[Voting] No Nu Liquidity Without a Revenue Model


#23

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.


#24

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.


#25

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?


#26

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.


#27

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

Hang them higher!

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


#28

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


#29

Please explain why it can’t be both.


#30

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?


#31

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 :wink:


#32

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.


#33

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.


#34

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

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


#35

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.


#36

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.


#37

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.


#38

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).


#39

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.


#40

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.


#41

Support for this, the most abominable motion, that would brazenly defraud NuBit holders while destroying the entire network, has fallen below 13% support at this point. Those bent on destruction and suicide have left. To the 13% that remain, keep going. You aren’t wanted. Your ethics and judgement are despicable.


#42

It’s for sure abominable to make revenue.
It’s much less abominable to run a ponzi scheme.