10b USD.
So that is possible that NSR can get a 1 billion USD market cap while being totally centralized.
But it is not only liquidity operations that get centralized it is the whole consensus mechanism of Nu.
What happens if you die? Nu dies?

So in that case you are a rebel against Jordan Lee s vision that advocated decentralized liquidity operations.
Please get some intellectual integrity here.

#15

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. At a much larger scale, it is possible to have decentralized liquidity and expert guidance of actions. That isn’t our situation at the moment. However, people ought to be mindful that the degree of decentralization that can be endured in liquidity operations is highly dependent on how much money can be spent on it. At our scale, we can’t spend that much.

#16

No, it was due to lack of funds caused by the sellout of BTC reserves that brought the reserves to a low limit which in hindsight was too low.
And you know who masterminded and initiated that: it was you or your former alias JordanLee.

3 Likes
#17

Well, if he dies and server that’s minting his shares from linked post keeps working, no motions or grants of other shareholders will pass, it’s as simple as that. Nothing would solve that problem unless we shutdown the server or hardfork.

Regardless, I am sad to agree that trust of the community has been lost and nothing short of burning all compromised shares will improve the situation (

1 Like
#18

If that is true, then can you explain how I have raised the NuBit price from $0.20 to $0.90 with zero use of existing reserves? I had zero BTC reserves available to me, but I did much more than maintain the price: I ignited a steep bull market in NuBits, resulting in a 350% increase in price.

Reserves are not the important issue. I realize that is very difficult for many to understand. Those who do not understand it should not be involved in liquidity operations.

#19

You pumped the price to get the speculators interested and now you use the NSR sales to maintain the price as good as you can. Your problem is that there are still over $600k in liabilities and i really doubt that you will be able to sell that amount to the public. Also the future demand for NBT will not exist. People buy now because there is a chance to sell the NBT for $1. If the peg is restored nobody will buy NBT because there is only risk and no opportunity.

#20

Oh stop it Jordan, most people by now do understand your faulty model very well and they also know what will happen to the NBT price once you stop throwing BTC at it that were earned from NSR sales with limited buy capacity. You now want to trick the same people again into buying your tokens, although you already took so much from them. It is disgusting.

All these talents are present in this community. 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.

Or you simply leave JL with his NSR chain and just form a group of interested internet users that picks up an open source project to make their own stable coin.

2 Likes