This isn’t a punishment. It is a firm rejection for abandoning the peg. We, as shareholders, think this is the supreme offense: peg abandonment. It won’t be tolerated. This has to be known.
As if you gave a fuck.
1 Like
Look, I know what you think happened, but we don’t know if that’s true because there is no true evidence. Let’s just drop that line of thought as it isn’t helpful to the present situation. The language isn’t necessary either.
2 Likes
What about this motion prevents that? I hope every affected individual continues with our community. I have a fondness for @Cybnate, @masterOfDisaster and @zoro. I realise it is possible their pride may not permit them to do that, but the problem that has been created by the reaction to the big USNBT seller is quite serious. We must convince NuBit users and potential NuBit users that we are committed to keeping the peg, and that we will reject anyone who isn’t committed to that.
You couldn’t be more superficial. Eloquence fan boy.
Look, you can sleep like a baby tonight if the word “fired” gets turned into “suspended”. With all due respect, given the caliber of the discussion here and the underlying mechanisms (which will always remain unknown) , you can’t be serious, can you?
I don’t care about the wording, whether someone gets suspended or fired or whatever. I just put every single statement from Jordan into perspective and ask myself whether he still is as authentic and upright as I perceived him in the past. Does it matter whether he is or not? Ohh yes, it does! He is in an extremely powerful position and you, @Sentinelrv, know that as well.
He added a very untypical emotional component to his argumentation style and is pushing relentlessly for the LPs to be the root cause of this crisis. While I agree that a tight peg is vital, the root cause theory that he presents is just ridiculous (and he probably knows it).
It doesn’t and I’m afraid they might leave the community, which would be a tremendous blow to the network in terms of talent. I’ve known Cybnate and MoD for around three years now and they’re dear friends of mine. However I know what Jordan is talking about here. Making a public statement by shareholders rejecting their actions here would be a very powerful step in gaining back the confidence of our users that 1 NuBit will always be $1. It’s not going to fix the problem though, as more steps will need to be taken to build our reserve back up. You can disagree with me, but I’ve done the best I can to try to convince Jordan to give them some slack.
1 Like
Would it make you feel any better if he admitted he was wrong about NuShare buybacks? It’s been said multiple times in this thread by different people (even me) that he was wrong to advocate for this. That doesn’t mean he was doing it intentionally to screw us all out of our money. Again, you have no true evidence to accuse him of doing this to us, only theories.
1 Like
Who are these users though? Sometimes I feel like the hype and talk about NuBits is so low that it’s hard to believe anyone outside this community even cares what’s going on now. Has anyone seen any posts or articles outside this forum showing that people are noticing this and it’s damaging our reputation?
Written text is not efficient in its ability to express accurately emotional content.
So I urge shareholders to put aside their emotions, including myself.
We all know the contributions from @masterOfDisaster , @zoro and @Cybnate , @JordanLee the first .
The use of gateways over the last weeks saved the peg.
That is why i voted for @masterOfDisaster s motion.
And i think it is very useful in buying us some time to get back to a normal regime under which we have plenty of reserves and only provide liquidity at tight peg.
My thinking was that we would pass another motion to get back to only supporting tight peg liquidity provision in a few months.
Firing is a very harsh word and does not make so much sense is a decentralized realm.
I believe, instead we should pass motions that invalidate or create new strategies.
4 Likes
You miss the point. I don’t care whether he admits it or not. I am wondering why he is pushing so hard for some smart and hardworking individuals of this community to be specifically attached to the current crisis. It makes me nervous. And for that, he pushes even way more buttons than he ever pushed before.
1 Like
All I could find was this:
I urge to expropriate @cryptog as quickly as possible because of his harmful voting behavior!
Motion will follow quickly.
I think this sums up what I would have written very accurately. We’ve accomplished a great deal as a network and overcome many previous challenges, including our 2015 exchange hackings. Let’s focus on generating productive solutions. For the record, I support returning the peg to $1.00; it will reassure the market and lessen the risk of a panic sell-off. We are in the business of offering a $1.00 US-NBT product, so let’s keep striving for that as long as possible.
8 Likes
I’d wager it’s because he believes it’s true and that it’s very serious.
But Jordan, you could have executed this in a way that wouldn’t have been as likely to offend people.
@masterOfDisaster and the rest, we all love you here. You’re practically the first line of defense in this network. I want to believe Jordan has the best interest of the network and this community at heart, he just lacked social grace at this moment.
@JordanLee The way this was done offended some people. Maybe consider apologizing.
With that said, who is actually right in this issue? I don’t fully understand it.
4 Likes
@Yurizhai, basically, because of Jordan’s NuShare buyback motion, we used most of our BTC reserve to buyback NuShares and burn them, thinking it would help us in a time of low NuBit demand like right now. However, Bitcoin started spiking, which drained our remaining BTC reserve. NuShares though collapsed in value right when we needed it. So with very little Bitcoin left, some FLOT members decided to change the buyside to $0.95 instead of $1. The thinking as I understand it was that it would slow the draining of our remaining BTC reserve, where keeping it at exactly $1 would quickly drain it to nothing, leaving the buy side unprotected with no BTC.
