Timeline of events related to the peg break 2016

If NSR are required to be sold to build reserves (not to pay earlier investors), then it puts downward pressure on the NSR price in the market. If there aren’t any takers for NSR at a certain price, the price falls until buyers are found.

If there were no demand for NSR and the system lacked reserves & liquidity, then yes it would fail, but that would not make it a Ponzi, just a failed business. Unlike in a Ponzi, early holders will have lost, not gained.

The NSR supply needs to be able to increase when more reserves are required, and people who invest in the NSR to provide reserves and liquidity must be rewarded for providing this capital. NSR buybacks are a sensible way of doing this that is aligned with the shareholder and NBT holder incentives. It only happens if the network is in a good position and reserves are sufficient (or at least considered sufficient by those currently running Nu). Again, this can occur in a sustainable situation, so is not like a Ponzi.

Nu doesn’t need new participants once it is in balance - it only needs a critical mass of customers / users. Obviously a lack of new customers would be worrying to any business, so hopefully there’ll always be new participants, however an absence of new participants would be a sign of poor direction, not the bottom falling out of a Ponzi.

NBT market is tiny. USDT today has a volume of over $19m, and circulation of over $50m. This kind of scale has to be the goal for Nu, at which point the business model from transactions and trading may look very good. But for now, a model needs to be found that is trustworthy and robust to justify people using it.

I must admit that I have never seen a business plan / financial model for Nu to show exactly how it is intended to generate revenue and balance out / make a profit, and I think it would be good for this to be available.

I agree that it’s a shame there has not been any transparency on this, and while I don’t think that proves it to be a Ponzi, in order to build the degree of confidence needed to compete with USDT, people will need to see that the business model is robust.

It would be great to clarify revenue and sustainability I agree, though I don’t find it hard to imagine ways of a widely used Nu pegged asset making a profit through trading and transaction fees (I’ll try to run some numbers when I have time).

If on average, NBT are sold for $1.0025 and bought for $0.9975 and volumes are decent, why will trading be losing value?

Claiming that the network might be able to reach a point of sustainability, where constant NSR sales are not needed isn’t misleading, though nor has it yet been demonstrated.

Any crypto holders are involved in a high risk area, and in my view Nu is at the risky end of the Crypto spectrum, purely because it’s trying to achieve something that hasn’t been done before, and that involves uncertainties and challenges.

I’ve seen people’s warnings, and I am fully aware that Nu could fail & is experimental, but I see real potential in the model. I don’t see reason to dismiss it unless fatal flaws are exposed (e.g. a financial model that demonstrates Nu won’t work, followed by no action to improve / correct the model).


I agree with this sentiment, and I’d love to see some models that explore what the costs and revenues might look like with $50m NBT out there and high transaction volumes.

Do you know if any are available, or have you had a play with numbers yourself?

1 Like

I have seen a number of people say this, and my guess is that it is because they have not taken the time to take a look at our complete, public transaction logs. I am suggesting Nu’s financial details aren’t transparent to them personally because they haven’t examined these public records. The Liquidity Operations team has always publicly released every single transaction we have engaged in. That has always been our policy.

We spend a lot of time crunching the raw numbers to produce various regular financial reports, which we make available on this forum. There is a lot of additional analysis we would like to perform and make publicly available, but this is a matter of funding and development.

Nu is quite possibly the most transparent financial institution ever. I can’t think of any organization that is more transparent. It is true that the identity of NuShare holders is private, but everything they do is public. Similarly everything done on the blockchain is completely public. Everything Liquidity Operations does is completely public.

Said another way, all NuBit transactions are public, all NuShare transactions are public, all shareholder votes are public, every NuBit bought or sold at any time by Liquidity Operations is public and spending on contractors and other expenses is all public.

There isn’t anything left to reveal really. Nu is likely the most transparent financial institution ever to exist.

1 Like

I think we’re talking about different things. Nu is indeed very transparent financially as you say - it’s all on the blockchain and records of actions are posted in the forum. This is brilliant.

What I haven’t seen is financial modelling and projections for Nu’s business model at various scales, with anticipated costs, revenues, reserves etc. A bit like what you’d find in a business plan.

Are there any financial projections like this available?


I’m playing with the idea of creating charts in Numbers/Excel to see what could be, but have other priorities.

Transaction fees of 0.01 US-NBT at 10,000 transactions per day would net $3,000 a month. Bitcoin saw 160,000–350,000 per day the last 12 months for reference. Daily trading volume of all cryptocoins has been between a hundred million to one billion USD in 2017. I feel optimistic about the volume a decentralized native exchange would see.

I agree that we should create such projections. Both for us and as marketing to investors. Do you happen to know your way around doing that? Perhaps you can provide starting point ideas for what they should contain.

1 Like

I can’t speak to the sustainability of Jordan’s liquidity engine model. I understand some still stick around here because they believe the model was not able to be fully tested and allowed to fail on its own, so they hold out hope that scaling up the NuBit supply would make it possible to generate revenue. I have already detailed my thoughts on how this liquidity engine model is supposed to work and I did so with the best of intentions, to bring about a better understanding of the model for shareholders.

