[Voting] No Nu Liquidity Without a Revenue Model

[Cybnate]

If someone wanted to launch an attack against NuBits, the best way would be to shut down liquidity operations.

This is not about shutting down liquidity operations. We need both. No liquidity can exist sustainably without a proper revenue model or at least working towards that with a clear roadmap with investments. Endlessly selling shares is not a sustainable model in my eyes and not providing the confidence you are looking for. That is why I’m still supporting this motion. Once a proper revenue model is in place I will stop voting for this motion because confidence will then likely be restored.

What also doesn’t help to build confidence if changing the reserve ratios. Maybe it should be 100% to start building confidence, but with the message that after a while it will gradually reduce to something between 33% and 50% over time depending on the amount of NBT in circulation. Transparency, communication in advance and sticking to it is very important to sustain confidence.

[Sabreiib]

Today, we treat NSR buyers as milk cow, when we spoil our money via LP etc, then we absorb blood from NSR holders.

Are there so many fools in this market who like get diluted form time to to time while the NSR sellers earn money in NSR buyback?

NSR is not NBT, you cannot adjust the supply freely, NSR should be something like BTC, encouraged to hoard. Although you can issue more NSR, but the quantity should be strictly limited. Apparently, we underestimate the public’s IQ, then the fact is our IQ are low because we are always wishful thinking.

Learn some Psychology before you start to do business, this is human being’s world, not just source code world.

[GreatScott]

NSR is not NBT, you cannot adjust the supply freely, NSR should be something like BTC, encouraged to hoard.

This is the prime reason why I think dividends are a much better way of returning value to shareholders if there was any value to return. NSR used to be scarce. Now we can’t even hold blind auctions because nobody wants to buy them for much above zero. I blame it all on the share buy back switch. It was a fundamental change that encouraged people to sell there shares, instead of cherishing them.

[Tony]

The thinking behind this motion brought us an 800 million NSR expense, for which we have gained nothing. This motion is trending at 44% right now. That is 44% of shareholders voting for the scamification of NuBits. If it were to pass, I expect we would lose the peg, then regain it again after further damaging our brand and spending hundreds of million additional NSR to compensate for an even lower demand for NuBits.

If someone wanted to launch an attack against NuBits, the best way would be to shut down liquidity operations. That would be the most damaging thing that could be done, as we found out a few months ago.

Why is the will to commit suicide so strong here? I really don’t understand. Can anyone voting for this please explain why? It is unfathomable to me.

It is really difficult to build confidence in our brand with 44% of shareholders voting to seize value from our paying customers.

44 % of shareholders are a bunch of guys who want to grab a lot of money, hope they don’t get anything at all. Please lets fork them out of the Nu ecosystem forever.

Because that’s what they were discussing, or trying to do.

[Sentinelrv]

44 % of shareholders are a bunch of guys who want to grab a lot of money, hope they don’t get anything at all. Please lets fork them out of the Nu ecosystem forever.

Because that’s what they were discussing, or trying to do.

Is this your new big plan Jordan? Use this motion to identify our shares and then fork us all out of the network so you end up controlling 90% of NuShares? With that you can release all the new currencies and then send 90% of the BTC proceeds to yourself via dividends. Is that your endgame?

[Tony]

All I want is my fair share for my efforts to save the network. Saboteurs don’t deserve any mercy. You don’t deserve to be grouped with us.

[ConfusedObserver]

All I want is my fair share for my efforts to save the network.

You hope for a fair share for your efforts to save a ponzi scheme?
Hope for greater fools than yourself, dude!

Saboteurs don’t deserve any mercy.

Hang them higher!

You don’t deserve to be grouped with us.

Yah, right, I’m in a different group in which I don’t have to hope for greater fools
Hunt the saboteurs, but better don’t hope to find money in their pockets unless you mean those saboteurs that belaboured buybacks!

[matthewd]

You hope for a fair share for your efforts to save a ponzi scheme?

You also described Nu as a pump and dump. It cannot be both. Please explain which of the two Nu is, and why

[ConfusedObserver]

Please explain why it can’t be both.

[Tony]

Please explain why it can’t be both.

Repeating your accusations doesn’t make them true. The “possibility” does not make them true either.

A Ponzi scheme is a zero sum game. In such a scheme the one can only profit at the expense of the others. Nu has possible win-win outcomes. NuShare holders profit from the distribution of dividends, share repurchases and the rise in value. NuBit holders, and indeed, society as a whole, benefit from the usefulness of a widely accepted, fast, inexpensive, and stable peer to peer currency. It’s certainly debatable whether or not Nu’s business model is sustainable. I believe it might. You don’t. That’s fine. But that in and of itself doesn’t make it a Ponzi scheme. After all, it’s an experiment.

A critical part of a Ponzi scheme is when money that is invested is taken out for purposes outside an agreement for personal profit. A Ponzi scheme is what this this motion suggests, where confused and selfish NuShare holders are trying to kill their agreement with NuBits holders in order to benefit at their expense. Just because we don’t make money YET doesn’t mean we should give up on our commitment to reimburse our customers and partners. After all, isn’t it the first rule of business that you have to spend money first to make money later?

