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.
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.