Statement on Status of NuBits and Liquidity 2018–03

The reality is it could take 6 months plus, if at all… I’ll keep a close eye on nushares and think about reinvesting if they get listed on exchanges to recoup loses, probably not tho.

mrbean mentioned something interesting about how much nu employees are being paid. This is something that I have been wondering about too and would like to know what source is he using to see these transactions? Block explorer?

I dont know he could be trolling but he also could have a point. I think they liquidated nushares, maybe to line their own pockets or expand the business to asian and europe markets. What i dont get is if they are expanding its probably so they they fleece the rest of the world too. Fucking shit coin.

They really gonna stuggle with this project no gives a shit about nushares there are so many icos on the market. what i dont get is why they keep selling nushares they not gonna get nushits back to 1.00. And if they do no one gonna buy them. Theyre done.

Contractor payments and network expenses get listed in

Pessimism is natural when money is lost, and many of you lost significant sums. I am truly sorry that is the case. I would never lure anyone into something I believe is fraudulent. I am really operating publicly with my real identity, but I don’t advertise my location to people who wish me harm. I didn’t design Nu, but came to be in this position via a situation where this community entirely demonized a person who was attempting to have custodians execute the liquidity model as planned and began worrying about a seeming lack of commitment to liquidity. As shown in Timeline of events related to the peg break 2016, a member of the previous liquidity team (FLOT) who carried out the only NuShare sale they performed placed the proceeds at 90% devaluation of USNBT. That’s supporting the peg at $0.10 when it had been advertised at $1.00. Same member then openly stole a remaining 13 BTC trusted with them for liquidity provision. Further reading of our history may be interesting, but please take extreme care to look at the facts and evaluate who said what and why. If you come out of it with the opinion that I’m wrong, I want to hear that with real arguments and references behind it similarly to how I have carefully tried to represent my stance on issues.

When people come only to criticise and attack the character of those who do work instead of putting forward their own efforts especially after previously being involved themselves, I don’t understand what their motivation or value structure is. Such people have continually speculated the worst in basically every step of the way. It’s remarkable that they originate from our own community and I would probably consider that’s a huge red flag if I didn’t know almost all parts of NuBits’ history since 2016. As such I’m just disheartened by the destructive attitude.

If you know better, then go create that! Or even better, present yourself convincingly to shareholders and take over operations. I’m just trying to fulfill the vision of NuBits as a decentralized stable digital currency to the best of my ability. Certainly there are people who can do it better than I, and I’d be happy to profit from others’ efforts, but who will do the work? A project called Augeas emerged as a fork of B&C Exchange (sibling project) with shareholders of Nu that didn’t vote for the direction we were going, which from the way I see it was to honor all issued NuBits instead of giving up and starting over. I wasn’t bothered by that and kept going until eventually NuBits’ peg was restored (with NuShare sales).

Every day I try to see past the negative and sometimes aggressive messages in order to continue building what many people yet do believe can function and provide utility for huge demographics. I will keep going as long as there is confidence in our progress, meaning investors buying NuShares. Those who recognize the fundamentals, i.e. believe that we can make this work in the sustainable manner expected, should help bootstrap a healthy NuShare market now.

I want to identify and resolve any weaknesses in our liquidity model, but perhaps unfortunately I do not much trust those who seemingly just come around for facetious remarks in challenging times.


Any chances of working with bittrex to list nushare on their exchange in order to bring back nubits peg? What I worry the most is bittrex delisting nubits on their exchanges. I really think the team could bring back the $1 peg if bittrex doesn’t delist nubits. Is it possible to know any ongoing communication with bittrex? Hope everything will go back to normal soon.

1 Like

I’m still waiting to recover nubits to $1. I had to miss lots of chances that I could earn bitcoins.
Watch your competitor, TUSD!!! It is over 14,000 satoshi, otherwise Nubits is just 5580 satoshi.

Please show some hope to your investors. Nowaday almost investors lost hope because of this situation. we can’t expect to be more…

I translated Nu whitepaper into Chinese in 2014, keeping giving out suggestions to Nu. Also saw pegging crisis in 2016, still no harvest after investing more than 100 BTC to B&C project in 2015.

Hey men, please respect others’ hard working. I don’t believe @jooize or @phoenix are scammers, although I have some different opinions with them from day one.

This is the best of times, the worst of times.

