Possibility and implications of a majority shareholder

The entire supply of NuShares is 3,316,527,044 NSR. 570,284,725 NSR is owned by Nu, leaving 2,746,242,319 NSR circulating.

Nu has printed 2,476,570,500 NSR since mid-June 2016. Before that the entire supply was 839,956,544 NSR.

In late November the supply was about 750,000,000 NSR smaller as that amount was printed later. That means a supply roughly estimated at 2,566,527,044 NSR, 1,996,242,319 NSR estimated circulating.

564.3 BTC was spent on NSR buybacks. Bitcoin was $232–$487 during buybacks. If one party consumed the whole buyback sum by selling their private NuShares, they might have acquired $130,918–$274,814. If they kept those funds in Bitcoins they would have $299,643–$436,768 as Bitcoin was $531–$774 in June–November 2016.

US NuBits in circulation was around 820,000 US-NBT when recovery of the peg began.

The mid-August 2016 motion to trade around 120,000 US-NBT owned by B&C Exchange for NuShares passed early September.

In late November, 646,595 US-NBT had been removed from circulation. 526,595 US-NBT without counting the ones from B&C Exchange. 173,405 US-NBT remained. It fell to 131,399 US-NBT in January.

Since late September the US NuBit peg has been kept with few issues, though in March 2017 there was trading on a pair we didn’t supply liquidity on which combined with low volume some days resulted in the CoinMarketCap graph displaying the peg broken.

Those 526,595 US-NBT weren’t all bought back at $1.00. We have exchange logs, but I don’t know how parse them efficiently.

The most someone can receive from selling shares into the buybacks is $436,768, and practically impossible for any single entity to do. There is likely additional buy support of course.

NuShares were printed by shareholders to @Phoenix which I sold to anonymous buyers in auctions for US-NBT or BTC, and on exchange for BTC. Ten auctions were performed, last one ended August 27.

NuShare was in May 1, $0.002467; June 1, $0.001493; July 1, $0.000925; August 1, $0.0004; September 1, $0.0003; October 1, $0.000392; November 1, $0.000284; December 1, $0.000209.

@Phoenix successfully passed a bonus granting him 110,000,000 NSR. He hasn’t minted with those shares before March 10.

Is it possible for someone to own majority of the supply without risking more money than they can have gained from the buybacks?

Last year early July at least 45% of minting shares voted to fire @Phoenix with the No Nu Liquidity Without a Revenue Model motion. At the same time there was worry because his motions had such strong support.

There were indeed many more share days destroyed (SDD) in April, May, and July than any other time in history.

@JordanLee had historically failed to pass motions in the network, though of course he did pass many or most.

I believe there are large shareholders who never or rarely participate in forum discussion. They might often not even care to mint unless there’s an important matter. @Phoenix may legitimately be in contact with these other shareholders.

It may be the case that one entity controls the majority of voting shares or even the entire supply. I’m not convinced someone owns majority of the supply, though I guess it’s possible. Currently minting shares might be majority-controlled by one or few. I don’t have a problem with that, but it does of course have implications.

Being controlled by a majority party is not a risk, but simply a reality of certain businesses. With a Peershare-implementation, risks of centralised ownership is them ruining the organisation by controlling it badly, selling all their shares breaking the market cap, and them losing control of substantial shares to a malicious party (theft).

I imagine the board at Facebook doesn’t not vote because Mark Zuckerberg owns majority voting power.


LOL :smiley:

Or hardforking the code to blackball certain addresses they don’t like… oh wait…

There are any number of concerns if this is a centralized PoS system. The word you’re looking for is that the PoS security has been “compromised”.

Mark Zuckerberg is publicly known. Do I have to explain what that means? Are you really that fucking stupid to base your argument on a public person like Mark Zuckerberg? Do you know what happens when Zuckerberg even only sells 1 % of his shares? My god you are so fucking dumb dude, but I still love to read your stuff and at the same time imagine what your stupid face must look like. And when I click on your ugly foto I fell deep satisfaction because my imagination was so close to reality.

All these “large shareholders” are Phoenix. And all the Phoenixes are Jordan Lee.

1 Like

Maybe we can just shoot the message instead of the person and please keep it a bit decent. Thanks.

We don’t have 100% proof but a number of events (shown in the blockchain) showed that it is highly likely that Phoenix/JordanLee is one or a small group of Nu shareholders owning the majority of NuShares and which know each other well and would act as one when it is necessary to ensure their business interests are served. Not that different from old fashioned companies with shares. I believe the mistake was to actually withhold or suppress information that this group had an absolute majority and apparently doesn’t have much interest to loose the majority stake except possibly on selling it all at once. Not a DAO, but more an online business in the cryptoworld.

Let’s take the most likely reality that there is a majority stakeholder or group with this organisation. If you don’t like that you would go to the competitor. You would stop harassing other in this forum without bringing references to facts or new insights to the discussion. A lot happened and money was lost, that is life and one needs to move on at some point.

The real question is what is the value of being/becoming a shareholder for Nu right now. Main driver for me is that I still believe in a value proposition for a pegged coin, but with the understanding that you need a professional group with the right incentives to run a coin like that.

Tether has shown that it is possible and that there is demand. Can Nu come up with a better business model that attract as many or more patrons? Your bet is as good as mine. Although Phoenix doesn’t always have his facts right and is evasive to anwser some elementary questions at times, he apparently does understand how to run a startup in difficult times. You might not like him, but can he provide value for the shareholders? Another key question is can he also do this on an ongoing and structural bases? Can he strike the balance between being open and transparent enough to gain the trust of other shareholders? It looks like new funding is still required and profits will need to be realised otherwise he would be in a closed forum and left us long ago. Change will be required imo. Marketing will need to be done and trust based on facts will need to be build. Time will tell if that will happen. I think it can with the right mix of people getting involved but please make your own assessment.