[Withdrawn] Make Firing and Replacing Incompetent Liquidity Providers Our Top Priority


Sentinelrv’s proposal for how to advertise park rates is a good one.

While it is impossible to understand the motives of each buyer and seller in the market, my guess is that the choice to offer low liquidity has knocked 40% off the NuShare market cap. Any action that results in destroying 40% of the market cap when there are alternatives that wouldn’t do that is indeed incompetent and cannot be tolerated.

Shareholders will decide. They may side with you. I felt it was necessary to articulate the reasons for the situation we are in and the proper solutions as I see it.

I was actually considering using my Peercoin stash to park NuBits, but then I questioned why I would do it if when it came time to unpark I couldn’t sell my NuBits back for what I paid for them because the buy side wall still wasn’t back to normal. This is why I haven’t parked so far. I would end up forfeiting any interest I made when selling back the NuBits. Could others be thinking the same exact thing? That would validate what you say here about the current buy side impairing parking.

Edit: I don’t mean the total Bitcoin on the buy side, but the lowered price per NuBit sold I will receive back.

1 Like

For example, if I sold $5k worth of Peercoin to buy NuBits and park them, I would need to be sure that when it came time to unpark and sell my NuBits, that I could receive back the normal amount and not at a reduced price per NuBit like $0.95 cents. Whatever interest I made on parking would be forfeited through the reduced NuBit price. It would therefore be too risky to park.

Nu needs to commit to always providing liquidity for Park Rates to function, which today means using NuShare sales, and with Park Rates motivate NuBit sales for enough revenue to build sufficient reserves. Nu must in the time until parked NuBits are unparked have succeeded in its possibly adjusted operations for the interest rate not to choke liquidity.


That’s the way I understand it. Effective parking requires a tight spread at the time of unparking in order for it to be worth it for people to park in the first place, or otherwise any interest rewards gained will be lost. The only way to guarantee a tight spread at this point is to sell NuShares. So selling NuShares, will give us more Bitcoin reserves, which can be put toward the buyside at a tight spread, encouiraging people to park again.

Do we need to hold an actual NuShare auction again like we’ve done in the past instead of selling everything on exchanges?

I can see that there’s a limit to how much demand there is for NuShares on the exchanges, though what about the BTC reserves and why are they not sufficient to be providing liquidity at this stage? Pretty much nothing is being offered buy side on poloniex. Why is that? Does it just get eaten up straight away? I don’t really know the details of what is going on, though it’s being drawn out for a long time now. Clearly nothing has worked so far.

And why is Nu reporting 11915.9714 tier 1 liquidity right now? That’s clearly false.

I am surprised that instead of organising a blind auction for a sufficient number of nsr shares to restore liquidity, a lot of time of many capable people is spent on elaborate writings about who is responsible for absence of such. Come on guys, put the fire out first, shake the blame finger later if you must.

I might not understand the situation well enough, but it seems to me that no liquidity at all is worse than liquidity at wider spread. Please explain where I am wrong?


@JordanLee, would you be able to organize a NuShare auction like you’ve done in the past or would somebody else need to do it? You have the most experience in this area, which is why I ask.

1 Like

I asked jl to do a blind auction 2 weeks ago and he said no. My response was to post the code for dual side auctions.


People did what they believed to be a way to put the fire out, and now the finger of blame is being shaken.

We don’t (or didn’t) know the best course of action, and many involved with liquidity assumed maintaining the perception of a peg around $1.00 is important. It might have given us time to think.

why would he say no? auction would have been much more favorable to the price of nushares, wouldn’t it???


We’ll need to pay him a fee for carrying out the service for us. It’s probably a lot of work, especially if it’s unpaid work.

What are your motives, @JordanLee?
First you were advocating that an NSR buyback is a good way to incorporate the proceeds from NSR sale into the corporate value.
Now it looks it wasn’t that good of choice.
Brave decisions (leave @zoro alone, fire me - that’s what you are after, right?) allowed keeping the buyside at a rate of $0.95. Now you are calling those, who made the decisions incompetent, after based on all what we know this is the only reason we have BTC left to support the buyside at a degraded peg?
What have I done to be despised that much?
Kept the peg at $0.95? Well…
All it would have required was a motion, but you realized your motion that enforces a spread at below 1% isn’t about to pass?

The prime reason why Nu is in this situation is, because a motion you crafted passed:

Who profits from that motion?
Anyone who sold NSR back the at a high price and can buy back cheap now.

Do you want to have my guess for what happens to the NSR rate once the BTC are empty, because the spread has been tightened?
I bet no, but you will get it anyway: those who sold NSR during the buybacks will be able to buy NSR cheaply.

That requires, of course, that the Nu network will not die in the trouble. It will be a tightrope walk. If played well, clever actors can end with more NSR than before the buyback and still have BTC left.
The tightrope walk might fail, possibly ruining BCE as well. One can hope that BCE is able to pay for development with BKS or BKC and finds a replacement for NBT.

Regarding development - you we’re recently telling us that the Nu network looks like this, because it’s development without JordanLee

you said that we will get reports from Angela

Do you work on BCE development?
No commit since late April: https://bitbucket.org/JordanLeePeershares/bcexchange/commits/all
Only one issue after end of April: https://bitbucket.org/JordanLeePeershares/bcexchange/issues?status=new&status=open
Except for the merge of data feed providers no merge since early May: https://bitbucket.org/JordanLeePeershares/bcexchange/pull-requests/

The motion to reduce the reserve through buybacks was your idea.
The motion to provide liquidity at tight spreads was your idea.
I didn’t follow. We still have BTC. Is that why I need to be sacrificed as incompetent liquidity provider?
Are you sure that you are infalliable?
Where is the data you put your claims on?

The experience of the last days with regard to liqudity provision showed that the buyside will be emptied the faster the tighter the spread.
And it showed that an increased spread (in our case asymmetrical) can keep the peg, albeit at a degraded level.
A lesson I’ve learned in January, but few want to listen.

I’m not incompetent with regards to liquidity.
My track record is awesome!
I kept the peg at Poloniex in January with ALP failing through the NuBot gateways I invented in November last year.
I am one of the important reasons why the last BTC were not dumped on NuLagoon Tube and are still supporting the peg at $0.95.

You can’t support a peg with no BTC. T5 and T6 aren’t capable of supporting T1 with sufficient funds in the current situation.

Go on and try to convince the shareholders to have the spread tightened and see what it gets you - cheap NSR?
Better fire me for that than for implied incompetence.
I’m one of those who knows how liquidity provision at Nu works!


I can be the idiot who sells them for free at Poloniex…
…I will only be sacrificed as liquidity provider, right?

It was a good choice. People aren’t buying NSR because 10 days ago the network got out of the stable currency business. It is my contention that this was a completely unauthorised action taken by a few individuals and it doesn’t reflect the will or interests of shareholders. To get things moving in the right direction, shareholders must make very clear that we are in the stable currency business and that those few individuals who acted otherwise were not authorised to do so and do not enjoy the support of shareholders.

@masterOfDisaster where is your authorisation to abandon the peg? What you are doing is unsupported by all of our motions.

Let jordan run his own gateway if he feels so strongly.

Can we find a consensus of what is the right path for NU from this point onward?


for distributed autonomous organisation there’s a bit too much of presenting own opinion as a matter of fact for my liking.

1 Like