[Withdrawn] Make Firing and Replacing Incompetent Liquidity Providers Our Top Priority

I have an idea, but it may be wildly unpopular. I thought I’d mention it though just in case. BlockShares are currently trading around $7.50 per share. If enough NuShareholders owned BlockShares, we could possibly have enough voting power to print more BlockShares and hold an auction or sell them for a little under market value (to make it quicker) to those who found out about B&C too late and weren’t able to participate and get some for themselves.

The funds gained could then be placed on the buy wall. Of course this would have to be approved by BlockShareholders though, which may not have a chance of passing. You never know though. Nu is holding their development funds, so they have an incentive to see NuBits maintain their value, at least until the exchange is finished being built and the development funds are no longer needed.


I am withdrawing this motion.

To be honest, I didn’t realise how many people would be suspended by the motion.

We are the fourth most active crypto community. That is where our greatest value lies. Above all, we need to find a way to maintain and grow our community of active contributors.

This was more divisive than I thought it would be.

I knew the network needed to restore the peg as quickly as possible. I calculated that this approach was probably the fastest way to convince everyone to do it, including @masterOfDisaster. I expected the result would be that we could convince our liquidity providers to restore the peg and convince shareholders to fully utilise tier 4, 5 and 6. With the offenders having changed their ways and a restored peg, there would be no compelling reason to pass the motion. I thought the objective of the motion (restoring the peg) could be achieved without it even passing.

Let’s end the divisiveness in view of the fact that our greatest asset is the enthusiasm and participation of so many very capable and intelligent people.


Thank you.

@JordanLee, did you see my suggestion right above your post? Basically, BlockShareholders would be bailing us out using their market cap in order to protect their development funds.

Why wouldnt B&C just cut all losses, fire all devs, hold a crowdsale and raise enough funds to hire devs that arent incompetent? Completely cut ties with Nu.

Why are the devs incompetent? Reserve mismanagement was the problem with Nu, not the devs who built the network. Besides, it was hard enough just finding Eleven to help us.

1 Like

Before we put any BTC on the Poloniex buyside, we should first invest some of the left money into the hardest medication against schizophrenia as quickly as possible.

1 Like

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: