I want to win, but you’re kinda reminding me of Steve Jobs right now. He was brilliant, but ruthless and rubbed people the wrong way by acting like a jerk. We can do what must be done without resorting to childish name calling and firing a whole team of people because of one slip up.
We need these people. They’re active and most of all trusted. Who will you replace them with? There’s only so many people in our community that have the time to do this as well as the reputation. We can’t hire unknowns for such an important job.
The discretion given to FLOT simply got out of hand and major decisions were undertaken without direct approval from shareholders. These people slipped up, but we can still trust all of them to do their jobs and I believe they will comply with any motion passed by shareholders.
If you still feel so strongly about handing down consequences, alter your motion to switch from firing to suspension of duties for a period of time you deem necessary. Also remove the personal insults. Then maybe I will consider voting for it.
I believe it would be best though to just ignore this motion and instead vote for your 1% motion, dictating to FLOT members what they need to do. If they don’t comply, then we can hand down punishment. Passing your 1% motion would still be making a statement to NuBit users.
F. A. Hayek already told us how to do business, he even taught us shrink/expand currency supply with short-term lending. Unfortunataly, only a few on this forum read his book.
I’m not so sure about that. The only reason we’re in this situation is because we frittered away our BTC reserve into buybacks. If that hadn’t happened, we’d still be operating at full capacity.
As a member of FLOT for nsr and btc and bks, i think i bear some of the responsibility for the situation.
I am fine with being replaced.
PS: Gateways were filed by FLOT members from the FLOT funds. The responsibility is borne by FLOT rather than a single individual like @masterOfDisaster or @zoro .
We will be practically insulated from BTC volatility risk. The next major risk would be default risk which can be contained by not putting all our savings in one place.
We need to transfer us from a bunch of IT geeks, engineers, HR …to a group of well educated in accounting and economics theory. Issurance of stable currency will never be achieved by a group of amateurish dreamers.
Once again we are provided with the solution that is right to deal with the current situation.
I’ve provided you, shareholders, with a different view and I gave you prove of how it worked so far.
It’s right - 5% offset are worse than less than 1% spread. At least from customer point of view; customers who want to trade big amounts in a short time in exchange.
What I still haven’t found here is the answer what to do, when the BTC have been sold at a tight spread, no single BTC left.
All we have is the claim that a tight spread will fix all of our current problems, not telling how to keep any peg once there are no BTC left.
T5 and T6 don’t work very fast and not very reliably.
This is no consequence of the spread. It’s a consequence of the dire situation in which Nu is in and that was mainly caused by having insufficient reserves!
Buyers/parkers of NBT have little incentive to buy a currency token of an almost bankrupt corporation.
Buyers of NSR have little incentive to buy a share token of an almost bankrupt corporation.
The financial state is no effect of the liquidity provision. It’s the effect of mismanaged reserves.
While I could show how an increased offset (still waiting for a dump into these orders) made Nu keep the peg on a degraded peg, but reliably.
Btw. - you should fire the whole FLOT. 5 of 8 signed the tx, which sent BTC to @zoro’s and my gateways, explicitly stating what they will be used for in difference to the initial idea to send them to NuLagoon Tube.
Those 5 are incompetent and guilty as well.
The 3 who didn’t sign the tx, didn’t try to stop us or convince us to send the BTC to NLT. Guilty!
FLOT was made for keeping reserves safe in a decentralized manner and to deal with liquidity provision if a motion is too slow. FLOT did that and quite successful so far. So successful that NSR are still too expensive.
You, @JordaLee made a motion to require a spread of 1%. You could easily have written the motion in a way that makes it apply to current and not only future LP.
But the motion wasn’t in it’s way to pass. I interfered with a motion that explicitly allows NuOwned operations defend the peg at an increased offset.
We can still learn from that motion. It had a lot of support in a short time, with an insanely high SDD.
Loads of NSR were waiting to be unleashed; they did.
Yet you only try to get rid of me (instead of the whole FLOT) and accept to make @zoro and @Cybnate a collateral damage, although @zoro did only as he was requested by a FLOT member and @Cybnate did nothing at all that justifies this step. Having some more pawn sacrifices helps you cloaking the intention.
I’m dangerous, because I can look behind scenes, understand complex systems and even worse I start to articulate them.
