Motion Hash: 3b74e3e82d073a18f4ed89348b1575b5286cdddb
This motion reads as follows:
The motion requiring cessation of support of NuBits has not passed, but does have 39% support. Should it pass, this motion can already have momentum behind it to nullify it.
Wow, how cute. Why not “nullify all future motions that I don’t agree with”?
I’m still waiting for the first motion from @Phoenix with the prospect of revenue.
But ‘waiting’ isn’t really exactly what you could call it.
Suggest you give up the “waiting”, and join B&C’s business. 
I don’t know whether I’d want to join B&C Exchange and buy shares right now when it’s unclear what happened (and is going to happen) to the development fund, how many shares in that network JordanLee does have, etc.
I can of course offer some advice and like the idea of trying Hayek money there.
B&C Exchange does maybe economically have a better prospect than Nu, but its current situation is rather dire.
There’s no accounting in place, Amanda doesn’t tell how much was spent on development and how much is left, it’s unclear what the future value of the NBT (in the development fund) will be.
I wouldn’t recommend buying shares right now, unless it’s after your fancy to make very risky investments.
Around 140K NBT left as B&C fund, and we can raise more money by share dilution if needed.
Are you sure the NBT are there?
At which address?
Jordan had packed around 110K NBT of dev fund, if my memory is correct.
I don’t mistrust your memory, but we need addresses, balances
accounting!
A pity that JordanLee disappeared.
Maybe he eventually comes back.
After July 18, I guess some reputed signers will be elected, and I’ll draft a motion to let Angela/Jordan hand over their fund to multisig of signers.
In fact, Jordan wanted to hand over the fund.
I hadn’t thought of this. Perhaps after we repair the peg of NBT, we can just close up shop and solely sell NSR.
Why not?
Some will say we can sell NSR because there is a hope of NBT pegging repaired, but to cancel the losing money business is not bad choice. although some believe Nu is not a company and no need to hire accountants.
Yes, this needs to be done. It seems they may be waiting for instructions from shareholders, but we need to pass a motion first.
I’m sure some shareholders made money during the buybacks. Some a lot more than others. But I wonder the sentiment of buy backs now that one has occurred. As that is the only thing that makes NSR valuable now, do people think that is still the best option, I wonder.
Even though I do the mental jujitsu to own NSR, I do not have high hopes of a share buyback any time soon. It’s not even my reason for wanting to own it. I pretty much disagree with the entire post-launch changes shareholders have implemented, and I sold NSR because of this only until it was cheap enough in my opinion. I struggled with owning something that was making bad decisions.
Nu needs to end the relationship between routine peg maintenance and NSR. NSR shouldn’t be subject to regular inflation to pay the day to day bills. Furthermore, it certainly shouldn’t be the only revenue source that you can actually count on (for now).
NSR should be special, predictable in supply, and have clear benefits to owning. I don’t even know how you would market NSR to the layperson today, so people won’t want to hold it and NSR ownership will become more centralized. We have no clue how much NSR Phoenix will ask for next month. It could be 200 million shares for all we know. Times where the peg has failed would be my only exception, which I said back when we made the switch to share buybacks.
The reason NSR price is so close to 0 is because shareholders (I’m looking at you, @Phoenix) have made themselves into a whipping post to ease the pain caused by a complicated model. There is no doubt in my mind that this is part of the plan, though. TPTB allowed the attack vector to exploit it, seems like a very plausible theory to me.
It was so easy to print NBT, sell them, and buy them back for $1, like the white paper said. We quickly gave up on making fiat/NBT pairs the priority for liquidity and moved into a dangerous volatile asset hedging business and squandered our entire market capitalization.
If my idea caused that outcome, I would be ashamed to show my face around here, too.
The community of Nu and B&C Exchange seem to share most of its active base - which pretty much fell apart; there’s not much activity left.
Let’s see the effects this has for the development and reputed signer election.
But with or without reputed signers you can draft a motion to create a multisignature group (like FLOT for Nu), which can manage the B&C Exchange dev funds.
With somebody else dealing with accounting and bills, this group’s efforts could be reduced to rubber stamping, which should make the service affordable.
All this doesn’t really belong here, but I wanted to reply to your post and propose alternatives.
Reputed signers are supposed to hold B&C’s asset, so we don’t need to make 2nd group to manage the dev fund, especially in this situation.
I thought they were supposed to hold the customers’ deposits?!
Yes, and they also hold the revenue(btc) and assign dividend to shareholders, so they are a VIP group. They are supposed to be active and professional.
This motion currently has 40% support. I don’t want it to pass yet. It should be left with support in the low 40’s, so that it can be quickly passed after any potential passage of the motion it nullifies, which currently has 39% support.
You are the boss