[Withdrawn] Make Firing and Replacing Incompetent Liquidity Providers Our Top Priority

What’s the point of him operating a gateway? We already have gateways that are supposed to obey shareholders and possibly FLOT, right? Is the point that we don’t have gateways by people who wouldn’t have been fired from liquidity operations by this motion?

Is there anywhere FLOT can send funds right now to be traded at 1–2% spread? Is NuLagoon Tube a bad idea? They operate at 0.1% spread but without fee for FLOT.

1 Like

This motion already has 22% support over the last 100 blocks. That’s more than most motions that eventually pass get after just one day.

Liquidity providers that would be adversely affected by this motion’s passage may do well to change their behavior to address the underlying concerns that motivated the motion. By doing so, they reduce the probability of it passing.

I want to do him more than accusing people who worked their asses off.
I want him to make a practical experience with liquidity provision.
It’s good to see things from an architectural perspective.
But would you trust an architect who doesn’t how actually to build a house?

Jordan made a motion, that would have enforced a tight spread for all new operations.
This motion was not on it’s way to passing, although an impressive support with an insanely high SDD was pushing it.
I made an alternative proposal, that explicitly allowed gateways at an increased spread in case all else fails (btw. - all else failed…).
It seems I’ve fallen in disgrace allowing myself a well-informed opinion - and even worse gathering support for it.

Make the shareholders pass a grant and I adjust the spread as soon as I can.
Convince the majority of FLOT, that support at $0.95 is worse than no support at all after the BTC are gone, and adjust the spread as soon as I can.

@Cybnate’s PyBots, although she indicated that she’s not comfortable dealing with more than $15k funds in total (number is off the top of my head).

Hell, if Jordan continues to prefer making accusations and preparing grants that pay him 100 million NSR rather than making a new FLOT NSR address and crafting a NuBot motion, I’ll concede and make that motion.
But I will make this not for free nor cheap.

@JordanLee last call: beat me to a NuBot operation at Poloniex.
Provide us with this service as cheap as I provided it so far. Otherwise I ramp up an operation.
I’ll make you responsible for the compensation I’m going to request :wink:

We suggest NuShareholders use NuLagoon Tube as one of the places to restart pegging.

Compared to Polo, there is no front run risk in Tube, because the trading price is not determined before trade exact happen. The spread can be temporarily set to 0.5% or 0.25% according to NuShareholders’ will.

1 Like

I trust my own reasoning in combination with the arguments I’ve seen, and conclude that you’re wrong this time. You’ve been right many times before, but I haven’t been convinced you are now.

I’m not sure what NuLaw says about spreads, so that may be accurate. I believe withholding liquidity is against NuLaw.

@Cybnate: Is the gateway operating? Is that a 0.7% spread?

I’d prefer using NuLagoon Tube.

@henry: What do you say about 1–2% spread? 1% spread (offsets 0.5%) seems to be closest to consensus, but of course open to other interpretations and suggestions.

Vote for 1% spread. I’ll craft and sign a 5-of-8 transaction in FLOT BTC for Bitcoins to either @Cybnate’s gateway or NuLagoon Tube when we’ve agreed to a spread there.

Meanwhile, FLOT NSR needs to figure out how to sell NuShares. @Dhume @ttutdxh @cryptog @mhps @masterOfDisaster


So when T4 runs dry supporting a tight peg in a BTC bull run, T5 and T6 are in your opinion enough to support the peg from failing?
Do you think we would be in a better position having no BTC left for many days now?
Do you think $0.95 still being kept after 10 days or more (sometimes even better than $0.95) is worse than no support for days?

Do you realize that NSR plummeted before the peg even had a dent?

Cause and effect have been inverted successfully by Jordan.

Parking was not attractive even when the peg was perfectly fine. Blaming a drop of buyside to $0.95 for being the reason of parking not being successful is almost ridiculous.
You are aware that almost all parked NBT are from BCE development funds as it seems? I wrote a thread to get some information about BCE.

