[Voting] 2nd NSR grant for liquidity operations

Custodial Grant Address: SRKudQwjKPAgcvAoqUpYJ5KwBBqbJYrPn5
Custodial Grant Amount: 50000000 (50 million)

As I have detailed here, the biggest risk to our recovery right now is being unable to bring NSR to market at this time. That problem would be solved for a time if an additional grant for 50 million NSR were passed.

Please pass this quickly, so we can quickly restore our peg. NSR liquidity is very high right now with over 150 BTC traded in the last 24 hours. This gives us a lot of opportunity to sell. The contract associated with the grant is exactly the same as that for the 20 million NSR grant that just passed:

Here is the Daology link.


More dilution, why not. Is that the plan? Selling until value is close to zero? No fun.

:coffee: gets a bit watery :frowning:


NSR has more than doubled in price in the nine days or so since it began to be apparent I was going to be elected as Chief of Liquidity Operations. That is hardly going to zero. It demonstrates an important point so many seem to not understand: NuShares are a speculation on the probability there will be additional demand for NuBits. Hate your currency holders and want to destroy them? You will find the NuShare price to be very low and illiquid as it was 10 days ago. That was a really foolish experiment. If you start acting like you are supporting NuBits, you get a huge swell in demand for NuShares. It isn’t the quantity of NuShares that is most important. What is most important is the quality of our commitment to our currency. As Chief of Liquidity Operations, I have the highest standard of commitment to it. Right now that means using the liquidity and demand we have right now for NuShares to support our currency.

It was liquidity providers like you that personally made this necessary. I am the janitor cleaning up your mess. And you complain? @Cybnate you were one of about 6 people that were right at the center of the foolish and unauthorized experiment the last month. Take responsibility for the mess you have created. Alternatively, and more practically, I will take responsibility, even though I didn’t create the mess.


Let’s assume you are right. Why do you think there will be additional demand for NuBits? Because NuShare price is high? And the question you keep on evading, how would you sustain the balance between the two with the high costs of liquidity operations and not decent source of income due to all trades and most transactions happening off the blockchain.

1 Like

Just repeating this again, I have been operating gateways and ALPs according to shareholders approved motions. Nothing more, nothing less. If those motions were not appropriate you are a bit late in responding to that. The shareholders approved those at the time, no experiment. I do indeed take responsibility for executing those and still believe that this had nothing to do with breaking the peg.

The reasons for that were the inability of FLOT to respond quickly when very high amounts of Nubits were sold and not selling NSR in time to top up the reserves. In that context the reserves were too low due to the high cost of liquidity provisioning without any decent income sources. The combination of the two caused the peg to break. Both need to be fixed before you get the network on its feet in a sustainable way. You are only focussed on one which is disappointing. Thought you were smarter than that.


I agree currently on that one and would like to re-run the experiment, with tuned parameters.

Why do you mean by “unauthorized”?
You meant illegal vs NuLaw right?

Because people have confident a bit more, to a certain extent, to a certain term, in the peg being maintained.

by Paying either in NSR,
or NBT if we can afford to print some more without disrupting the walls

I’m sure that you can also re-establish a peg with throwing some money at it again which Phoenix is doing. The problem is that it is not sustainable without a decent source of income. I will be among the first to listen and support within my means when there is a good proposition.

The only liquidity I provided was on CCEDK and mainly on fiat pairs. Did that create the problem? Really? I think either you are blinded by emotions or haven’t been able to read up the forum posts and my role in this. I really hope you address both.

And where were -you- when those gateway motions passed you apparently didn’t like and blame me for executing them. Not a single post, no meaningful votes against it. You know that not doing something where it is within your means makes you also guilty. So you are also cleaning up you own mess.