This custodial grant is being managed at Daology. It has been altered from my original proposal in ways that will increase its popularity with shareholders.
Here it is:
Custodial grant address: ShrB92Q61TiL9ZaQXZQCMB2qszYKqTMkGU
Custodial grant amount: 3,000,000
Our recent failure in liquidity operations challenges us to find solutions. To understand the proper solution, we must first understand the role that centralization versus decentralization plays in liquidity operations.
Decentralized systems are expensive (due to redundancy) and tend to have slower response times than centralized systems. Decentralised systems excel at being censorship resistant. They can be more reliable if their tasks are simple and well understood by all participants, such as is the case with Bitcoin transactions in the Bitcoin network (every Bitcoin node knows exactly how Bitcoin transactions are formed and interpreted). However, if knowledge about the tasks is not well distributed or not well defined, decentralized systems can markedly under perform centralized structures when expert knowledge is required to make competent decisions. That is our situation. We decentralized liquidity operations. The twenty or so participants who make decisions simply donāt have the expert knowledge needed to manage the liquidity. So you get incoherence, massive violations of NuLaw (perhaps in most cases due to ignorance of the law) and failure to function.
I have already suggested we address this by relying much less on a smooth functioning liquidity engine. This can be accomplished by raising reserves to full. However, there is much more we can do to improve liquidity operations. We need to have expert knowledge informing each decision about liquidity operations. This is always true, but the deeper the crisis the more this is true. Given that our crisis is full measure, and liquidity operations are currently non-existent (in other words, decentralized liquidity has completely failed at the present time), it is clear liquidity operations need expert guidance more than ever right now. It also requires agility, coherance and competence. I can provide all those things to shareholders as a liquidity expert in charge of liquidity operations.
We canāt afford to pay twenty people to become liquidity operations experts. But we can pay for one liquidity expert to manage the entire process. That is exactly how we need to move forward. Appointment me as Chief of Liquidity Operations. Those who work with shareholder funds in liquidity operations will be required to follow my orders regarding liquidity operations. To ensure success, I will need to have sole discretion over the use of all shareholder funds intended for use in liquidity operations. I need sole control over NSR sales. I need sole control over the peg level. I need sole control over spreads. NuShare holders, your decentralized liquidity operations failed and lie in ruin. I can bring order and life to liquidity operations right away. To be effective, I need to be in charge.
I realize the notion of hierarchical command structures is not popular here. However, such a structure will be very useful for this purpose, and we shouldnāt choose a path that will produce very suboptimal results for ideological reasons. However, the core of the system would remain completely decentralized, as it should be. You should never make a change that would take fundamental control from the individual shareholder. Individual shareholders will still control the creation of all assets and tokens. That is the real power in the system. They still control motions. They still control all transaction processing. It is still a very decentralized system. They can fire me whenever they like. I am accountable to them. It is clear that utilizing expert opinion through a hierarchical structure is the cheapest way to get the most effective liquidity operations.
With me as Chief of Liquidity Operations, we will rebuild confidence in our liquidity operations, even as we rely on them less due to increased reserves. Its a winning strategy that will win market confidence.
I will be preparing a motion to support me as Chief of Liquidity Operations very soon. I will also continue to publish what I believe should be done, so that shareholders will understand what liquidity operations would look like were I in charge. I have already indicated in the last 24 hours what I think should be done right now, so please examine my recent posts if you want details.
Why not here as well (precedent after a suggestion of @Chronos)?
Please like this post, if you dislike the one above 
That might help getting a more precise feedback than only ālikesā can indicate.
@Phoenix Itās clear you have a big stake in NBT peg recovery, because you (allegedly) hold B&C funds so denominated. I would like to ask, do you have a stake in NSR recovery?
Your plan: to recover NBT value at the expense of NSR dilution, without other sources of revenue. If you would sign a message revealing a large NSR stake, I would be more inclined to support this, since it would show that you are willing to put your own investment at risk, as well.
Thanks for your efforts.
He will ignore you.
JordanLee style accounting?
Hehe, āsahreholdersā operations, too bad these operations followed your system design. Letās face it: you want to get rid of a lot of NBT and want to be in charge of money to get it.
Yep, thatās how we know it.
I have a big interest in getting the peg recovered as well!
But I have an even bigger desire to get accounting done.
This is one of the main reasons I identified for Nu ending where it is.
Getting the peg recovered on the expense of NSR is not what anybody should want. I doubt itās possible this way.
There are way too many NBT out there.
You are at an NSR rate of 1 Satoshi, before you are even close to having enough of your NSR assets converted to other assets.
Revenue is the key to making a credible next attempt!
Itās the only way to get the debts covered.
Iām only advocating a 1:1 peg, because I donāt see how youāll get from $0.1 back to $1 - not that a peg at $0.1 would work without revenue.
Just imagine thereās a sudden demand for NBT and you sell NBT at $0.1, because you change the rate of NBT/USD from 1:1 to 10:1.
How will you ever get the rate increased back to $1, if not by buying NBT, which you sold for $0.1, for more than $0.1 (up to $1)?
Where will you take the money from?
This is the main reason why Iām advocating for creating revenue schemes first and starting a new pegging attempt after that.
The first pegging attempt failed.
The second needs to be much better.
I doubt thereās a third chance.
Shareholders, giving a newbie like @Phoenix, who clearly has no idea how liquidity operations work, discretion to continue a path that obviously lead to nothing but failure, would be the last thing you should support.
