This is where the body of NuLaw on NuShare sales began:
I support this endeavor. We should sort things out as quickly as possible.
This NSR auction was approved by shareholders. While the rules were specific to that auction, it does indicate the kind of auction rules shareholders find acceptable. Any custodian selling NSR could and should defend their actions by asserting they are comparable to what shareholders approved in this case:
The rules enumerated are quite exhaustive, yet there is no minimum price set for NuShares. Is specifying a minimum NuShare price 20% above the current market rate legal in the course of a NuShare auction such as this ongoing one, or is it just an excuse not to sell any NSR at all?
Is the reserve price on the current auction legal and acceptable?
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.