What you believe is irrelevant. This isn’t a church. You can “believe” that they don’t use info for insider trading. Are there measures in place to eliminate that possibility? No.

Digging through this forum it shows that @Phoenix repeatedly said that those who complain here could simply buy a stake in the network. What is the best time to do so? Just wait until @Phoenix and @jooize fail to serve the network successfully, which is now. But what do they do? They “protect voting integrity” by limiting the possibility for others (competitors) to take over control. The economic incentives that @Phoenix always praises now work against him and he simply establishes protective restrictions as Chief of Liquidity Operations. Keep believing @Sabreiib, maybe Nu can build a small church for you.

1 Like

If you believe they are scammers, then it’s too late for you.

Decentralization is the right direction, I have given out my mechanism although not many are interested in it, so I don’t care how is it going here.

Recovering from last year’s car accident doesn’t mean a person will always survive in a more severe car accident today. From 2014 till now, for 3-4 years, Nu/B&C investors have been empty handed by watching the “LIQUIDITY ENGINE” running and stalling and running…

If in the next 3-4 years, liquidity engine still cannot become successful, would you apologize for the investors & customers? After all, quite some had questioned the liquidity engine mechanism, and reminded you about the reserve ratio.

The reserve ration was kept low to have enough funding for @jooize’ and @phoenix’ billed hours. Even more so, with a higher reserve @Phoenix and @jooize couldn’t play the system as much.

Are you saying many BTC are paid for their salary? I think most reserve is consumed by NSR buyback at very high price.

@Sabreiib My second sentence is equal to your second sentence, just different wording.

I worry that even if liquidity engine is theoretically feasible, the participants in Nu’s ecosystem are not the soldiers under commander @phoenix/@jooize. Not many will play the NSR price speculation then liquidity engine runs out of fuel.

They now firmly believe in liquidity engine, but the reality may be another story. Let’s wait and see.

For you, a lot of things are about believing. I tell you what I believe in: @jooize and @Phoenix squeeze the hell out of this system. @Nagalim pointed out a few times that reserves seem to be running low. @Phoenix stated in a long post that the Nubits product is the most important variable in the system - it must not lose its peg no matter what. If insane Nushare sales are necessary, so be it. They failed for a reason, and that reason isn’t lack of knowledge. It is a mix of greed and intention. That is what I believe. They want the system to thrive, but they want their personal wealth to thrive at the same pace. There is only one way to do that: squeeze the system as much as you can. Pay tens of thousands of dollars as salary per month, front-run buyback and Nushare sale operations, make private sales without clear deadlines so nobody could bid a single satoshi more. This kind of system does only work under perfectly transparent conditions because then it is a level playing field, real market forces could enfold. The liquidity engine - if a valid system - can only work at scale, and only under full transparency. They don’t want that.

They want the system to thrive, but they want their personal wealth to thrive at the same pace.
Every share holder wishes this, that’s natural. I have questioned Nu’s model from as early as 2014 Sep, dislike the low reserve ratio and NSR buyback/sell, but not many shareholders agree with my opinion here.

1 Like

This is not about a certain set of shareholders, this is about exposing the liquidity engine on a level playing field to every single person in the world. That’s where the liquidity engine might start working. When every single player on the field has the same info, then the liquidity and value gap inherent in Nushares to cover the “deficit” in Nubits because of the envisioned zero reserve system will diminish. I say this for a last time: that is NOT the intention of @jooize and @Phoenix. IT IS NOT! Jesus, now I start praying while you are believing. This is about self-enrichment. And that is very sad, because I do indeed understand the liquidity engine, but I think I know what it needs to make it work. Start out with full reserve, transparency, transparency, transparency, and as a last point, guess what - transparency. In essence, transparency is the fuel for the liquidity engine. Believe it or not (I know you like believing), that is the case. By gradually, very gradually decreasing the reserve ratio, and by having full transparency, the educational effect will automatically happen for all participants in the Nu ecosystem. Critical mass is required to achieve a stable equilibrium, and both factors - critical mass and equilibrium - will yet need to be determined. However, it is not possible because we are very far away from critical mass. And there are two reasons for that: @jooize and @Phoenix.

So you believe partial reserve is OK when situation is good(critical mass, education etc). I won’t disagree it although I believe we can maintain 100% reserve with a new mechanism.