Having discovered that decisions made by decentralized liquidity providers at our current scale are unreliable and unpredictable, the most urgent business Nu must attend to is re-establishing competent liquidity operations that predictably follow NuLaw and defend the value and liquidity of NuBits.
It is much easier to form consensus around the mere notion that we need a Chief of Liquidity Operations position than it is to form consensus around who that should be and what powers and discretion they can exercise. So, this motion starts by testing that basic consensus. If the motion passes, further negotiation and discussion will be needed to define the position and find someone to fill it.
I don’t know what your level of knowledge is about liquidity operations, so I can’t say at this point. You would need to convince shareholders that you know what you are doing.
It is no secret I believe I am most qualified for this position and have advanced my own candidacy. However, there are others who can do the job much better than our amateur decentralized liquidity providers did. @jooize is chief among those people, in my opinion. If the motion passes, I hope @jooize will advance a motion to fill the position.
It has been tried before, from September 23rd 2014 until May 28th 2016. The results were very successful. By dropping the peg, disabling park rates and refusing to sell any NSR, the liquidity engine was abandoned. The results were disastrous. There is a large body of experience and evidence supporting its effectiveness. We also know that Nu cannot keep the peg without a liquidity engine in the presence of minimal reserves, as the experiment the last month has demonstrated. That was a really foolish experiment to run because the outcome should have not been in question. Yet it is powerful evidence that Nu needs its liquidity engine. When we stopped using our liquidity engine, the market dropped our share price 85%. The market didn’t like us abandoning our liquidity engine in violation of NuLaw. We ought to listen to this powerful market feedback and restart liquidity operations, with some modifications to account for our reduced credibility.
This proposal is quite different from any I have advanced before. I believe you are referring to the grant that would designate me Chief of Liquidity Operations with sweeping discretionary powers. This motion seeks to create consensus that the Chief of Liquidity Operations position is needed, and nothing more. It doesn’t name who that will be or what powers they are granted.
Yes. That is how we create consensus on how to move forward. My motions for 100% reserve and capping the NBT supply are both trending at 48% support now. They appear likely to pass.
You will never stop preaching that, will you? Wasting the reserves destroyed the peg nothing else. Your magic liquidity engine doesnt work. Nu isnt the Federal Reserve, is this really that hard to get?
@jooize is going to be the next big star. @jooize, I would be very careful cooperating with someone who might have a lot more trouble would he be publicly known. Good luck with being Jordan’s new toy. Better study some RealLaw outside of NuLaw!
Is this the lesson learned from my attempts to prod shareholders towards more participation, making tightrope walks and finding opposition mainly in the form of single members (special thanks to @Cybnate for always being beady-eyed!)?
You are aware that you can do whatever you like once you’ve managed being elected, because shareholders are to lazy to limit your power?
This position transforms Nu from a DAC with potential to a tyranny without potential.
If it’s necessary I’m going to buy a bunch of NSR just to vote against you!
“Chief of Liquidity Operations” is ridiculous. Your proposal for it even more so, you little anonymous bird.
Plain wrong. The Liqudity Engine is a relic from Nu cult times.
Nu business times have started.
Let me correct that for you:
The Liquidiy Engine was stopped, because there was no fuel left.
I found a funny name for it in the forum: Ponzi Engine, lol.
