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 The greatest value of your constitution, as outdated as it seems at some points, is to very precisely define a system where these powers are distributed.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:
- shareholders want print money: then both this motion will not pass and the grant will pass
- shareholders want the cap: then this motion will pass and the grant will not pass
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?
Chronos, I don’t mean to go off-topic, but I believe this is the reason he is doing it. It’s all about making a point about authority.
Now back on topic.
And if I held 50+% of the shares, I could create and pass a lot of motions too.
That doesn’t mean that they will be good motions.
Bad businesses have plenty of vision. Great businesses have visions and plans. And even that doesn’t guarantee success.
Absolutely do I think that @jooize broke NuLaw and should face consequences. I pledge for 2 weeks no xbox, and internet only if its for his homework. I just had a quick phone call with my NuLawer in order to make an appointment at the NuCourt to bring up my case. She ensured me that if @jooize will not show up on the NuCourt date, then NuPolice will make sure that the punishment will be executed.
If you excuse me now, I need to feed my unicorn with some of the hopium I milked from @Sentinelrv’s posts.
let s investigate seriously this violation.
I urge shareholders to set aside the multiple account gossiping, which does not matter
Nulaw… Any Separation of the three power?
it is probably not possible, still I was wondering if NuBits would be represented as a boolean, wouldn’t that be cool (if possible)? I know the blockchain isnt aware of the price, and exchanges (and everybody else), can decide which format they put their numbers in… , just a crazy idea (if you understand it, so 1 NBT is always 1 or 0 dollar, nothing in between)
Are you suggesting each gateway operators put down $20k collateral and each FLOT member $100k so that the fund they handle is fully collateralized? Best luck with finding 15 such people. I for one don’t have that much. Even I have I’d ask for a 1%/mo interest to compensate opportunity cost with losing control of 100 grand.
Shareholders have passed motion to pay FLOT if it does its job and no one indicated that the FLOT didn’t fulfill its duty. Another grant vote to pay FLOT is redundant.
Yes, this is clear. And you know what the response should be? To continue a best efforts endeavour to get back on track and sell the appropriate amount of shares according to our convictions. Not whatever the fuck is happening in this thread. Whether this means simply keeping our buyback process going 1 week behind, or doubling down for one week and selling both on exchange and via auction.
The ‘violation’ occurred because of a particular thread which completely ostracised our then-current NSR executor. This is super obvious to anyone paying attention. Do not make the same mistake again with @jooize.
I believe that parking rates have been offered above 0 for more than 1 month according to my feeds here.
Of course, for a strict proof, we need to look at the blockchain.
It is clear that the buy side has been lower than 25% of the whole liquidity for weeks now.
So based on the following relevant NuLaw’s portion
we should have sold 1m NSR every week based on this portion of NuLaw, since at least the start of the crisis.
But FLOT did not. So FLOT has violated NuLaw, sensu stricto while it has been unnoticed and disregarded by the shareholders.
However, some attenuating circumstance as explained here, Get NuBits' liquidity flowing, at least from my perspective:
I believe that FLOT, seeing that the buy side was decreasing too fast, decided to protect the peg by increasing the spread and by putting NSRs sales into the background.
In the end, one can argue that this behavior might be in according with this portion of NuLaw.
The whole gateway idea was totally against the spirit of the white paper and I am surprised that JL was fine with them. The idea was to have people using their own funds to eliminate counterparty risk. Both the regular LPC model and the TLLP model fulfilled exactly this concept.
Trust me, shit hits the fan if this would actually have happened for a large number of FLOT members. Also nobody ever dealt with the constant underperformance of NLT in this way, because nobody feels responsible and nobody wants to be “that guy” (EDIT: an exception here is clearly @Cybnate who very often spoke up on exactly these points both at FLOT and NLT, but she gave up on it at some point and who can blame her).
The least thing you could have done when crafting FLOT to also set up a control group which has the only obligation to observe, control and pay FLOT.
That’s not true, some of us raised questions about the performance of NuLagoon and petitioned/negotiated for better terms at various points.
It’s just not within the formal scope of FLOT (paid to be little more than rubber stamps) to do these things. The only thing that motivated FLOT members to do more than the absolute minimum was basically a commitment to Nu and a sense of responsibility as a FLOT member. Of course that extra mile was a main justification to form FLOT, but I feel FLOT as a whole has delivered much more than it was paid for, which matches the intentions of the minimalist “join FLOT” motions.
You should also take into account the background for FLOT’s formation. Shareholders were clearly not comfortable in paying the full price of decentralized governance, so FLOT was a middle ground between what’s ideal and what’s practical.
Of course we do owe a lot to @cybnate’s diligence, even when there were times that we disagreed.
Probably a good idea except that FLOT could conspire with such group.
The gateways worked so well because of the honesty and enthusiasm of the operators. All gateway operators were people who did it for the project and not based on rational self interest. But this is exactly one of the situations that blockchains are able to avoid, in fact its the only reason for the hassle. Just because you were able to trust the current operators doesn’t make it a good concept.
Also please let’s not forget that honesty and good will is a necessary but not sufficient condition to act not maliciously in such a situation. What if someone kidnaps the dog (or child) of a gateway operator and requests the funds …
How do you want to avoid this in the signer selection of B&C? Its exactly the same dilemma.
So far Nu’s technical, financial and management (or organization governance) issues seems to be way bigger than dishonesty issues, as far as we can see anyway. I suspect it would be similar with B&C, which is less complex than Nu but still.
Yes, there were structural issues that we did not have good solutions to. Either Nu had to pay for a lot more overhead or be stuck with a little more “interim” centralization. The latter is the lazy solution that turned out to be more preferred by shareholders.