@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.
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.
You and those who have acted with you have nearly completely destroyed the utility of tier 5 (as Sentinelrv explained very well above) and severely impaired tier 6. Nobody wants a variably pegged stable currency. So under the approach to liquidity you advocate the prospect of NuBit sales in the future are bleak, hence NuShares are not worth what they used to be.
This is the point: what you have done destroys demand for NuBits, it destroys tier 5 and dramatically reduces the utility of tier 6. It was not the plan approved by shareholders. Our best chance is to repudiate and reject what you have done these last ten days as loudly and forcefully as we can, in hopes that doing so will revive demand for NuBits, make park rates function again, and NSR something that can go up later as a result of increased NuBit demand.
Moreover, every opinion seems correct! This is very confusing for shareholders!
and having no liquidity at all on other hand is better in what way exactly and to whom? please explain i am confused
This is what I would like to call “fragmenting the network”, which is to blame individuals for actions that have not broken motion. Which motions were broken by which community members? Please come forward with precise accusations of misconduct or guide the community as a whole using motions. Do not fragment the network by laying general accusations against no one in particular outside of any framework of motion.
we can have liquidity on the buy side as long as there is a bid for NuShares and we sell them.
So there are 20 BTC bid on polo NSR/BTC. That’s barely over $10k. When the share price crashes to the ground, you don’t think that will cause someone to sell a measly 10k NBT? Then what do we do, when there are no more orders on the books?
but share price of Nu was low before we ran out of buy walls and there were not many buy orders for nsr to fill the demand for btc, have you seen the situation unfold as I have? you’ve declined to run an auction as well. how could flot get btc to support the peg? what would you have done, but let’s stay in character and accurate with the facts as they stood in the end of may.
I suppose you start a NuBot, request funds from FLOT and show us how liquidity provision at 1% spread looks like at the moment!
Do you already know how to blame me for you running out of BTC?
Is it me unsettling the market that will cause that?
Can you please limit it to me and not make more sacrifices than necessary?
It’s my contention that Nu is in this desperate situation, because hundreds of BTC were sold for NSR.
It’s a good attempt to make me the sacrifice for your erroneous assumption that NSR are good to store the proceeds from NBT sales.
You will get away with it. You are more elaborate than I am.
And you manage to make a point without having data.
You make the claims appear as truth, which they aren’t.
Oh, I didn’t abandon the peg.
I supported it as good as possible with the limited funds that were left.
This was based solely on my discretion as FLOT member, being elected to support the peg.
What you have done made Nu get rid of hundreds of BTC (which would be quite valuable, if we still had at least parts of them, btw.).
Now you are trying to put the blame on me?
Make a NuBot, request funds. Run NuBot at a tight spread (you will use an amount per order that can be tracked) and show us how you manage liquidity provision at 1% spread without running out of BTC.
Get it: if you have no BTC left, there’s no peg left!
Stop accusing me.
Start acting. Run that damn NuBot. Wanna have some help configuring it? I’d do that, really!
Or finally put that damn motion up for voting.
I’m fed up with your mud slinging, trying to me look like I’m the reason for the situation, while in fact a way too low reserve is the reason not to be able to withstand that surge of BTC rate.
I get the feeling JL has never been a market maker himself, in person.