[ConfusedObserver]

It’s certainly debatable whether or not Nu’s business model is sustainable. I believe it might. You don’t.

You do realize that Nu can only pay its expenses by selling NSR?
That is because all the funds Nu had from the investors and the customers was spent on development (which I consider necessary) and NSR buybacks (which I consider something else); most of the Nu funds was spent on the buybacks…
I don’t see where you find room for the sustainability of a business model that can only survive by selling new tokens, that can only pay operational costs and preceding buyers by finding new buyers.
That’s the reason Nu is (in its current state) unsustainable and a ponzi scheme.

I might talk about the pump&dump part, if @matthewd explains why it can’t be a ponzi scheme and a pump&dump at the same time.
But if here were really interested in an answer, he could read some of my previous posts.
If he doesn’t want to spend that time, I shouldn’t be expected to spend my time on a recurring explanation

[Tony]

That’s the reason Nu is (in its current state) unsustainable and a ponzi scheme.

It may be unsustainable (we’ll see), but again, that doesn’t make it a Ponzi scheme.

Nu is still in the pre-revenue stage. “True” monetization will come later once we reach scale. In the short term, we must focus on becoming and retaining a preferred and reliable service provider.

[matthewd]

I might talk about the pump&dump part, if @matthewd explains why it can’t be a ponzi scheme and a pump&dump at the same time.
But if here were really interested in an answer, he could read some of my previous posts.
If he doesn’t want to spend that time, I shouldn’t be expected to spend my time on a recurring explanation

What an offensive and arrogant response. ConfusedObserver has been throwing accusations around (and changing them in the process) without justifying them.

Let’s stick to one of them: please explain how Nu is a Ponzi.

[ConfusedObserver]

can only survive by selling new tokens, that can only pay operational costs and preceding buyers by finding new buyers.
That’s the reason Nu is (in its current state) unsustainable and a ponzi scheme.

Oh my, so arrogant and offensive.
What about that: you’re so lame, dude

Close your eyes and I’ll kiss you
Tomorrow I’ll miss you
Remember I’ll always be true
And then while I’m away
I’ll write home every day
And I’ll send all my loving to you

Ponzi scheme

[Sabreiib]

The key is the accounting unit.
If you only use USD as our accounting unit, e.g. we trade NBT only with USD, and spend USD for development, dividend, etc, and has no revenue at all, the whole “income” is the new NBT buyers’ USD, then Nu is a Ponzi.

But if BTC involved in Nu, then perhaps BTC price doubles overnight, and we suddenly have 200% reserve, we naturally can pay our expenditure without problems. Situation is more complicated.

Nu is more like a gambling, rather than a Ponzi. We are gambling on BTC price.

[ConfusedObserver]

Nu has no means of replenishing the reserve except for selling tokens (NSR, NBT).
It’s a ponzi scheme whether you account in USD or BTC.

But you are right that speculating on BTC rate is an important part of Nu’s business.
This is true for the reserve and the operation.
It’s just bad for Nu that it needs to sell BTC, if BTC is rising and needs to buy BTC, if BTC is declining.

[matthewd]

Oh my, so arrogant and offensive.
What about that: you’re so lame, dude

At no point have I had a particular axe to grind with you. I read what you say, and I read what Phoenix says.

I asked you a reasonable question, and instead of explaining, you responded with a snide personal attack.

Quoting Wikipedia does not answer the question, because Wikipedia does not refer to Nu specifically. Please explain how Nu, which sells part of a blockchain, which the purchaser can keep, is a ponzi.

[Tony]

can only survive by selling new tokens, that can only pay operational costs and preceding buyers by finding new buyers.
That’s the reason Nu is (in its current state) unsustainable and a ponzi scheme.

You at least should have mentioned the fundamental difference between a creditor and equity holder.

NuBits holders are creditors, NuShare holders are investors. A Ponzi scheme is paying out returns to investors or equity holders. What separates Nu from a Ponzi scheme is that it’s paying out liabilities to creditors. By raising new equity, Nu is not paying back existing equity holders (which is what a ponzi scheme pays returns to).

[Phoenix]

I am pleased to report that support for this motion has fallen below 23%. It is probably the most suicidal and most cruel of all motions proposed in Nu’s history. It aims to break the fundamental obligation NuShare holders have to NuBit holders and utterly destroy our brand.

The stupid and dishonest among us are leaving. What remains is a network committed to integrity, continuity and excellent customer service. It is a real shame this minority took control of liquidity operations in late May and June, but we have fixed the problems of decentralized liquidity operations not being grounded in the blockchain (of liquidity operations not being subordinate to shareholder directives) and now a broader consensus has developed that the liquidity model proposed by @JordanLee and embraced consistently by shareholders does indeed work very well and should continue to be embraced.

Let’s keep moving support for this abomination of a motion down to zero.

[Nagalim]

And all it took was awarding yourself a large number of shares to drown out any dissent, how simple. I dont understand why we ever gave anyone other than you shares anyway. You really deserve to be 100% shareholder of this network.