[Withdrawn] Make Firing and Replacing Incompetent Liquidity Providers Our Top Priority

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…

We all knew from the beginning that this is an experiment and can fail. It is a pity that we missed opportunities to improve the model and highly capable people who gave good advices on how to achieve this become alienated by JordanLee in different ways. I think B&C still has a chance to succeed, but only if JordanLee begin to listen to the advice and criticism of others. I hate to see how JordanLee reject sigmike’s pragmatic proposal to simplify the protocol, without giving an explanation why does not agree with the proposed change.

and sigmike’s comment when discussing a problem with Eleven711:

that’s also why I thought it would be better to handle the signer logic outside the client, so that new blockchains can be added without a client update, even for signers. But that doesn’t seem to fit @JordanLeePeershares vision of the system


I haven’t submitted mine. It is still draft and open for comments and improvements.

However, our immediate focus should be on actions towards selling NSR. Actions are being taken here: FLOT NSR Operations (buy side)

1 Like

Nu is alienated to Jordan if you want it so and delegate your power – Because by construction, Nu only decides and executes action through the global consensus.
Want your action to go through and override that of Jordan? – write a motion and submit it to the global consensus.

Well, what others are waiting for to submit their pieces of advice and make the rest listen – that will coerce Jordan to listen by way of motion provisioning.

The ailment that Nu is suffering from is that not enough members have (including me) submitted motions and they have colluded excessively with one another, while they should have been more critical


Interesting idea on the track to restore the peg as it creates velocity and therefore indeed fee returns.
Once peg is restored I believe it should be removed though as there is no incentive to keep NBT which would discourage ‘sales’ on the longer term. It is at best a transitional measure imo.

1 Like

As you see from the beginning of this thread, sometimes motions provoke confrontation. I’m in favor of cooperation and listening to each other. What we as shareholders can do if the architect or developers reject to do what we want? Fork project? No, I do not want this.

I would do it this way:

  1. First a free discussion
  2. Elaborate your want into either a motion or a grant proposal – Draft it.
  3. Get input and positive/negative feedback to polish it into a finalized Text to vote upon
  4. Convince enough shareholders – talk to the data feed providers

If that does not get through, increase your voting influence one way or another for the next try – NuShares purchase, reputation increase etc…

1 Like

All roads lead to Rome.

There are possible other ways to succeed while I have been trying to discuss the feasibility of Hayek’s theory implemented by peershare since 2014, but it seems not many forum members interested in it.

With regard to B&C, efficiency vs decentralized, we can’t have it both ways, in order to achieve high performance, we need semi-decentralized which is still much better than traditional centralized exchanges.

BTW, there are perhaps many pools of signers in future, I mean 20 pools with each having 12 reputed signers. I personally won’t vote for those candidates without sufficient BKS.

From May 2015 to May 2016, The NSR cap is several times of NBT, we disagreed with bitshare’s pledge style when Nu launched in 2014, we thought our model is more flexible than bitshare, however, the free market has answered us that we have to rely on NSR cap to protect NBT pegging.

We thought we are smarter than the free market that we can use the proceed of NBT sales freely for software dev, dividend, even share buyback, however, the free market is smarter than us and eventually left us struggling in a pile of debts.

We need a decent theory to become successful.


No problem, I think you should know that I can do that. I assume the usual ideas guy i mean “architect” compensation of an arbitrary amount of NBT of my choice without even telling you how much it is? That’s how system designers are paid here, right?

240 people on the payroll + shareholders + host of the interface website. I also would like to understand how you pick signers that are (a) trusted but at the same time (b) anonymous. I know you think that you can build a better nubit with BKC but again your model assumes some serious demand of BKC to keep the peg (in fact the BKC demand has to at least nullify the vilotale BTC demand, and I don’t see why these quantities should be aligned in any way).

@Cybnate, if someone buys nubits then you provide(d) a service to this person that says that the value will remain stable w.r.t. the USD. Using raw tx fees as income model doesn’t reflect any additional risk that Nu is taking. Also the spread shouldn’t be touched since it is part of the fundamental promise (however, its not like the 5% spread would really hurt as described). You absolutely should charge for the time someone uses your service.

You won’t attract anyone to park in this situation, you have to force them. Parking sets your coin age to zero, and therefore would be the only way to avoid getting taxed if tx fees are coinage dependent. Just praising parking because it is a good opportunity to make money isn’t enough at this point, you have to force parking in order to avoid losing money.

