[Withdrawn] Make Firing and Replacing Incompetent Liquidity Providers Our Top Priority

The damage you caused with your personal attacks is huge. I can tell you that I trusted you blindly for a long time with a lot of funds. I even advertised your name @JordanLee as probably one of the few characters with full integrity throughout the whole crypto space. Unfortunately, this time is over. Whatever you will do in the future, I will thoroughly think through all your possible motives for any action and I would never ever recommend anyone to invest in your projects without incredibly extensive due diligence (if at all).
If you are interested in restoring some of the trust, you should start being fully transparent about every single dollar that you are entrusted with from the shareholders. At this point in time, I cannot consider you trustworthy at all anymore. I am sure you won’t care about people requesting transparency, but that will even further increase doubts about your (left) integrity.

Gotta say, i think @JordanLee was / is right overall. (The peg must be kept at all costs as it’s all that matters here.)

However, i echo your sentiment here… really bad way of doing things. I think people that might have been inclined to help (myself included) are really wondering wtf is up over here…

1 Like

I agree with that. But what he did is just insane. I don’t care about apologies or whatever. He produced an irreparable damage within the community and even outside of it. Anyone reading this thread will laugh at us if we ever claim again to be a place for tough but reasonable discussions. We aren’t. We have an incalculable architect who is capable of pretty much anything and ignores people asking for more transparency. Seriously, this is not the DAO I’d like to be part of.

1 Like

Please, let this topic forgotten. Don’t continue it further!

1 Like

I cannot say i disagree… I do hope the damage can somehow be repaired. This is a concept ahead of it’s time and i think it still has merit.

A bit of an itchy trigger finger, but everyone is allowed their bad days. I could see how watching something you’ve been so involved in go so against the design could make someone see red.

I think that logic though, that it was going to wake people up to come out and defend the peg is completely backwards. I also question if that was so “calculated” or just a story now that he sees the rift it has created and wants to backpedal.

I also have some questions about transparency and why we went down the road of a share buy back (which are usually done in times of strength rather than weakness). Something seems funny there… Wish i had paid closer attention, but Nu is a complex animal and it requires quite a bit of cpu (brain) time just to keep up to date…

1 Like

Agreed. I’m not quitting, even if our first attempt turns out to have not been a success. You haven’t failed until you quit trying.


I agree, but what will happen if we can’t restore the peg this time and it ultimately fails? A couple scenarios I can think of…

  1. Abandon the current peg completely and its entire supply if all funds run out and tiers 5 and 6 fail. Pass whatever motions we need in order to fix the problems. For example, raising tier 4 reserve and other things like storing reserves in USD to prevent BTC volatility from eroding our reserves. Relaunch NuBits from scratch with a new supply (along with B&C) after everything has been sorted out and hope that our previous customers give the concept a 2nd chance. That’s pretty hard to ask for though if we can’t pay them back for the NuBits they currently own.

  2. This one I heard at Peercointalk. Pay B&C developers in BlockShares to finish completing the exchange and launch it. Whatever profit we make in trading fees, (or at least part of it) should go toward reviving the NuBits peg. I like this one better, as it lets us pay back current NuBit holders over time and eventually restore the peg completely. B&C would need to make profit in order for it to work though and we may need to team up with Tether first in order to provide a 1$ pegged currency for the exchange.

  3. Jordan contacts the original investor who supplied us with the funds to build Peershares and Nu in the first place and we offer to pay them a large number of NuShares in order to bail us out. Not sure if that’s possible or not though.


I would rather see people not using Nu so much and us not running out of funds than Nu being sort of a charity that gives traders free trading vehicle without getting anything in return. The TX fees have to be much higher. The spread has to be much wider. The funds we have lost could have done much better if they were spent on paid hype articles about Nu instead of trying to be the righteous good guys who hope for recognition just because they think they deserve it.


This is wrong! Jordan is absolutely right saying that the spread must be tight. The problem is that NU’s scale is still so small and centralized with respect to the distribution of NBT that it can only work with sufficient reserves. No matter who dumped those NBT (I have a strong opinion), we can’t have reserves as low as one individual might be able to empty with one single dump. Of course, if I was the individual holding 80k NBT and I know that buybacks are being conducted more or less roughly up to the amount that I am holding in NBT, I clearly would dump everything I have as fast as I can. The low reserves in combination with the dump were the sole reason for our crisis. Nothing else. Again, the engine, as Jordan describes it, is highly dependent on reserves as long as adoption (scale) and distribution is small and centralized, respectively.


