Timeline of events related to the peg break 2016

DavidMc0 2017-04-12 23:46:18 UTC #32

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?

jooize 2017-04-12 23:57:56 UTC #33

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.

Sentinelrv 2017-04-13 00:39:55 UTC #34

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!

Actively Maintained Data Feeds

Phoenix 2017-04-13 01:39:15 UTC #35

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.

Sentinelrv 2017-04-13 01:51:39 UTC #36

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.

cryptog 2017-04-13 04:57:33 UTC #37

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

Sentinelrv 2017-04-13 05:25:02 UTC #38

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.

Cybnate 2017-04-13 06:02:10 UTC #39

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.

Sentinelrv 2017-04-13 06:43:13 UTC #40

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

DavidMc0 2017-04-13 07:52:51 UTC #41

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.

DavidMc0 2017-04-13 07:58:05 UTC #42

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

ConfusedObserver 2017-04-13 08:34:46 UTC #43

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…

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

Phoenix 2017-04-13 09:30:14 UTC #44

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.

ConfusedObserver 2017-04-13 10:30:28 UTC #45

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?

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

jooize 2017-04-13 10:48:32 UTC #46

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

— https://bcexchange.org/assets/Blocks_&_Chains_Decentralized_Exchange.pdf

cryptog 2017-04-13 11:25:29 UTC #47

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

ConfusedObserver 2017-04-13 11:26:09 UTC #48

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.

MaVo 2017-04-13 11:49:24 UTC #49

LOOL I can see you giggling in front of your computer while writing your entertaining stuff. It’s just great

Sentinelrv 2017-04-13 22:02:29 UTC #50

What did I just get done saying here…

Standard tactics from a scammer or somebody who can’t win an argument. Attack the person in order to avoid the subject. If you have no logical argument that can win people over, just continue deflecting and making it all about the other person instead of yourself.

I’ve been here since the very beginning and supported Nu with all I had. How could anyone think that I want to harm it? Would someone who wanted the network to fail do all this?

It was the sheer amount of shadiness in your behavior and avoidance of important topics that slowly put me off to Nu. I would have loved nothing more than to see it to succeed. I would have loved nothing more than for you to explain in detail your model and do a question and answer session with everyone here. But I know that you won’t do this, because you can’t without making it obvious that you don’t have the answers that people think you do. At this point I’m just trying my best to draw people’s attention to the characteristics of your scammer-like behavior, avoidance, ad hominem attacks, slander. There are people here that I care about that are going to be harmed and I want to wake them up to the fact that you are hiding something.

Of course the one person who represents the majority of the network can claim that shareholders have no interest in transparency. Does anybody here actually believe that shareholders of a corporation would have no interest in anything but absolute transparency when it comes to the management of their funds? How dumb do you think we are? You are losing control of the narrative you’ve tried so desperately to spin in everyone’s minds through propaganda and it’s starting to crack under the pressure of increased scrutiny. You have no choice but to deflect, deflect and deflect some more in order to preserve your story.

What normal person who was not hiding something extremely sinister behind the scenes would spend months and months of their precious time debating with people and avoiding questions of importance rather than just taking a couple minutes out of their day to set the record straight?

I call bullshit! You are attempting to defraud everyone here.

Thank you so much for pointing this out. Now we know the reason for the identity switch. It’s so obvious now. Everything is starting to make sense. As Phoenix he can’t be held liable for what Jordan did or answer any of the important questions that we all need to know, most importantly this from @Dhume …

I feel an important question that hasnt been asked yet is where did all the BKS funding go?

At the time Jordan (@Phoenix) estimated 200,000 USD in funding would be needed to complete the project. A total of $320,764 was raised in the crowdsale. Yet Jordan (@Phoenix) reports here that only 122,288 US-NBT Nubits are left (mind you several thousand Nubits of that ammount were acctually generated by parking). That means over 200,000 USD has been “spend” on the project.

Remarkably Jordan stated in late February that:

Progress has been slower than expected because developers (most of whom had agreed to work about half time) haven’t put in the quantity of hours that were discussed when the project began. Fortunately, this means little funding has been consumed, so we get another chance without needing any additional funding. The best way to resolve the issue is to simply require full time developers, so they don’t have any other work competing for their time and attention. Additionally, these two full time developers won’t be working on the NuBit project at all. There has been a dynamic where the shared team for B&C Exchange and NuBits tends to put more time than expected on NuBits because it is a live and operational network, which means issues tend to seem more urgent than they do for the not yet operational B&C Exchange.

How is it possible that 200,000 USD in funding have been spend and yet the project is far from finished. Even more remarkable is that according to Jordan in late February only “little funding has been consumed”. Yet so much funding is gone now where did this money go?

According to @sigmike by what he could tell late July after the Nubit crash happend:

I think the last team consisted of only @Eleven. @glv’s last work was in April and @erasmospunk’s last work was in February. And I was barely involved when the Nu crisis happened.