However, changing the buy side to $0.95 also had the effect of reducing NuBit demand and destroying the effectivemness of tier 5, because nobody will want to buy and park NuBits if they can’t cash them back out at $1. Cashing them back out at $0.95 cents means that they will forfeit any interest they earned from the act of parking, maybe even losing money in the process. Because of this, parking has not been as effective as it used to be in past situations. Jordan also thinks the act of lowering the buy side has destroyed the price of NuShares, however I’m not sure about that one, since they most likely sold because they realized we were about to sell a bunch of NuShares to build the reserve back up.
Anyway, Jordan wants shareholders to make a statement to the users of NuBits that we will never purposefully degrade the quality of our product again and that we will reject this action by firing the FLOT members involved. I have argued that making a public statement is necessary, but that we should lessen the punishment and simply suspend, rather than fire them. That’s the gist of it.
7 Likes
@JordanLee @masterOfDisaster And all those involved (because I cant tag more than 2 people).
This is a broadcast message for everyone in the community. I say the following as a prospective shareholder, voter, and future nubits holder (when BTC reaches a high).
For the last while, I have had no urgency to create an account, until I saw the recent debate over the last few days, and especially today. I created this account to weigh in on this debate of liquidity, spread, and community.
@JordanLee I understand your worries and frustration over the fate of the Nu product. I highly respect you, and love what you have incepted, developed and done, but as a “community observer” since the before start of Nubits (aka at the announcement/coundown and 2$ peercoin rise)-- this discussion in its character could be harming long term liquidity more than 0.95 at a large spread. I know it is for me. Im worried that this in-fighting will be the demise of talent, energy, love-of-product, dollar tethering, and bitcoin hedging of Nubits. I love Nubits. I love this community. I love the talents of all those involved. But please focus on the movement of the network more than “calling them as you see them.” Ive found that communities are stronger if the endure different points of view, gracefully. That being said, I do agree that actors that havent kept the peg very very close to 1$ may not have consulted the community first. They should have done so, but I dont think firing helps the process (ie process is greater than product). Also, firing could have a negative consequence of random operators (no one in this community as of now) running away with funds. Im not sure if thats possible given multi-signers (but I also dont know that it wont happen). I also dont want to see the previous head developer to be isolated from a community (or isolates himself, from feelings of a dead product.)
That being said, @masterOfDisaster, your part in this is no more graceful. “Incompetence” is just a word and its not the worst of the worst. I understand your interest in keeping the spreads large and the peg 5 cents less than usual, but I think you should have asked for a go ahead from the community/shareholders. (If you did, good job, point that out, and leave it at that.) Explaining your reasoning is great, lets just try to act as if we were business officials with cameras pointed at us [even with pseudonyms].
Both of you (@JordanLee and @masterOfDisaster) are invaluable to the community. This, Im sure of it, shareholders, nu-holders, and prospective holders see you this way. Please treat each other this way.
Towards everyone: please direct your energy towards a healthy debate of liquidity and spreads and motions, rather than blame, defend, offend, and self-righteous indignation.
All that being said on “community”, heres what I think (being a simple observer),
A) funds for the future are important,
B) liquidity and spread of buy and sell walls are just as important,
C) Nushares and Nubits will likely always be sold by holders in the event of a BTC/LTC rise,
D) this is an experiment, since Satoshi, to Nubits, to BC Exchange
E) Nubits is not the US treasury,
F) 0.05$ off 1$ isnt that much
G) large spreads did make me (as a casual observer) that the large buy walls at 1% [characteristic of Nubits bots] were gone and that the exchange had defunct. I had to do 5 days of reading (off and on) to figure out this wasnt the case.
H) large spreads 5 cents off likely reduce liquidity. Perhaps this is a good thing. Perhaps not.
I) Even if shares are sold, and higher interest rates are given (with a software change to say “interest rates per park period”), it is likely that people will drop Nu and go for BTC since the BTC halving is 1~ month away. Volume and volatility will be insane in the next year (I suspect 2-3,000, then to 5-10,000), then down to 900 or so in several years.
J) Re read A-I, and breathe. Hold your tokens close, dont just walk away or quit because one or many think you are wrong, but try to keep the process in line with the product. Reread the white paper, read other financial books. Relocate the reason you liked Nu.
Conflict is important and inevitable, and sometimes healthy. Just try to keep that conflict respectfully focused on product, not person or characterizations.
Thank you all for working so hard on this and BC exchange. I love both ideas, and the network has a long way to go (in time) for volume and process to be easy. Thank you for sticking to it when it hasnt be so easy.
PS: I think the switch from V2 to V4 of BC exchange might be because people want to pre-mint BKS before the big unveiling of the product. My suggestion: sell BKS at discounted rates to loads of people, off-set the people who havent updated, and move on. (Im interested in BKS @ less than 6$ per, especially since its a pre-released product.) Id say this is the danger of allowing voting before a product is matured enough to have functional use.
PPS: I think the minting should be separate from Nu and BC voting. Also change parking labels to reflect actual interest as this causes people to flood the market (for crazy interest) or leave (for crazy interest.) Perhaps offer better short term interest (like 6%, 10%, 20% for 20 days or less.) Id buy 50 NBTs for that. (And I havent bought anything for months.)
In the wise words of Ron Burgundy: "You stay classy San Diego. Im Ron Burgundy?"
5 Likes
I suggest @masterOfDisaster, @Cybnate, @zoro hand over all your fund belonging to Nu, and let Jordan do what he want to do, don’t waste time on debating, just do it.
BTW, there is less than 40,000USD left, is it weathy of debating on it anyway?
Very easy to understand Sentinel, thank you.