I could ask for the factual errors, but I’m not really interested in your point of view regarding purported factual errors. We obviously have different points of view.
I don’t want to waste your and my valuable time, so I only ask these questions.
Why don’t you address at least this point?
Is that a factual error as well?
Without a business plan, what’s the point of selling your product?
(I have slept terribly. Parts of this may be stupid and incorrect, but I rather handle that and correct it later to get my thoughts out for discussion now.)
Why is that? You mean the majority owner would put up more of their shares to vote?
If additional bonuses keep being passed without reason, yes. That should bring confidence in Nu down and how would one benefit from that? Who’s buying the shares? Either @Phoenix is supporting the NuShare or somebody else is. If he’s printing shares and selling them to himself, what’s wrong with that? Of course, the price is easier to dictate, but the alternative is that Nu dies.
NuShares are granted to @Phoenix by shareholders (whoever they are). Those are then sold at an exchange, and the Bitcoins are used to buy back NuBits. Looking at the NuShares granted compared to the NuBits taken off market should reveal whether NuShares sale proceeds have been stolen, no? Without trading logs we don’t get the exact exchange rates, but is there playroom enough to steal a significant amount there? Help me understand this. I could be wrong, but after repeated requests nobody has proven it to me.
To get Bitcoins out of this, wouldn’t you need to own NuBits and simply keep consuming our buy walls? Have any NuBits owned by Nu been stolen? Where in the process can printed NuShares be sold and the proceeds stolen?
I might be using the number incorrectly and haven’t confirmed it.
Bitcoin was between $232 and $487 in that timeframe, and $531 to $774 since June 2016. Let’s say @Phoenix was the only one selling into the buybacks, that nets …
564.3 * 232 = 130,917.6
564.3 * 487 = 274,814.1
564.3 * 531 = 299,643.3
564.3 * 774 = 436,768.2
A lot of US NuBits have been bought back. How many?
646,595 US-NBT (Edit: corrected number). How many were bought back below $1.00? I’m sure you believe some other investors have supported Nu in this time, of course. How much do you think?
Yes, that is what I’m referring to. With 2b+ share you need 1b+ to have a controllable share. Phoenix is imo dishonest here advertising that 600m would be a controlling stake.
I’m asking why I should buy shares right now. I suppose Phoenix is holding up the facade by printing and buying shares himself or giving them away in an effort to make NSR liquid. But this works contraproductive for other shareholders as they only see continuous dilution, no chance to even keep value let alone have a chance to increase value over time. You will need a sustainable income source for that as many including myself have already advocated for.
I’m not that concerned about coins being stolen in the last few months. Technically you could I believe given the amount of NSR liquidity created and the fluctuations in price. But wiith the downwards spiral I believe it would be tough to make significant amounts of money out of it. I might be wrong.
.[quote=“jooize, post:7, topic:4756”]
Have any NuBits owned by Nu been stolen?
[/quote]
No evidence of that, but it is interesting that all NBT suddenly needs to be transferred to Phoenix. It strikes me as odd, Phoenix trying to reduce risk that someone might sell the large amounts of NBT locked up? I can only guess…
Initially I bought some NSR to counter the dilution as a result of the peg loss. I’ve always supported restoring the peg one way or the other, a few others seeing a bargain might have been with me. But since the silly giveaways and the out of the ordinary “meant to be funny?” behaviours I’m sure any buying appetite for NSR quickly dried up by everyone and it is now left floundering. This will not change until there is a sustainable business model which restores the confidence that a peg can be held over time. That doesn’t include buybacks from reserves required to keep a peg.
I think I’m repeating myself but it won’t hurt to go back to core of the problem as I believe it can only be resolved there. definitely not by doing the same we have been doing in the past.
Well I never printed NSR, kept NSR or sold NSR on behalf of the shareholders.
The only thing I did was providing some infrastructure for decentralised liquidity. You are not doing any of that.
When it became clear that this was too expensive I briefly helped out with some gateways trading NBT and BTC. This has been 100% transparent and most, if not all logs have been published contrary to your role.
So replaced my role in the community is just one of the many factual errors you are making.
I expect more from a hero than just taking over the helm, kick everyone out and than say they are the best. A hero makes the community/shareholders happy, but may be there is a cultural difference here.
Quite simple by printing NSR and diluting existing shareholders and then selling or giving them away.
