[Withdrawn] Make Firing and Replacing Incompetent Liquidity Providers Our Top Priority

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.


@creon you are brilliant.
The only thing I would change is 0.25 guaranteed annual interest rate on protocol level so parking does not seem like a punishment.

We don’t need to throw BTC at the exchanges. We need to throw BTC at this. Now.

1 Like

What s the main idea of creon hardfork proposal?
Providing a disincentive to store nubits?
What happens to nsr any way?
Hardfork means what for nubits brand?
A restart from zero?

The main idea is that NBT will reduce by X% every year - this is something we control. Every time you transfer NBT the fee will be dynamic:
NBT * X% / 365 * Coin Days

Yes, if you store it longer it will hit you more. Keep it in motion - or in Nu’s hands.
Nothing should happen to NSR.

Brand? Is it any worse than what we’re facing now?

We wouldn’t restart from zero - as far as I know. The NBT would be there. We’d just face a new TX fee scheme that would reduce the amount of NBT in circulation - thereby providing income for the network since it can create NBT.

So it would mean that we would have waited a severe crisis to figure out a way to make money out of transaction fees, regardless of the health of the system?
In any case how is it supposed to solve the crisis?
It seems it would take time to burn generate enough tx fees for reducing the outstanding nubits quantity that is at the heart of the problem.
Also is it some sort of inflationary mechanism at the end of the day that we would have totally discarded so far?
How would nubits holders react to such a proposal?
In any case interesting idea!

Ps: i agree it would not harm so much our brand at this point :slight_smile:

1 Like

It is actually deflationary. Every year NBT in circulation would decrease. This would allow Nu to do a monthly accounting to rein in spending on grants.

The goal is to reduce liability and to make Nu a rare commodity again. We could easily reduce NBT in circulation by burning Nu held NBT. This would reduce the market pressure that Nu itself is creating. Forcing holders to sell @ 5% just to get out.

1 Like

If your nubits holdings decrease in value, it is as if you underwent some kind of inflation in the sense that you lose purchasing power.
In any case your holdings value decreases. Ok.

This isn’t some kind of proposal that you should send me your last BTC that you have. Better hold tight on those! You have a capable development team which should be able to do this easily and fast. I mean in the end you really just need to add some coinage dependency after this line here: https://bitbucket.org/JordanLeePeershares/nubit/src/cd6e9ee263579fc3e2cddd3cad1e6eef685112a5/src/main.cpp?at=master&fileviewer=file-view-default#main.cpp-819

to something like:

CValidationState state; CCoinsViewCache view; uint64 nCoinAge;
if(!GetCoinAge(state,view,nCoinAge)) ... // error
int64 nMinFee = (1 + (int64)nBytes / 1000) * nBaseFee + factor * nCoinage;

Defining factor is up to the shareholders. Its a hard fork, because old clients will underestimate the required fee and accept invalid transactions in their blocks which then later get rejected by the newer version. You should ask your development team if they think that the risk that comes with any kind of hard fork is worth the potential benefit. This is really up to you.

1 Like

Sorry - yes. You are correct - purchasing power decreases.

It is an incentive to not store them, but use them. If nu holds them - fine - nu can always make more, but never more than what has been lost.