Statement on Status of NuBits and Liquidity 2018–03

[Sabreiib]

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.

[Sabreiib]

Although it is a stressful situation, NuBits can be successful with continued hard work. Last year we successfully backed the entire circulating supply of NuBits using only NuShare sales.

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.

[gesite]

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.

[Sabreiib]

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

[gesite]

Even more so, with a higher reserve @Phoenix and @jooize couldn’t play the system as much.

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

[Sabreiib]

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.

[gesite]

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.

[Sabreiib]

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.

[gesite]

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.

[Sabreiib]

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.

[jooize]

Having had full control over almost all network reserve assets for backing (BTC, ETH, …), sales (USNBT, CNNBT, …), and since almost a year ago also share assets (NSR). I know where the money goes. Payroll and expenses have since January 1, 2017 been logged:

• 18.55 BTC (rough calculation ~$100K)
• 113,075 USNBT
• A few transactions for liquidity operations have been made to addresses not publicly listed. Any human error of my failing to list expenses can be revealed by basic blockchain analysis searching for transactions made to addresses not listed as exchange addresses for Liquidity Operations. I encourage you do that so they can be corrected. I want them shown on our website in graphs, but publishing payments in a pretty way hasn’t been a priority.

100% reserve ratio guarantees that with 9,000,000 USNBT entering circulation at a Bitcoin price of $18,000 in December, falling to $9,000 early February, those $4,500,000 would simply be lost by the network at mercy of Bitcoin demand. Our liquidity model attempts to address that by creating a demand for NuShares. How else could you do it? @Sabreiib’s idea is something I’m eager to get into, but it’s not what shareholders have asked for.

Something I regret is not pushing harder for the partnership with a major blockchain consulting firm in January–February when Nu had funding. In general we should be less afraid of spending money on things the network needs. There will always be some degree of wasted money before you know how to do something. Worse than that is no results.

@Phoenix and I were the two people who recovered Nu after the peg abandonment mid-2016. We’re the ones working for the continuation of NuBits, to make sure people get their money. We got the peg back within four months in 2016. It’s possible that it will take longer with a higher market cap, but I’m not giving up. People have sadly placed more money in NuBits than they could afford to lose.

Is transparency today not on par with regular companies? We list contractor payments and expenses, but not the exact details. Chief of Liquidity Operations’ compensation rate is public (which is the highest paid). Expenses consist mostly of hosting and online services. I don’t see how more transparency would make such a difference.

I’m not interested in further discussion with those who wish to steal our time and energy from working on what matters. If you have actual ideas, make a thread where you outline them. Curiously, that almost never happens.

[gesite]

$213k within three months for contractors. Not bad for a company crashing that hard. How many programmers are at work for you full time / part time?

If contractors bill you now for $5,000, do they get 5,000 USNBT or do they get 15,000 USNBT to make up for the current loss in value? How do @jooize and @Phoenix get paid during a crisis?

[Nagalim]

Is transparency today not on par with regular companies?

Section 1A of the 10-K annual report to shareholders is about ‘Risk Factors’. Would you please show me where the risk factors of holding nubits are explicitly laid out with annually updated numbers, including but not limited to peg collapse?

[smooth]

$213k within three months for contractors

How do you figure this? He said January 1, 2017 so that is 15 months.

@jooize Have you or would you or any of the other people being well paid to work on NuBits (while driving it into the ground, whether excusable or not) consider at least reducing your pay to help it recover? Among other things what is needed is a lot more capital staying within the system. Reducing the burn rate at least during this critical time would go a long way both toward reestablishing the capital base and signaling that you are interested in the success of the system more than just personal enrichment.

[georgeboosh]

@jooize Smooth - how about you bitch about salaries after they get the peg restored. WTF does a cut in their salary do for anyone right now? It changes nothing… I would think helpful reassurance would be best route to take with the guys that play a role in getting your money back. For the record I could care less about the salary as long as they are doing everything they can to restore which I think they are… and if you understood the operating functions of NBT then you would know the admin has much less control over the operations than you seem to think… I don’t fully understand all the ins and outs myself but anyway… thought i would chime in and be a voice of reason here.

[smooth]

WTF does a cut in their salary do for anyone right now?

It avoids draining even more money from the capital reserves, whch is especially critical when recapitalization is happening at the glacial pace of 0.5% per day.

I would think helpful reassurance would be best route to take with the guys that play a role in getting your money back.

You can think what you like but I personally think we are well beyond ‘helpful reassurance’ and into ‘turnaround’ and ‘workout’, which in most successful cases involves a change in management. And even then it is a long shot. Failing that though, I’d like to see personal enrichment at least put on the back burner.

And FWIW I haven’t lost much. I saw trouble ahead and sold most of my NBT in February. But I’d like to see this system succeed because I would like to use a decentralized stable coin without needing to treat it like a trading vehicle to be abandoned in times of stress.

and if you understood the operating functions of NBT then you would know the admin has much less control over the operations than you seem to think

I’m pretty sure I do understand the functions and the admin does have a lot of control over how much of the system’s capital is drained out into the admin’s (and other contractors’) pockets.

I don’t fully understand all the ins and outs myself

Maybe try that?

[georgeboosh]

Hey thanks for your whiny response - check the chart. Maybe you can find something better to do with your time instead of hang out on message boards that you don’t own any of the discussed coin.

[ChrisTDM]

Thanks you guys for the “peg back” , i have no idea what happened but i’m glad i left at 0,83.
i wish you good luck in the futur.

[huafei]

any btc we have ?

[smooth]

that you don’t own any of the discussed coin

You have a serious problem with reading comprension huh? I said I sold most of my NBT (and some of my NSR). I still own some NBT and even some NSR. I would not even be terribly surprised I owned more than you, but I really have no idea.

How about engaging with the substance of the matter: A severe undercapitalization coupled with continued ‘contractor’ payments which are very, very significant relative to the capital base and even more significant relevant to liquid reserves.

I’m certainly happy that the price is a bit higher today but that hardly addresses the underlying structural and management weaknesses that led to this in the first place. If you want to approach things in a short sighted manner and fail to look beyond the latest price quote, I can’t help you.