You will need to obtain confidence before you sell anything. I supported the creation of new currencies. But who in their right mind would buy 100s of thousands of a stable currency from a loner with no sustainable business model. I know the crypto market is in its infancy and people can be easily deceived but I hope you are not counting on that. I’m all for making money, but it has to be something people want to buy and can have confidence in. Not some pump and dump buyback scheme. I fail to see something different, and you are still incapable of explaining in two sentences how you are going to sell NSR, NBT or new currencies and what your marketing message is.
Is it strange or unprofessional I’m questioning you having invested US$10k+ which is now not even worth a quarter of that? I appreciate your response and your outlook about the dilution, but I’m still missing some crucial answers regarding the selling and profitability of any product.
This.
To be honest it s difficult to deny the fact that phoenix s strategy was successful in protecting the peg so far.
At the same time it is difficult to ignore the fact that his strategy made the share price of nsr to plummet.
As a consequence his strategy made most shareholders angry and has considerably damaged the core of the community and the heart of the DAC.
The future is uncertain.
There is a chance that new comers will find nubits attractive and use it for real.
In that case new shareholders will come.
If not, this would be the end of Nu and the strategy of phoenix would have been a failure over the longterm.
That damage was not done by the plummeted NSR rate, but by JordanLeePhoenix’ behaviour.
Because the Chief has no plan besides “selling products”, which won’t create revenue.
That won’t attract shareholders. Revenue and ROI will. Alas, it’s not in sight.
It already is a failure, because it’s no strategy to save Nu. It’s a tactical move to not let Nu die now.
The poll has been closed. Now for the fun part. Over time, we get to discover who was right. When the poll was released, we had $68,700 that needed to enter the network (not including additional reserve requirements and any future spending) before funds would begin to go NuShare buybacks.
I have zero interest in buying NSR because the more I buy, the more debt of mine. Who will buy shares of a money losing company?
Nu’s equity is negative, even if someone gives me 1 billion NSR for free, I will reject it.
The latest reserve equilibrium calculation shows that at $57,800 short, we continue our movement toward equilibrium, which is the dividing line between NSR sales and NSR buybacks. At this rate of decline, the correct poll response would prove to be one to four months. However, there is no reason to think the trend will persist. It can move either direction very quickly.
The movement toward equilibrium occurred mostly as a result of lower reserve requirements due to lower amounts of circulating currency. In Nu’s current circumstances, for every NuBit pulled out of circulation it reduces our tier 1 to tier 4 reserve requirements by 0.48. Therefore, reducing the currency supply is one way of reaching equilibrium. It is the painful method, involving NSR sales and dilution of shareholders. The preferred method is to increase the currency in circulation. These inflows move Nu toward reserve equilibrium in a painless manner.
The latest reserve equilibrium calculation shows that we are now $55,137 short of equilibrium. The trend in the reserve level and its relation to the reserve equilibrium certainly doesn’t favor the majority view point in this poll that NSR buybacks will never happen again. They will begin when and if the reserve level becomes elevated relative to the equilibrium level. In other words, when the charted figure becomes positive. Consistent progress toward that is being made.
So how much did you sell nsr for this week? If it was equal to the trend in reserve level (hint, it was) then that is perfectly in line with the statement that buybacks will never occur. If the only income source is selling nsr, then unless you’re selling nsr to buy nsr (a clearly lossy process) then as the reserve deficit trends to 0 it must slow down to a grinding halt. Basically, this ‘growth’ is not real growth, it is simply a continuing liquidation of Nu. There is no way that just the act of liquidation can lead to buy backs. Product demand and profit are a necessity, something you are entirely leaving out of your analysis.
NSR sales can, by themselves, completely restore equilibrium. It is true, as you have noted, that NSR sales cannot produce NSR buybacks in the most direct sense. Once equilibrium is restored though, the very next dollar of currency sales can and will be used for NSR buybacks, which are, as always, subject to additional reserve requirements and spending, such as on development.
With the currency supply down to below 20% of its maximum before the Augeas default and park rates rising currently, it shouldn’t be hard to stimulate a little demand. As we begin to build market share once again, our deep liquidity at a tight spread combined with high yield from park rates makes NuBits preferable to competing alternatives.
However, marketing is beyond the scope of my responsibilities as Chief of Liquidity Operations. As you may be aware, there was a marketing effort lead by @tomjoad prior to the Augeas default. Shareholders ought to be attentive to the need for marketing.
@tomjoad made his thoughts and status known in a post earlier this year.
My takeaway is that he will not be contributing to the project any further.
