What is most important is that shareholders make it clear that the actions of these few liquidity providers do not reflect their own values and that choosing to let the peg slip while only partially utilising tier 4, 5 and 6 will be dealt with very severely. No one will ever do it again if this motion passes, I would dare say. Everyone will know no one will do it again. That is what we need: for everyone to know this will never happen again. That is worth a lot. We must have that.
Shareholders, donāt let your sentiment and sense of compassion stop you from making it clear to the world that this will never happen again. Donāt sacrifice your investment and everything we have worked for to spare these individuals awkwardness and rejection. This is really pretty tame. We arenāt talking about executions, imprisonment, or even lawsuits of any kind. It is just firing them from a part time job that provides a very small amount of income. Their families wonāt be on the street or on social assistance because of this.
From your above reply I see this is as more about making a statement to our customer base in order to bring back confidence in our abilities, however I think that the motion would have more support if it was changed from a firing to a temporary suspension of duties, which could last a certain number of months. Shareholders will still be making a statement that they disapprove. The consequences just wonāt be as severe.
My limited understanding of the problem is that there is a conflict between preserving funds by offering $0.95, and maintaining the peg at $1 which eats up funds more quickly. In my view, maintaining the $1 peg is non-negotiable, that being the whole point of Nu.
If MoD or others made a wrong call, this should be an educational matter in the first instance. Terms such as āincompetenceā and āfiringā are not necessary and are destructive to relationships. People should be given the opportunity to recognise and correct their own mistakes and continue, otherwise we will have newcomers who will repeat those mistakes.
Since what has happened has happened, I agree with Senintel that āfireā should be replaced with āsuspendā, and a general softening of the language that recognises the contribution made to date by the individuals concerned, while emphasising the over-riding nature of Nuās strategic requirements.
This isnāt a punishment. It is a firm rejection for abandoning the peg. We, as shareholders, think this is the supreme offense: peg abandonment. It wonāt be tolerated. This has to be known.
Look, I know what you think happened, but we donāt know if thatās true because there is no true evidence. Letās just drop that line of thought as it isnāt helpful to the present situation. The language isnāt necessary either.
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 isnāt committed to that.
You couldnāt be more superficial. Eloquence fan boy.
Look, you can sleep like a baby tonight if the word āfiredā gets turned into āsuspendedā. With all due respect, given the caliber of the discussion here and the underlying mechanisms (which will always remain unknown) , you canāt be serious, can you?
I donāt 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 doesnāt and Iām afraid they might leave the community, which would be a tremendous blow to the network in terms of talent. Iāve known Cybnate and MoD for around three years now and theyāre 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. Itās 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 Iāve done the best I can to try to convince Jordan to give them some slack.
Would it make you feel any better if he admitted he was wrong about NuShare buybacks? Itās been said multiple times in this thread by different people (even me) that he was wrong to advocate for this. That doesnāt 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.
Who are these users though? Sometimes I feel like the hype and talk about NuBits is so low that itās hard to believe anyone outside this community even cares whatās going on now. Has anyone seen any posts or articles outside this forum showing that people are noticing this and itās 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.
You miss the point. I donāt 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.
I think this sums up what I would have written very accurately. Weāve accomplished a great deal as a network and overcome many previous challenges, including our 2015 exchange hackings. Letās 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 letās keep striving for that as long as possible.
Iād wager itās because he believes itās true and that itās very serious.
But Jordan, you could have executed this in a way that wouldnāt have been as likely to offend people.
@masterOfDisaster and the rest, we all love you here. Youāre 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 donāt fully understand it.
@Yurizhai, basically, because of Jordanās 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 canāt 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 Iām 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. Thatās the gist of it.