If T5 doesn’t work as expected (we might need even higher park rates), how much hope do you put on T6?
Why did @JordanLee not do all that was possible to convince shareholders to increase the park rates?
Why did he not advocate an accelerated NSR sale (the current plan was based on an approved motion)?
There are many possible reasons.
A plausible one is that he needed someone to blame to disctract from what was the cause.

Why not testing the waters first? Then again, this would have saved us from this thread, if only I hadn’t opposed the infalliable architect successfully with a motion that explicitly allows increased spreads and draw support from his.

Why not following this recommendation:

Blind belief brought us where we are now.
We would have 0 BTC left, a failed T5 and no sufficiently fast NSR sales to support the peg at any rate, if you extrapolate the data we could gather in the first days of the BTC bull run.
Still I say, let’s try.
Why not voting on this:

The fastest way to find out.
@cryptog, @Dhume, @dysconnect, @ttutdxh, @woodstockmerkle, please help!

1% spread that requires no condition is good for NBT/USD.
It’s madness for all else, including NBT/BTC.

Btw. - I’ve been in private communication with Jordan, when I had to do the same on Poloniex what I do here and now to support the peg.
I wouldn’t dare to quote a private message I received, but I think I can quote what I wrote to Jordan on Jan 24th:

Make a guess whether or not Jordan told me that this behaviour is inacceptable back then. He was aware of what I had made the NuBots for.
Discussions about this were all around the place ever since.

Riding roughshot over me makes me think of the motives, the incentives that make him do that. And I wonder why I haven’t received as much as a hint before.

Passing the 1% motion would suffice for adjusting liquidity provision…
…but whom would you blame for the situation Nu’s in?
Tactical move to strike first.
But an unfair one.

We have to wait until the children steal the bread before we cut their hands off.

I already “stole the bread” in January.
Jordan knew it.
Why not “firing” me back then?
Or starting a discussion about it?

Because I was still useful

  • as cheap worker, that revealed the passion for Nu?
  • as the one to blame later when Nu came in dire situations?

As a NuShare investor and longtime lurker here, I want to say, that this is nuts. This tells me that I should never buy NuShares and should dump mine immediately to save the remaining 1/5 of the value I bought them at. Good luck selling NuShares when every investor is dumping there’s on the exchanges because they’re trying not to lose all.

Perhaps nushares arent an investment tool, but a voting and peg defending tool.


Yes. We can temporarily set the offset to ±0.5%, as long as Poloniex is greater than that. Because we promise to provide best spread, so it has to be less than other exchange’s. Will set so in next 6 hours.

1 Like

They are all those things.

In times when the network does well, shareholders benefit, in times when the network suffers the shareholders suffer as well. The shareholders are the network. If some shareholders don’t understand this, they don’t understand what they bought.

This also brings opportunity, if people believe the network will recover then supporting it in dire times IS the investment tool. This is also why the peg is so important though… It’s the only product that keeps the engine running, without it all momentum is lost. Without the peg, there is nothing for people to invest in.


That seems to be the case. So why should anyone buy them? I’m not going to donate anymore money to maintain a peg that gets exploited over and over again by traders. I’m not going to buy anymore NuBits or Nushares. If the network had any sort of profitability, or even if people running it seemed to have consideration to those who bought their product, I might consider it. But not now.

Using Tier 4 for a wall at $0.95 is just marketing image protection. It doesn’t actually serve our customers, so I think that may be worse. I haven’t been fully convinced there isn’t any value in having some funds up on walls for this. Arguably, it could serve those willing to trade out of NuBits at a loss, giving us extra funds for liquidity.

For Tier 5 to function (customers believing we’ll give them their money), we need to use Tier 6 for refilling Tier 4 and put at a tight spread (otherwise their profits are eaten).

Tier 6 has to be sufficient, unless you can find another way to gain customers.

Am I missing something?

The price of nushares is currently at 200 satoshis.
If the price of shares decreases to 100 satoshis, it will take 1 million shares sold to get one BTC.
At 10 satoshis it will take 10 million shares sold to equal one BTC.
At 1 satoshis it will take 100 million shares sold to equal one BTC.