You need a radical strategical change and you need it now. Just getting more funds will not work. I also wouldn’t count on BKS, it were the IPO funds which covered your expenses over the last year, or where do you all think the money came from when we had less than 10k buy side before the IPO? The B&C funds are also at stake here, which is why JL avoids the topic.


@creon I’m not sure you understand how B&C Exchange works, there is no BKC peg. BKC are nothing more than the transaction costs users need to place orders on the exchange. We’re only selling them there is no reason to buy them back or keep a peg.

At a conventional exchange you pay transaction costs after and order is filled, at B&C you buy BKC to place orders with, the order then consumes the BKC as payment.

@creon, what do you think about @Benjamin’s proposal?

Can you implement that? How much will it cost?

It stings a little, but I will thank you @creon. You are right I am finally opening my eyes to see that much of what we are doing is spinning our wheels - going in circles. Only to wait to get back to the same place again. Park rates, new sales to dilute shares - it will just make more NBT & NSR that we need to account for later.

Nu needs a profit model - and regular accounting. We as shareholders need to be more strict with our voting.

But besides criticism - you have given an idea to pursue which will actually generate profit.


I have argued the same, we need to generate revenue not just costs!

1 Like

I’m not saying others - you - haven’t. I only joined in Jul of '15.

I know, but it was a thought experiment @Sabreiib enjoyed bringing up.

That was when I was still there. I replied in the thread:

And I still think that. There are several ethereum based concepts floating around which deal with integrating external signals into a blockhain with minimal trust. Oraclizing the nubits price or even better the nubits demand would be crucial to perform all of this automatically. But it of course does not solve the basic problem in the system design that you cannot assume a buyer only if you promise future buybacks. @Benjamin’s proposal was just a decentralized way to decide and conduct the buybacks.

I am not sure how 2b should be implemented in a decentralized way, since in order to send or burn coins from this address someone has to know the private key. However, assuming you just hire someone to do that (or multisig or whatever), then there is not much to implement here. The RIPEMD-160 of “the price of Nubits is > 1 USD” is 166ef7775713e1e2a8da48dccf7d721eb0174148 and the hash of “the price of Nubits is < 1 USD” is e07ec56043bbe8660786bba4e22dd8a24a79c26e. Add the corresponding motion to your blocks and you have the external signal measured in a decentralized way. Executing the auction would require special code.

But all this isn’t really the issue right now, @Nagalim’s seeded auction model (although I didn’t read it fully) appears to me to do the job with not more risk than any gateway LPC.


I don’t think creon would consider NBT payment at this point.

One thing I don’t agree with him is that Benjamin was the strongest proponent of the 0 reserves model but it takes a lot of care to work. And while we’d be waiting for all those preconditions, playing with BTC was dangerous to begin with and a black swan could have happened in the other direction.

There have been attempts to diversify to other coins. NSR buybacks, NuSafe, the unrealized PPC reserves all operated under the assumption that BTC tends to drop in price. But somehow the price shot up as block reward is close to halving. Nu had not been careful enough in handling money, but blaming it all on buybacks takes a lot of hindsight. The best way to deal with those uncertainties and avoid practical issues with buybacks was perhaps to just put everything into NuSafe, which completely goes against Benjamin’s ideas.

As for profit, demurrage, trading options, loans, alternative fee models and what not, those have all been suggested and discussed before. There were many practical restrictions in that 1. demurrage isn’t viewed very favorably in general 2. there is no outlet to loan NBT 3. Not even NuLagoon or Poloniex want to share transaction fees with us 4. counter-party risk is still real, just to list a few. I’m inclined to think that Nu is either too much ahead of time or not ambitious enough, that it requires a lot of support infrastructure to work well.

But what made things more difficult was that all these somehow attracted less attention compared to setting rule after rule to tie up people who try to make things work. Being a FLOT member, i.e. monitoring walls, checking regulations, arguing about small details about transactions etc. really drained a lot of energy out of me, that at some point I being stopped being able to contemplate and talk about the broader picture of the network. My decision to quit was partly because I could no longer afford the time, facing difficult times in my own personal life.

Probably only moD had the energy to do so many things at once. For this reason I found the “firing” pitch by JL quite offensive - all liquidity providers, as well as active community members, are basically volunteering significant parts of their lives to hold up the network; there’s all to be gained and almost nothing to be lost to just walk away from our responsibilities, and I’ve grown tired of fighting for the network just for peanuts.