This JordanLee sock puppet attack is not exactly helpful.
Posting the same crap from different accounts doesnāt support the bad ideas, for the people recognze them as what they are.
If you want to help, @Phoenix, @JordanLee, @IAmJordanLee, @allJordans, publish data.
Reveal addresses and balances.
Give us reports for each month, which include the costs etc.
Has @Superman ever generated revenue? No, but you trusted @superman any time. Now it is the time to trust @Phoenix, my true heir!
At this point Iām in a donāt give a fuck mood. If @JordanLee or @Phoenix or whoever thinks he knows how the system runs best because he architected it, then letās just make him the head of the liquidity operations department like he asks.
If he succeeds then great, shareholders were wrong and he was right all along. If he fucks it up though and things donāt go the way he planned, then maybe heāll realize that he doesnāt know everything. Heāll have nobody to blame but himself for not listening to shareholders about the importance of revenue and maybe he will learn some humility.
Iām willing to bet it all on red at this point. If he fails, then shareholders take back over Nu and do it their way. If itās too late by that point then Iāll probably just go back to Peercoin full-time. Bring on your motion.
Your strong language makes me sad. Hang in there, buddy.
I agree, the decentralised model is the most efficient, but chosen for a reason.
Given the situation we need someone to lead the liquidity operations. After @masterOfDisaster stepped aside there is no one with adequate knowledge, time and letās not forget some gut to do this.
However a expect a high degree of transparency and accountability from such a person. It also needs someone who is aligned with most shareholders.
Ideally this person would also be known and not hiding beyond a number of aliases when it becomes to being held accountable. There are reasons why e.g. BitShares and Dash are more successful than Nu even though they are also making mistakes costing them dear. But that is part of the learning curve we are all going through in this new world of cryptocurrencies. Taking lessons learned aboard, listen and respond to feedback and then move forward are important aspects of leadership.
Just throwing more money at liquidity operations is not the way to go. Iām for one am perfectly fine with a model without revenues or at least revenues in the next 3 months as long as we donāt continue putting 10k/month in a black hole to satisfy some traders betting against us. I donāt believe there is a valid business model there based on your expressed thoughts. But maybe you havenāt shared the missing piece yet.
Hope you take the above into account and you will have my vote. And please think of another title as it sounds not very professional for an operation like us. Maybe Chief Operations Officer Liquidity (can be abbreviated as COOL). Sounds more appropiate as we need a ācoolā head to do this.
Actually, he has perhaps realized this already. For a long time he said the value of NBT would be either $1 or $0. Now we see it can be stable at an in-between value ($0.33 at the time of this post).
Also, his idea of a $0.10 peg is one that he used to say was impossible.
I agree, transparency and accountability are very important. Also it would be much preferred if Jordan Lee use his real account rather than an alias so we can feel safer knowing that we arenāt being played by somebody trying to impersonate him. Also a more professional sounding title is also a good idea. @Phoenix, can you provide these things to shareholders?
I think itās a pity that he stepped aside.
But he was not doing what JordanLee commanded him to do (and some shareholders were following Jordanās lead). Maybe he thought, Nu would be better off without him, after he was being recognized as incompetent?
Nu mustnāt rely on single individuals!
ā¦not even if they are called JordanLeeā¦
It will not bring you closer to $1, but even more far away from it. You just canāt afford a tight spread right now!
How will you pay for that, even if it consumes less than 10k/month?
What peg do you have in mind?
To get a tight peg you first need to cleat the orders below $1. You donāt have the money for that.
Or are you considering trading a freely floating NBT?
Wouldnāt be one of the worst ideas trying to buy low and sell high.
Now and in an unforeseeable future, thereās no peg.
NBT rate is at the mercy of speculators.
You need to find a way to generate revenue.
You need to sell NSR for BTC to restock your (non NSR) assets (diversify them, utilize NuSafe, because you need them USD stable).
You need to sell NSR for NBT to reduce your debts.
Then you can try and start to slowly raise the NBT rate.
I have no other idea how to get back to a peg of $1.
If someone has a better idea, he or she may speak up for it.
Electing a Commander of Liquidity Operations Noob (CoLON) is no solution.
Voting has begun. Letās get liquidity started again right away and never stop providing it again!
Custodial Grant Amount: 3,000,000 NSR
Grant Address: ShrB92Q61TiL9ZaQXZQCMB2qszYKqTMkGU
I have already spoken at length about what I think liquidity operations should be doing right now, so please review my recent posts for details.
To sum up my recommendation at the current time:
Get buy walls up at Poloniex and Tube at $0.10 right away. I will select and compensate a single gateway liquidity operator to manage liquidity at Poloniex. A modest sum of NSR would be sold approximately daily at Poloniex to fund the NBT buy walls at Poloniex and Tube.
Only 3 million NSR?
Dude, you wonāt get far with that.
And you want to be the CoLO?
Are you sure you arenāt applying for CoLON (Commander of Liquidity Operations Noob)?
Or is this only your compensation?
What liquidity do you intend to manage?
ā¦thereās not much available at the moment.
Unless you want to sell some NBT 
Wait - you want to get control over close 120 million NSR as well?
A single, unknown, anonymous person, who joined 3 days ago?
ā¦great planā¦
Maybe you get some help from superman!
What? @Phoenix you are asking for 3M NSR, immediately after FLOT was granted 100M earlier today? Why wouldnāt we just use that?
Where did you see this?