0.00000100 * 1,000,000 shares = 1 BTC
0.00000010 * 10,000,000 shares = 1 BTC
0.00000001 * 100,000,000 shares = 1 BTC

It could be said that 1 satoshi is the floor, if the market is buying.
Given a price of 1 satoshi (if shares prices degraded):
It would take 100 billion to amass 1,000 BTC (for perspective).
It would take 1 billion shares to amass 10 BTC.

Jordan you have said that dilution of shares doesnt matter if the peg isnt maintained (if I remember this correctly).
Is dilution of shares at a low price a good thing in terms of obtaining BTC (because the share price is so low and that it would require quite a few shares to buy btc)?
Would this low price allow for more investors and voters or fewer? Will this question have pure speculative answer?
In the future (if nushares have a very low price and high coin supply, then price rises), will nushares be bought back and burned to an unspendable address, or kept in reserves? (Will this decision be the result of a motion?)


I agree 5% is just image - it does nothing for the network or the people buying to park.
I’d rather advertise that our central funds ran out due to a run on the market. And promise that when the market swings the other way we will continue to hold the peg.
OR advertise high Park Rates in order to attract BTC even during the swing.


Assets (BTC)

valued at $575 approximately $23,000

Liablilities to assets ratio: 30:1

The peg couldn’t have been kept at 95%, if people had continued to sell NBT. It would have been necessary to increase it. Market awareness is the key word.
NBT parking wasn’t attractive, because Nu’s books looked bad even before the BTC bull run was at full speed.
NSR sale isn’t attractive for investors as well. They want to wait, knowing they can buy them cheap later - unless BTC makes a big nosedive and NBT users still have confidence left.
Would they have more or less confidence left, if the buy side would be at $0.50 meanwhile?

We are already in the end game. This was no marketing image protection, it was the attempt to buy as much NBT as possible with as little BTC as possible while staying as close as possible to the peg. This would have made it easier for Nu to recover, sell less NSR.

This pretty much sums it up:

Wanna throw 10, 20, 40 BTC into NuLagoon? Craft a tx and sign it. I’ll sign it, too. I believe it’s wrong and won’t start this myself, but my voice is inconvenient and I have little to lose. I’ll follow you, if you say we take this road.

I agree - we’re in a bad place because of NSR buybacks.
We don’t have much BTC left to offer as liquidity - when and how to apply it is very contentious.
If and when we dilute NSR we say goodbye to more people.
The only thing we seem to have is park rates.

So instead of this thread and closing doors - how about raising park rates and making them known…

1 Like

I’m not convinced that putting up the last of our BTC at a 1% spread would have resulted in more parking and more NSR sales.

NSR hasn’t seen proper buy side support for as long as I can remember and parking rates were already offered before we got into trouble and yet very few takers. Clearly T5 and T6 are nice in theory but don’t work in the current climate of a BTC rush.

I don’t believe a 0.95 peg is not useful, in my opinion it most definitely is we give the persons who need to cash out their Nubits a chance to do so at a 5% premium, not ideal but not bad either. Providing a peg on a pair like BTC/NBT is already a premium service we’ve been offering far to long for free. Heavy NSR dilution to grab a few BTC to throw away at an impossible to keep peg is just wealth destruction in my eyes. Selling large quantities of NSR at the current low prices is insane, who’d ever buy NSR again if we would sell them this cheap in bulk.

Shareholder need to think very carefully what they vote for, be conservative with our funds and maintain a weakened peg or throw it all out on the table and hope what Jordan proposes is going to work (which clearly hasn’t so far) and we don’t lose any value we have left in the network.

I’m convinced we can winter the storm of this BTC run with a 0.95 peg until after the halving when hopefully the tide turns. I believe (and I hope I’m wrong) if we take Jordan’s steps we’ll be out of T4 within a week, lose our peg completely and dilute our shares until they’re actually worth 0. I don’t think the network will survive such a hit.


One thing is for sure: any NSR holder now will be forced to put money into the upcoming NSR sale in order to have a decent chance to benefit from a slight recovery. If 100 mio NSR enter the market at around 100 satoshi, we will definitely have some kind of cap for quite a long time as the incentive to dump at prices that are even far below those that anyone here bought NSR for is quite big.