That’s a productive way to criticise me.
There’s a lot of things to consider. I read most threads and comments and think about all of it. It’s difficult for me to keep up. I tend to begin writing replies, but want to give a proper response rather than poking at a little thing here and there which I criticise others for doing, so the comment is put on ice and they tend to eventually gather into one of these kinds of posts.
Perhaps I am too passive where I don’t agree and perhaps you’re right to some degree. Let’s try to break down my standpoint.
I look at the criticism and haven’t been able to see where the scam is. The paranoia or what I should call it is not convincing to me. It’s often aggressive, angry (understandably), and tying things without much substance together into scenarios that may seem plausible. Has anybody taken time to map their accusations out properly? I’m wary of witch-hunts. Simply because many people believe something doesn’t mean they’re correct.
Looking at the most recent alleged sock puppets, I don’t buy that those are his accounts. It’s difficult to maintain different identities and type differently with each†. Past accused and suspect accounts have also later appeared not to be his. Not to say none of them are. In any case it felt like a rash and irresponsible move adding them to the bonus grant. Especially @Tony as they had only made three low-content posts by then.
† It appears meticulously carried out in that case. @Tony usually types with a directional single quote (’) as apostrophe (at least one exception), while I didn’t find a single instance where @Phoenix has used one. @Tony put a space before his percentage sign, whereas @Phoenix doesn’t seem to ever have. It would be a genius move for convincing me since I’m interested in punctuation.
In my consideration of what I think of him I have the conversations I’ve had with him over the latest months. You may say I’m gullible, and while I’m no expert on people, I really do not get the feeling from this guy that he’d intentionally break the peg for all the hassle of (potentially) recovering the projects.
It frustrates me when he hasn’t given satisfying answers to questions. I recognise there are reasons to keep certain things secret, but I want a public statement for why it should or needs to be.
The lack of transparency, his attitude at times, and the aggressive conduct with motions certainly isn’t helping, but suspicion by that on its own is insufficient for me as basis for halting mission critical operations that investors (or someone!) are obviously still paying for. I have no qualms about using their money to pay our debt, development, or server expenses.
If you (anyone) believe shutting down liquidity is the worst action that can be taken for a project that you worked hard to build, I wouldn’t be surprised to see you be upset at those trying to do so and try to protect it from that happening. His aggressive approaches in motions may be attributed to not trusting many people with funds. His motion Re-evaluation of RSOT Implementation one could assume is grounded in the fear that the wrong group will lose control of the funds. He can trust himself of course. He’s in favor of decentralisation, but on the basis that it will not fail.
I’m getting paid in shares at a rate I haven’t felt unreasonable and which enabled me to dedicate the time. Money’s of course easy to fall in line with. The bonus? Well of course I want it. I’ve worked hard (in my measures) these months. Is it justified? I would have said let shareholders decide, but if your belief is that he controls the network that isn’t an honest position to take. I don’t know. If what we’ve been doing is the only way Nu may recover, maybe. If this was all a horrible direction, no. If we do succeed, yes. (The grant has passed now.)
I don’t have the numbers, but we’ve printed and sold a huge amount of NuShares. I can not believe most people I was in contact with for BTC during auctions was @Phoenix, or that the buy support of NuShares has been upheld by @Phoenix alone. New shareholders may also well have been voting for @Phoenix’s motions. If it was and is him, he’s pushing lots of funds into Nu. It’s speculated that he made huge profits on the NuShare buybacks. Enough to sustain Nu and risk this much of those funds for a “second round”? I don’t know. It seems unsubstantiated and not obvious.
If the peg is supported by @Phoenix with buyback funds, that’s not wrong. Assuming those with big money understand and believe in the model of ebb and flow NuShare backing of NuBits, it may be possible to store our reserves there. Either we have some believers or it’s all supported by @Phoenix. Breaking the peg intentionally is obviously wrong, but I only saw signs of him worrying about that happening and then doing his best at picking up the pieces.
(If we show that we’re serious about the model, execute it as intended, and it successfully backs the peg, the NuShare price floor may stabilise at higher levels. Especially if we get as far as to build NuBit backing with NuShares into B&C Exchange or the like.)
What essentially matters?
- NuBit peg.
- Development funds for B&C Exchange.
What does he have control over?
- NuShares granted for liquidity operations.
- B&C Exchange development funds.
He can currently only directly benefit by selling NuShares and stealing the proceeds, stealing the development funds, or by passing raises and bonuses.
Scattered accusations that may even conflict with each other help nobody. Convince me with a model for the economics of breaking the peg etc. and preferably explain comprehensively how Nu’s current model is faulty.
I’m not trying to be “smart and neutral” for the purpose of sneaking out some money under the guise of righteousness, I’m doing what I believe in and I don’t run from controversy. I’m surely wrong about many things (I would kind of hope with the amount of people who believe I am) and likely neglected addressing things, so correct me and ask. Please be respectful, and expect me to be slow to respond.
Esko
.