In the perfect world this is indeed wrong. However, Nu is so small it simply cannot afford to pretend that it exists in the perfect world already. We have to start small and tighten the spread over time as we gain more confidence in the peg. Eventually the peg will persist by itself as people simply would believe nubits to have the value it claims to have. Modifying the spread is functionally the most simple option but of course it’s a kludge. Much better would be if nubits had demurrage but it requires development and we don’t have funds for even that. So let’s be realistic for a while. I have had enough of this idealism that has sunken our boat.

1 Like

I am glad that things are thawing. Jordan has been generous in his change of position, and I hope that mOD will meet Jordan halfway.

Jordan’s motion is withdrawn - but Cybnate’s is still on the table. Does that mean Jordan agrees with Cybnate’s motion?

If not, what are the area of difference? Can Jordan and Cybnate agree a motion that represents both perspectives? It would be good to have unity at this point.

We are all on the same side.


Imagine someone punches your teeth out of your mouth and hands them politely back to you, is that what you would call generous?

Nope, that’s Stockholm syndrome :smiley:


Generous, pragmatic, rational, does it matter? Jordan has moved halfway, and perhaps mOD can move halfway, too. We need to bury our differences and move forward together.



This suggests a second attempt with a new definition and new white paper

1 Like

I don’t think anything has changed in Jordan’s mind about how the peg is supposed to work. We just messed up the 1st time we tried it. That’s why it’s called an experiment. If we can’t get the situation under control, I imagine we would apply all that we’ve learned and try again by relaunching a new peg at some point down the road, probably after B&C is ready.



Nu is black swaning hard - I suppose you are aware of that. I first didn’t want to post publicly to avoid more trouble, my “disagreement” with Jordan Lees behavior and incapability to take external input to fix his flawed share systems lead to my leaving of this community. The idea to attract buyers for a share just because you promise to probably buy more shares in future is circular logic, and I am actually surprised that so few people here even brought up this theoretical dilemma. Regarding B&C the group of signers will be yet another FLOT, totally colluded, easy to bribe, blackmail and corrupt, and semi-centralized. The adoption of the required BKC markets will take ages and the initial distribution of shares is completely unknown due to the intransparent way JL performed the IPO. B&C is slow, not trustworthy, expensive and cumbersome and everyone who reads and understands the proposed concept knows that.

I am not even trying to get into your economics discussion here, but @Sabreiib is certainly right in one thing: you could have used some people who know this stuff. The sad part: you had those people. @Benjamin is one great example who really contributed on a fundamental theoretical level - yet got completely ignored by “the dev team” aka JL until he just didn’t post anymore. Imagining now that a 5% spread or 1% spread would even be perceived as so bad is ridiculous, and everyone can see in the NSR price graph that there is absolutely no correlation between @masterOfDisaster’s actions and the price which was declining over months. Some guy you depend on cleared you buy side, that’s what happened. The announcement that millions of NSR will be dumped into a 8 BTC buy side wall on Poloniex gave the rest to the NSR price (have a look at the difficulty).

Anyways, in the end it was everyone in Nu who failed to provide any kind of profit model, and proper accounting. You spent thousands of dollars on this strange alix platform which basically is a json API PHP grepper, and now another 10k or something on a park rate calculator … the price tag totally doesn’t matter to shareholders as long as utility is somehow there. NuLagoon Tube got payed thousands of thousands of dollars every month while when I looked a couple of months ago, it often provided no liquidity at all at Poloniex (is this then within 1% spread?).
A more responsible handling of the available money could have saved you a lot of time.

Its sad, because I always loved the spirit of this project and I really wanted to see it succeed, even if its on a smaller scale than some member of the community might imagine.

Just off the top of my head: Why don’t you make a little hard fork (less than 10 lines of code) that multiplies the required fee with the coin age of the output (times some appropriate factor)? Then storing NBT will have a fee and the longer you store them the higher the fee will be. That’s also working for exchange stored money even if they never move it on the blockchain within their trading engine. Escaping your black swan event is then just a matter of time … and hey this account fee is a source of profit. If times are good you might make a good offer with 1% per year giving you a guaranteed funding of 1% of your supply for fancy new web platforms etc.

Just my two cents, good luck with whatever solution you decide to be appropriate. There are many very nice people in this community and I hope their potential financial loss is endurable for them.


Interesting –
Seems like you can fork it yourself. Looking forward to your white paper.

1 Like

That’s too bad from the investor’s point of view.

Then NSR shareholders should be called just NSR stakeholders.

After my longest reading since my registration here, It would be very interesting if the above question could have been noticed and addressed…