Just so we’re clear, assume were perfectly balanced. Then someone buys 1 nbt. You then buy nsr with the btc. Then tomorrow they sell 1 nbt. You then sell nsr. Of course, it is far more likely that you buy and sell the nsr at a negative spread. So who pays for that spread? Of course, the nsr price does. Id like to point out that this is a textbook balance sheet attack. By not having a liquidity buffer, such that 1 nbt purchase and sale will not result in buyback followed by dilution, you are making Nu extemely succeptible to these sorts of attacks.
The latest reserve equilibrium calculation shows that we are $47,591 short of equilibrium. Notice that each and every week we have moved closer to equilibrium. The model doesn’t guarantee that consistent movement, but it certainly is a strong and enduring tendency of our model, regardless of whether total NuBits in circulation rise or fall. When the total currency supply rises, the movement toward equilibrium is painless, whereas when the total currency supply falls, we get closer to equilibrium with painful NSR sales. Either way, the model properly ensures a strong but gentle tendency toward equilibrium.
The data certainly don’t favor the consensus view of the poll that NSR buybacks will never occur again.
All it would take to begin NSR buybacks and halt NSR sales would be a mere $48,000 in currency sales at the present time (this figure is dynamic and will quickly become outdated).
Let’s focus on what we can do to increase the circulating currency supply for the win!
Jordan doesn’t care about who pays the spread. He dosen’t care about the high compensasion to LP with 10%+ per month, also doesn’t care about the NSR-NBT dual direction transfer efficiency (90% common money lost).
In his dictionary, there is no accounting at all. Who pays the XXX? The naive liquidity engine model believers, the crypto speculators, the gamblers.
Below is a graph of the figure we use to determine the size of our daily NuShare sale or NuShare buyback, the Deviation from T1-T4 Reserve Equilibrium:
In less than two months, the deviation from equilibrium has declined 36%, resulting in daily NSR sales that are 36% smaller. On December 17th, just before the Poloniex delisting announcement, the deviation from equilibrium was $-53,313. Despite the undeniably negative affect of being delisted from Poloniex and Bter, the deviation from equilibrium moved 17% closer to equilibrium in the month after the announcement.
The consensus position in this poll was that NSR buybacks would never occur again. The most recent data (in addition to earlier data) suggest the consensus view will prove to be incorrect. It is possible that the deviation will change direction and increase due to some negative factor emerging, but it would take a problem much bigger than the Poloniex and Bter delisting, because the affect of those was to cause the deviation figure to pause in its trend toward equilibrium for a few weeks.
So you want to express is NSR or will happen to buy back?
The Deviation from Reserve Equilibrium figure can be negative or positive. When it is positive, NSR buybacks will occur. When it is negative (as now), NSR sales will occur. The magnitude of the deviation determines the size of daily NSR buybacks or NSR sales. If the deviation is far in negative territory, a proportionately high quantity of NSR will be sold. The NSR sales have the affect of moving the deviation closer to 0, closer to balance. As this happens, the quantity of NSR sales is reduced until the deviation is 0, the point at which neither NSR sales or NSR buybacks occur.
Under current rules, two months ago on 11/24 we would have needed to sell nearly $700 worth of NSR each day, or 1% of the deviation. Today, because the deviation is only $44,157, we only need to sell $441.57 worth of NSR each day. If we sell NSR, US-NBT or CN-NBT at rates that exceed our expenses, then the deviation from equilibrium will decrease (if negative like now).
Ultimately, it is our hope to sell a great deal of currency, causing the deviation from equilibrium to be highly positive, resulting in large daily NSR buybacks. Although I am not satisfied with our progress, the graph clearly shows we are making regular movement toward NSR buybacks.
Good progress toward NSR buybacks continues to be made. Here is a chart of the Deviation From Reserve Equilibrium:
This figure has halved in the last two and a half months. That means the amount of money the rules require us to raise each day from NSR sales has been cut in half in that time. As the figure approaches zero, the number of NSR sales each day will get smaller and smaller. Under current conditions we are increasing the NSR supply by about 2% each month, a modest sum compared to over 50% per month for a couple of months in late 2016. This is a dramatic reduction in rate of dilution. If the NuBit supply continues to grow as it has in the last couple of weeks, we can expect NSR sales to become NSR buybacks, causing NSR to become more scarce so long as the NuBit money supply is increased in excess of expenses.
Here is a chart of the NuBit Money Supply (US-NBT and CN-NBT):
Over the last couple of weeks. the money supply has risen 7% from its bottom.