Last week I asked @Eleven whether he was still working on B&C and he told me he was on vacation but was now ready to get back to work. I asked him to put the development on hold until we have a proper plan.[/quote]

-So we know Jordan estimated 200,000 USD needed to finish the project
-We know over 200,000 has been spend and yet the project is far from complete.
-We know from Jordan late february little funds were spent.
-By @sigmike estimation not much had been done on the project since late February and only @Eleven and @glv worked on the project in that time.

Then that really begs the question where did all the money go?

Actively Maintained Data Feeds

Sentinelrv 2017-04-14 04:52:28 UTC #51

Here is another recent post from @Dhume. While it doesn’t offer hard evidence, it does lay out a possible scenario on how all this most likely played out, as it fits with the timeline of events. He even contacted developers for more info to help match things up…

Which shares are these?

During the ICO from both Nushares and B&C Exchange a large amount of shares (at discount price) went to a group of non-disclosed anonymous “seed” investors. Although I wasn’t around for the Nushares ICO from what I’ve heard it was the same as it was with B&C Exchange.

We now know that in all matters relating to development there was no developer team it was just Jordan (@Phoenix) pulling all the strings and hiring developers on a per hour basis. This also means there was 0 oversight on everything he did. Now if we go look at B&C Exchange I quote from the bitcointalk topic.

$80,000 has been procured from a small set of individuals who are certainly in a position to bear a total loss without any adverse consequences to their lifestyle, retirement, etc. These seed investors need to be rewarded for their high level of risk. Therefore, they will be given additional equity. They are purchasing 20% of the BKS for sale. Previously, giving half of the equity to BKS purchasers and half to NuShare holders was planned. This new plan will leave subsequent BKS purchasers unaffected, but it will reduce the equity of NuShare holders to 40% of initial total equity. This 10% of the total equity will be given to the seed investors, so they receive a total of 20% equity for their $80,000. This approach of using seed investment funds at the highest-risk beginning stages was proven to be successful in the development of Nu.

This “seed” investor group got 42,500 BKS for less then 2$ a piece, which in essence is already ridiculous but those were the terms provided by our benevolent dictator. Now keep in mind that Jordan has stated multiple times that roughly 200k USD were needed to develop a functional exchange. This is where it gets interesting.

The distribution of BKS is now entirely complete. Sales have ceased and all purchased BKS have been delivered to investors. In this funding round, 59,048.85 BKS were sold for a total of $240,764 at an average price of $4.077 each. The final total funds raised are $320,764 (including the seed round).

So the B&C exchange dev fund held in total 320K USD including the “seed” investors. Yet on August 2016 there was only 120K Nubits left in in the B&C Exchange development fund. Which means roughly 200K has been spent. Surprisingly there is no working exchange, no beta, only some code which is far from finished. Estimates are that at the very least an additional 100K USD is needed to release even a minimal viable working product. So what happened here after 200K (which was the original target) have been spend we’re still far from even a beta product?

Well the answer is hard since Jordan (@Phoenix) refuses to comment on where the money went. See my topic asking for clarification which is almost religiously ignored by @Phoenix. Now I took it upon myself to find out where the money had actually gone and I contacted all developers that have been working on B&C exchange. From what I gathered and this includes the majority of developers who have worked on B&C Exchange (including @sigmike) less than 100K USD has been paid to developers. Let’s give Jordan the benefit of the doubt and say 120k has actually been spend on B&C exchange. That still means we’re missing roughly 80K USD.

Hmm… roughly 80K USD missing I wonder where that money went? Or maybe that money never existed in the first place? Maybe just maybe that 80K was never paid and those “seed” investors never existed? But if that money was never paid and those seed investors never existed then where did those BKS shares go? If only we had some proof of roughly the amount of shares that are “unaccounted” for voting in conjunction for a few highly controversial motions that enabled @Phoenix’s his reign of terror.

Well I guess that’s all she wrote, all the evidence is there, there were no seed investors. Jordan made it up and rewarded himself with over 42k BKS shares under the pretense of a group of “seed” investors putting in 80k USD. These shares give him roughly 25-30% of the total network and since not everyone is minting that’s more than enough voting power to have a majority stake on active motions. @mhps and @woodstockmerkle can give more information regarding the shares he used to vote for his own motions.

Now I wasn’t there for the Nushares ICO but similarly to the B&C Exchange ICO there was also apparently a group of “seed” investors holding a large stake in the network. I’l bet that the amount of Nushares they received corresponds to the shares voting in favor of @Phoenix’s his motions and I bet that a large amount of money from the Nushare development fund was never accounted for.

You claim @Phoenix used those shares or other stolen shares to vote for Nu and B&C Exchange to trade NSR and US-NBT. Prove that claim by matching the amounts of NuShares with sales I have logged and find a discrepancy.

Unfortunately this has little to do with the sales you’re running. This has been a scam right from the very start. This is why @Phoenix has a majority voting stake in both networks. Not because he actually has shareholders supporting him but because he’s using the shares he stole during the ICO’s to vote for his own motions.