This is getting old. I smiled at the @IAmJordanLee account, but a MrBean that is 30 minutes old with this as your first post? AreYouAlsoJordanLee? I can agree with myself, too.
Nu needs a secretary to keep track of all the Jordan Lee alternate forum accounts. 
We also have this motion by @Nagalim:
This set the foundation for the NSR buyback/sales calculations script. It is has been modified by subsequent motions, but the calculations are a strict and perfect interpretation of NuLaw. Anyone disagree with this important assertion? Isn’t the result of this calculation the purest and clearest form of NuLaw?
Isn’t it clear this NuLaw was violated last week when no NSR were sold?
At least it’s meant to be funny
I didn’t notice that. Thanks for the smile.
I’m not an expert on NuLaw, but sometimes precedent and reasonable expectation are important to law interpretation. Here, it seems to me that it was expected to begin selling NSR, at a certain rate per week, as soon as the peg support was below a threshold.
Jesus Christ. We have staff available for all kinds of activities. @IAmJordanLee could we ask your secretary Angela to keep track of your accounts? I expect her to require an incredible compensation for that, but who cares?
From NSR sale and NBT burn we have:
This establishes that we sell NSR regularly until there is balance in our liquidity engine. While it applies most directly to past auctions, it does set precedent. Custodians acting today need to justify their actions in terms of precedent established as NuLaw.
There are those suggesting we shouldn’t sell NSR to back NuBits. They can advocate that. However, they haven’t passed a single motion that is even vaguely suggestive that shareholders support their unpopular position. The body of motions is very clear and very consistent that we sell NuShares as needed to support the value of NuBits. Is there any question that the value of NuBits needs supporting today? So where are the NSR sales?
The following NuLaw is extremely important, relevant and straight forward. It is being violated by NSR FLOT members right now:
Have park rates been offered for more than 30 days?
Is the buy side liquidity below 25%
If the answer to either of these questions is “yes”, then NSR FLOT members are mandated to sell NSR immediately.
We need an NSR FLOT member to use an account at Poloniex and chew on the NSR buy wall a little each day.
There is only one auction at the moment, as you know. Would you like to organize another? If the 100 mio NSR grant passes, we will have a good amount to sell.
Better yet, how about we make a motion to revoke all previous motions and grants.
You can do that, but until your motion passes all NuLaw has to be respected as is.
Firing incompetent share buy back managers should be our highest priority. It should be made clear to @jooize that stepping up and actually doing something will not be tolerated by shareholders.
NuLaw, hehe, who could ever have imagined that a legislative power has no effect if there is no judicial and executive power to associate those laws with real world cases and to enforce them. Joke aside, I just talked to Angela and @Phoenix and we all agreed that you are crazy.
How many days have they been offered?
If the number is more than 30days, then i agree NuLaw has been violated.
In that case, FLOT should be held accountable immediately.
It s annoying that Jordan Lee might be using several accounts but it does not matter much, i believe.
What matters is NuLaw and motions i feel.
Governance 101: You write laws by passing motions. Now answer me two questions:
Who decides if a law in a particular situation was broken or not and to which extend?
Who will then make sure that the decision made by entity (1) will actually have an effect in the real world?
You have laws, but no court or police. Police is actually the smaller issue by using security deposits on the blockchain, but defining and independent judicial power has not even be considered here in any way, and that although you have the leading innovator in decentralised blockchain governance, hrhrhr.
True or false, quite ironic. I am starting to enjoy the humor of our architect.
Wouldn’t contractors forfeit payment for their services if it is decided that they violated a previous motion? Shareholders would decide if a motion has been violated by simply not paying them and hiring somebody else instead.
So the people who write the laws then also apply the laws in individual cases. It is fundamentally important to separate these instances. Aren’t you from the USA? The greatest value of your constitution, as outdated as it seems at some points, is to very precisely define a system where these powers are distributed. Nobody can expect a fair trial in the dispute with a state if the court is not independent.
Yeah, again, this would be possible under the condition that you first get the service and then give another grant for the payment, or by asking for collateral funds, which never happened. Basically all contractors of Nu weaseled themselves out of this, pools are paid upfront, NLT even just got paid from this FLOT multisig and FLOT, and this is the very best part, FLOT even paid themselves 
It’s really impossible to tell this story to anyone without experiencing some serious wtf moments.
The gateways are also game theoretically extremely well thought through: one LPC handles up to 1000x their profit of Nu’s money without providing any form of collateral. Now let’s say there is a dispute between Nu and this gateway LPC and the LPC has 10000 NBT of Nu owned funds and disagrees with the fact that you want to withhold his payment. What exactly do you expect to happen next? You can be lucky if you get the 10k minus the promised compensation back.
EDIT: Just because it came up, f8b9e060dc73a97fd28a62ecfdd419114892787a (the temporary supply cap) is another example of this circular logic that is persistent in the thinking here. This motion, by definition, has no effect, because it is valid if and only if shareholders won’t pass a grant, which requires exactly the same agreement. So there are only two cases:
Any grant is the logical negation of this motion and therefore its passage or denial captures exactly the same information. JL could now go ahead and propose a hard fork to remove NBT grants, however this will only require the people to support the grant also to run a fork and in the end both the longest chain and the grant acceptance will be determined by the same random process 
This thread is going adrift.
Let’s stay on track.
Are NuBits backed by NuShares according to NuLaw? If so, where do we see violations of this law? @IAmJordanLee has noted three violations in the OP. Is he correct? Please do speak up (on the topic at hand!).
I think the minimum price of the auction that @jooize is managing was set with the best intentions in mind. Whether or not it was “against the NuLaw” is not clear to me. Assuming it gets enough bids for the entire lot to be sold, I’d say it should just move forward as planned. After all, NBT is quite inexpensive right now, which essentially lowers the minimum bid.
@Phoenix I am glad you’re proposing these motions and taking steps to regain market confidence in Nu. I really would prefer that you use just one account, though. Quoting @IAmJordanLee as a separate person, as you’ve done here, is socially misleading. It makes it look like there’s a group of people who agree, when in reality it’s clear to the (careful) observer that @MrBean and @Phoenix and @JordanLee and @IAmJordanLee are all the same person.
Would you please consider just using your @JordanLee account again?