This motion has been finalised and hashed. Voting has begun.
Motion hash for voting: c070f654c2ff3e43a10fc5ff1dbf8ad74e36b18f
Let’s show the world we are committed to maintaining the value of NuBits.
I just made some additions to the motion:
100% unsure of how this affects me as a pool operator. Any of my custodians can set asymmetric buy and sell side offsets and there’s not a thing I can do to stop them. Hell, I’ve provided them with a shift parameter that does precisely this. How can I undo what has been open sourced?
Let’s talk about who would be fired as liquidity providers if this motion passes. I haven’t reviewed the evidence on this site, but from memory I understand those affected to be:
Have I missed anyone? Do these three individuals indeed meet the criteria for being fired, which is setting the buy side offset in excess of the sell side offset, so that the sell price and buy price do not average to exactly 1.00?
I understand that much, but I do not understand the numbers. The numbers I am reading on the forums and the reported tier 1 liquidity suggests a lot more buy-side liquidity is on poloniex than there actually is. And I assume most of the liquidity is going on poloniex considering the high volumes.
1 Like
Is this in violation of existing motions?
Lol, Just make a motion that says “All gateway contracts are hereby ended”. That’s really all this motion does.
P.S. you fire all gateway operators, and guess who’s left to defend polo: nupool and nulagoon, both completely out of BTC. That leaves precisely one method for rebalance: NuLagoonTube.
I question @JordanLee’s motives in leaving only one method of entry for T4 funds.
1 Like
Good question. If you don’t control the offset, you can’t be held accountable. However, pool operators set thresholds for pool rewards. If you made these reward thresholds asymetrical, you should be fired. Did any pool operators do that? “Fired” in the context of pool operators means they can’t get any additional funding for the pool. They would need to halt operations, handover operations to someone else, or sell the pool to someone else. If any pool operators did this, I think I need to change the motion to specify this. Did any pool operator do this?
@Cybnate has always done this at CCEDK. Pretty sure you could make an argument that NuLagoon does this with the NAV.
I’ve talked about it many times in theory. Sam said it was definitely something we could do.
Seriously, why don’t you just take up T1-3. We’re all good walking away.
I’m not aware of it violating any existing motion. It probably alters some motions in an orderly and acceptable way. I could be overlooking something, so please speak up if you this is creating some circumstance that is unfair in regard to previous agreements.
I agree with you @JordanLee, but I do not want to fire anyone. As I explained above, different people are at fault for different things, you for suggesting buybacks which lowered our BTC reserve and certain FLOT members for doing what they could to preserve the remaining Bitcoin with the side effect of reducing demand.
All parties did what they did thinking they were helping the network. If any FLOT member violated any motions by doing what they did (still not sure which specific motions were violated) then I believe they should receive a warning rather than getting fired. This is still all so new and people make mistakes. For all the positive things these people have done for Nu this would be a slap in the face. Let’s not turn this into a witch hunt.
I am sure that if shareholders commanded these FLOT members to take a specific course of action through motion, that they would do it regardless of their opinions on the matter. Besides, we have a limited number of active participants here. Who is going to replace them? We need everyone we currently have in order to function properly. Let’s just call this a warning, give a punishment if necessary, but don’t completely fire them. Even employees in the real world get a warning and a 2nd chance.
5 Likes
Not sure I follow you here. Can you explain how the NAV relates to the notion of asymmetric tolerance?
As far as I am aware NuLagoon should not be affected if this motion passes.
How come the punishment is being delivered after the facts? Were we all not aware of the path MoD was undertaking during the circumstances? I feel like we all had on finger on the pulse. It’s a little late to deliver punishment to a few when the community as a system failed. Intent was good. Methods may be questionable. We need to be clear on guidelines for executing.
3 Likes
Your little baby, NuLagoon, which you want to be the centralized body that is Nu, pays people differently based on which pool they go into. These pools leverage the BTC price in different ways, in ways that benefit when the sell side is bought into vrs the buy side. It will be a mathematical argument, and require some attention to detail, but it spells out the same. Anyway, good luck with all this.
I mean have the FLOT/gateway/whatever operators violated any previous motions? If they have not, then wouldn’t it be fairer to pass a motion that requires them to change behaviour without firing them? If they fail to abide by the new motion they can be fired.
3 Likes
There isn’t any way to make the firing permanent, even if the motion passes. Shareholders could elect affected liquidity providers again at a later date if they thought it would benefit the network. When you destroy 40% of our market cap, harm confidence in our product and impair tier 4, tier 5 and tier 6 liquidity, people have to held accountable. Otherwise, our network won’t be trusted.
Yes, but as I said this is still all so new. Even I just realized what the increased spread was doing to tier 5. If I had been part of FLOT, I would most likely be fired as well. There is a large learning curve, even for people that have been here since the beginning.
So you’re saying that this is effectively more like a punishment and shareholders could always allow them back in after a period of time has passed?
Beast mode or what? Did you ask the same crystal ball for that 40% that you asked whether to conduct buybacks?
2 Likes
I can’t control what shareholders do, either now or in the future. So of course there could be a reconciliation. I think that depends on how each affected liquidity provider behaves going forward. Then there are individuals like @Cybnate who is involved in a lot of other areas. Shareholders appreciate her efforts. I certainly do. But I don’t want her conducting liquidity operations.
Given the recent events, that is a very romantic and positive assumption.
1 Like
I have taken special care in this very thread to say that this percentage is a speculation. I think if we had decided to keep liquidity going full speed at the end of May we would be up approximately 40% from where we are, meaning some of the drop came from the very large seller, but most came from abandoning the peg on the buy side.