However I was ignored by @Phoenix the first time I posted it and when I brought it back up later I was told by him that he didn’t have the time and that he would get back to it later. I find this avoidance of the subject suspicious. It makes no sense to me that he would not want everyone here to understand exactly what he is trying to accomplish.

Detailing his model for everyone and answering important questions is one of the most important things he could do to regain the trust of shareholders and bring about a greater understanding of how the network is supposed to work in a sustainable way. It makes no sense that he would want to avoid this subject because it is the source of all the arguments about Nu’s financial sustainability. Clearing up misunderstandings about the model is a no brainer to get people on the path of moving forward once again, yet he avoids the subject like the plague. I can only think of a couple different reasons…

  • He doesn’t want to reveal Nu’s trade secrets and would rather keep this vital information to himself and away from competitors and is just trying to get us all to go along with it in a “you’ll see eventually” attitude.

  • He’s a liar and a scammer and avoids the subject because attempting to answer questions about the model would just draw attention to this fact. He places a full understanding of the model out of reach on purpose in order to draw in new investors that think he’s got all the answers.

Because of the following things, I’m inclined to believe it’s the latter…

  • He switched identities from Jordan Lee to Phoenix without explanation and has also created other temporarily used identities that he used to praise himself and his actions. He ignores all questions about it.

  • It has been proven that he owns the majority of the network, yet everyone here thinks it’s ok that he votes to reward himself with large amounts of NuShares which just makes the distribution even worse.

  • Instead of putting forward valid arguments and using logic when rebutting someone, he instead attacks the person or their character, calling people who disagree with him trolls, saying that they care more about community than building a sustainable money making business, claiming they’re emotional because shareholders rejected them for unprofessionalism (what proof?) and engaging in conspiracy theories without evidence about the identity of one of his harshest critics so he can slander them. These are all signs of someone who is hiding something. Instead of arguing with facts he tries to personally attack and slander his opponents, calling them rebels and traitors.

  • He has ignored very important questions about the handling of money and unauthorized transactions that were not approved by any motion passed by shareholders and may have broken NuLaw. These questions have been repeatedly asked by shareholders, yet Phoenix has chosen to repeatedly ignore them and give no answers. This is the most suspicious behavior listed here.

I personally can’t understand why any of you would continue to follow and place faith in this person given all of the above, especially the ignoring of major questions where he is suspected of wrongdoing. The first priority any of you should have before moving forward with any of his plans is demanding answers to these unanswered questions.

If there is no wrongdoing on his part then he should be able to easily answer them and defend himself. If he still refuses to answer them though, then you should know something is not quite right. No honest person would continue to straight avoid questions like these. It is more than suspicious! And more importantly, why wouldn’t you want to know these answers before committing to support such a person and his plans? Why risk your financial fate by tying yourself to a person who has a bunch of secrets like this about his actions handling large amounts of investor funds? How can you trust him to be acting in Nu’s interest rather than his own?

I challenge all of you here to call on Phoenix to answer these questions right now! Don’t let him get away with avoiding it anymore. If he can’t or won’t listen to calls for the truth, then you should know that this is a huge red flag to STAY AWAY!


I have the trust of shareholders. They passed my last large grant for liquidity operations funds with landslide support of around 65%. I am a politician with a constituency of NuShare holders, or NuCitizens, in our democratic simulation. You have mentioned publicly that you no longer control, or animate, any NuCitizens. That makes you a foreigner. Just as a French politician is not very concerned with the opinions and values of British people, I am not very concerned about yours.

No, you passed that grant all by yourself. Some voted with you, but it was your shares that overwhelmingly made it cross the finish line. You couldn’t have done it without owning such a massive stake. You are an elitist jackass that thinks you are above everyone just because you can outvote everyone. That doesn’t mean you have the support of shareholders. It just means that you can vote for yourself.

If you did nothing wrong then answer honestly why you have avoided answering the questions I listed for MONTHS now. If have done no wrong, then you have nothing to fear.

I understand your reaction.
But in the blockchain, empathy has no meaning, unfortunately.
Only financial incentives.

Sure, but everyone here has a financial incentive to demand the truth from Phoenix on those events I linked to above. Without it, none of you will know for sure if Phoenix is just taking you all for another ride. Letting him avoid the issue is admitting defeat and hoping you aren’t scammed. If you find inconsistencies like these, you do an investigation to determine the truth. That is what needs to be done here.


That is not a great look for sure and I do hope to find some answers and transparency on that eventually. The most logical thing was to do those transactions and handling of B&C money to save Nu. They were highly contentious actions and still are and they probably wouldn’t have passed easily. Not passing a motion for that is in my interpretation breaking NuLaw and B&C law which is a very bad look and doesn’t provide trust. It is the same as driving a red light. Always a breach of the law, but in exceptional circumstances you might be able to get away with it.

In that train of thought I want to believe the idea is/was to increase the value of NSR and with that Nu and the B&C funds. This still needs to be proven valid. It would be one of a few reasons I can think of why he is still around and driving Nu. Real scammers would be gone by now. Possibility is to scam the remaining few and the new ones again, but that would be pretty bold. I’m prepared to take that risk given his behaviour and I’m a bit of believer which is probably a very bad investment driver. I might be proven wrong eventually, maybe not. Take your bets or not.

1 Like

I’m actually more concerned about what @Dhume brought up in his thread.

He’s put forward some direct and fair questions, that apparently you’ve failed to answer before.

Are you unwilling to answer these questions?

Avoiding the questions following Sentinelrv’s post seems unlikely to be productive.


This kind of rough calculation is what’s given me belief that the model could work.

I’ll try to make a start. I have basic experience from doing models for my startup business, but I’m by no means an expert, but it would be better than nothing & others could easily improve upon it.

I have little time, but will try to start something marginal better than back of the envelope calculations :slight_smile:


Oh, I asked a lot of questions, but all it got me was being insulted, accused, discredited and with regards to the questions mostly ignored.
Some see a pattern, others don’t.

There’s no transparency that’s useful for accounting. It’s only a loose-leaf-collection with no total balances.
@Phoenix might provide a balance sheet if he can.
But it’s not that you could request that from the Chief of Liquidity operations.

When talking about the revenue from spread I was focussing on net asset value. I’m aware that there can be made peasnuts from spread. While earning those peanuts, you lose big time NAV (valued in USD) serving the NBT/BTC trading pair. Risk of losing Nu funds goes on top.
If you want to have an idea how much money Nu loses, you can have a look at the liquidity provision that was done with pools. The order fo magnitude of losses from trading is close to the fees paid for liquidity provision.

Strangely he gets away with it. But as we now he has majority of voting power in the Nu network - who could draft a motion that’s not in favor of @Phoenix that has a chance to pass?
It might be different in the B&C network. For all we know, the distribution of shares there is better than in the Nu network. It’s good that no BKS were left under control of a single person:

Maybe they could have been used in an emergency, driving across a red light and getting away with it?

Have you ever tried to imagine how much money could be moved from Nu investors into the pockets of the purported scammer?
I’m talking about the buybacks during which money was distributed to early investors. That money was obtained from people who joined the Nu club later.
Have you ever tried to imagine how much money was moved from B&C to Nu? First step: assets (BTC) from B&C were traded for NBT (by what motion? anyone?). Later NBT were traded for NSR. Another bad trade, but at least for that there was a motion.
From a distant view I see ways on which lots of money (I’m talking hundreds of thousands of USD value!) have been channeled from Nu and B&C investors and Nu customers to Nu early investors, or maybe I should say: founders.
As long as there are future investors/customers to be milked, this Ponzi scheme will go on.
Watch the introduction of CN-NBT etc.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda…

the first 1.5 years Nu made a total of 254 NBT from fees.

1 Like

I don’t think there is substantial shareholder interest in the kind of questions @Sentinelrv is asking. They seem like a very desperate attempt to create a negative narrative that starts with feelings of anger over financial loss. I’m actually quite proud of how ridiculous the accusations against me sound. No one has been able to articulate anything nefarious that I may have done. Instead, I am unfairly accused of minor violations.

Anyone is free to test my hypothesis that shareholders aren’t interested in me doing the work to entertain these questions. Just propose a motion asking me to answer any question you like. I’d answer if there was even modest minority support for such a motion. I don’t think it will happen.

I’m not very concerned about the questions of those who have demonstrated they want to harm the network and stop its growth. That would just be a distraction from good work, and allowing your enemy to control the agenda. Shareholders expect better from me.

Yah, right.
What about starting here:

I could ask for a motion that empowered you to trade the B&C development BTC funds for NBT.
But I already know that you’d either evade that question at all, sling mud at me or point to @JordanLee as the one who did that.
It’s so convenient that he left. How could you be responsible for things he did?

I could ask so many more questions. I already did.
You are very good at laying smoke-screens.
But you can’t hide all behind that.
Maybe you have a little balance sheet to entertain the masses? :wink:

Is a nice offer considering that you control the network.
Meanwhile you have something to lose. The Ponzi must survive another round. Otherwise you are a bagholder of worthless NSR.
I understand that you are afraid.

What harms the network is that there’s no prospect of revenue. That’s mainly your fault and not the fault of those who point that out :wink:

1 Like

All Bitcoin, Litecoin and Peercoin proceeds will be converted to NuBits.



the only chance for nu to succeed is to distribute shares. so in this sense printing nushares is not bad…

Well, then it was fair play and the B&C investors knew that they’d not only be technically (loosely), but economically (tightly) as well tied to Nu.
Their choice.

That makes one of the questions answered. Only so many more remain…

Right, as long as they can be sold the Ponzi scheme can continue.
Slowly but surely you understand this game…
What’s bad is the end of the Ponzi scheme that goes along with the collapse and many unhappy bagholders.

1 Like