[Voting] Nullify all existing NuLaws

I saw this comment:

and is seems like a really great idea now that the network is in sort of a reboot stage. It would allow us to start the NuLaws concept from scratch without having to work around the broken hashes.

I think this is a great opportunity to reboot the operating conditions of shareholders. Also, now that we have an open source website it would be a lot easier to integrate and organize NuLaws into a prominent network asset.

Draft posted on Daology:


I was about finding out how to do that myself.
Thank you for beating me to it!

A reboot with a credible business model and a proper accounting sounds very good.


Thank you @CoinGame for doing this the right way. Your actions are compliant with NuLaw.

While much has changed over the last month, I am not in favor of nullifying all previously passed motions. Many may be irrelevant at this point and that is fine. No maintenance is needed to address irrelevant passed motions.

Since nobody has any issues with the language this is now hashed


Hoping to get some support from the feeds of @cryptog and @Cybnate

1 Like

This effectively abolishes FLOT without stating anything about how they should treat NSR, NBT and BTC in current reserves. Do they just get to keep those funds then?

This is also equivalent to letting the peg fail, as it does away with all liquidity-based services and the $1 peg becomes purely abstract. Not that I’m complaining.


The proposal was intentionally vague and destructive to hopefully invoke some thought on what actual NuLaws we need to be concerned with and which ones need to hit the bin.

I’m not the one to answer the questions you’re asking since that’s outside my department, but I’d like to see more participation from individuals that would be impacted by such a proposal. This is an opportunity to get more organized and make it easier for people (inside and out) to understand what exactly is going on around here.

“Intentionally destructive” huh? So while i work on a legitimate attempt to actually clear the books, you decide to go ahead and make a farce of it? Im kinda surprised at you.

I agree that we need to restructure totally our strategy to keep the peg.
For that reason, I agree in principle on nullifying NuLaws since NuLaws is pretty much about liquidity operations.
The peg is currently lost.
So it is a very good opportunity to think about a new pegging system.
However right now FLOT is still operating. I think we should first shut down FLOT before nullifying NuLaws.
Or do you agree that if this motion passes, it would not immediately invalidate FLOT?
In other words, it would just mean that shareholders want a new set of rules from scratch and we would make sure that the nullification of FLOT would happen smoothly.
If yes, then if there is no clear objection, I would be ready to add it to my feeds within the next 48h.

Where do you see the farce? It is just following your steps.

EDIT: added info

I’m hesitating on supporting this for the same reason. The auctions and FLOT appear to be working.
A reboot sounds an easy way out, but I think it is a bit rough. New motions can easily nullify or change passed motions. Let’s not throw away something before we have worked up something better to replace it.

1 Like

where can i see a clean list of still-valid nulaws?

1 Like

@coingame started a list with motions. https://github.com/coingame/nulawprep

1 Like

Start nullifying from the first one “Motion to make the nu source code available”.
hmmm, Interesting.

1 Like

If this motion passed it would mean FLOT would be free to walk away with all the money. @CoinGame knows this and proposed this motion as intentionally vague and destructive. He said so himself.

A real motion eliminating all NuLaw would be very welcomed by me. But as I said in the other thread it would need to involve a plan for how to end FLOT (i.e. burn all nbt and nsr), where to put the remaining BTC and on what time frame. It would also include some mention of which existing liquidity pools get paid what for previously rendered and completed services and tell them to also burn all NuOwned funds.

One example where it doesn’t matter. The motion directed an single action in time. So it required a one-time thing to do and then was void by definition. It’s like if you pass a motion “mhps has to eat a banana” and once you ate the banana it is fine, you don’t need to recover it if someone nullifies the former motion later on.

But yes, before putting this up for voting I would also suggest to make a paragraph with exceptions or at least a more precise specification on how the construct will be dissolved. E.g. in the case of FLOT it has to be clear what happens to the funds etc.

A clause like this actually should have been part of any contract motion that passed such that there is no confusion right now. In fact I would suggest, that in future, a contract motion should always be posted together with the corresponding firing motion, i.e. if I apply as janitor at Nu then I will provide you with two motions:

  1. motion: creon will be Nu’s janitor for 6NBT per hour
  2. motion: hereby creon will be released from his duties as Nu janitor. The payment up to the day where this motion passed will be transferred to creon.

such that there will never be doubt on what happens in case 2 and also that nobody has to be “that guy” who proposes a motion to fire somebody.



1 Like

So it would benefit only flot


I like this idea very much. I’ve felt to be in that position way too much. Every good contract always have a clause in it how to end the contract. This shouldn’t be negotiated, this should just be agreed when Parties enter the agreement.

It provides some overhead unfortunately and it cannot be enforced. But it think it will make people think better before they enter a contract hopefully resulting in better and more robust contracts. I think it is worth it.