I sound paranoid, I know, but people who do the diligence and evaluate the fact, might realize that this isn’t without reason.
The only people who profited from the buybacks were people who sold NSR for BTC.
There were few people who had a deep insight about the financial sitiluation of Nu, development funds, expenses, etc.
The same people presumably have high amounts of NSR.
Who would have had an interest to make a buyback to get NSR traded for BTC in a market that otherwise has little liquidity?
The same people who can buy back NSR cheaply after NBT were dumped into the market, draining the reserve, making Nu look desperate.
Should I ask for a report of BCE development funds? I bet that looks ok, there were enough other NBT in other pockets. So I won’t ask.
You couldn’t just get the spread reduced (I’m still waiting for your NuBot proposal to show us how you deal with the current situation at a tight spread), because that would have left me here.
You had to try to alienate me. I’m in your way to either make a lot money with Nu now dumping NBT into the buy order and buy cheap NSR with them - and maybe make even more later, if you manage to do the tightrope walk without falling.
Well played!
I’m more concerned about hidden agendas.
The prime mistake was selling BTC from the reserve. But that was only a mistake for Nu, not for the individuals, who sold.
For that mistake there’s except for the shareholders only one to blame and that isn’t me.
You have spent a lot of efforts flipping cause and effect around.
Some with less insight in this complex situation might follow you. You are the architect. You are always right, even if you are wrong.
I can’t prove that this is all a crazy plot. There’s no evidence that you dumped NSR during the buybacks and try to buy them back cheaply by almost ruining Nu. No one knows how many NSR you had at which addresses. All that remains is some hints that make this whole story look bad.
I’m not sure whether I do you a favour writing all this.
It might help you to go a step further and ban me from the Nu community, because I’m dangerous.
But as you consider having concern for feelings and politeness and such as not helpful, I thought I might spell it out.
You, @JordanLee are dangerous.
You make propaganda, while I deal with facts.
You ruined the reserves, while I kept the peg at 95%.
You present claims as truth, while the real truth might look differently.
You, @JordanLee have too much power, both by your position, the NBT you hold (e.g. on behalf of BCE), the NSR you hold and the partially blind belief people have in you.
We can and have to do exactly what the passed motions provision us to do – that’s it.
Nu is a business that decides on textual provisioning generated by humans that submit these onto the blockchain.
Everything else is secondary.
People dont meet in person and are anonymous – Emotions are secondary.
Let’s examine a bit the terms and phrases used by @JordanLee in the firing motion.
"To fire = To end the employment or service of; dismiss"
We as shareholders have decided to employ temporarily the services of the current LPCs, as per their motions and grants.
We must act exactly according to what the motions and grants say, until they remain in force.
However, no one has a permanent validity and they have a termination date and conditions.
In the sense that we cannot terminate the liquidity contract halfway through (unless provisioned by the contract itself), firing is not authorized.
But, in the sense that once the contract terminates, we can employ other custodians and decide by consensus not to renew their contracts-- firing and replacing is then authorized.
Quite a subjective definition that is emotional and is based on a value judgement.
This phrasing spans too large a range to be quite legal yet, imho.
Because there is no virtual restriction on the number of appointed successors, compensation paid and the source for that compensation.
Domain restriction, elaboration or clarification is needed.
If Jordan is really bad as you describe, nushareholders are already screwed up. Your warning is too late. And if Jordan wanna ransack lots of NSR, at least it proves he has faith on Nu’s future. In fact, the most dreadful thing is Jordan leaving us silently, a typical scamer style.
So let’s trust Jordan, if I was a nushare holder, I would even welcome this kind of ransacking, at least he has incentive to promote NSR price in future.
The low NBT trade volume at 5% offset is not better than a quick death. Today’s status will ruin customers’s faith. Nu need a “electroshock”, although NSR price will become very low and shareholders suffer a lot, or even die.
@JordanLee could you assure that the B&C development will go on even NBT pegging failed, (ie.B&C’s NBT fund)?
If someone (@masterOfDisaster) is being blamed for having destroyed 40% of an organization’s (Nu) market cap, you must expect that someone (@masterOfDisaster) to defend himself, especially when the allegations stem from a broken crystal ball or from someone (@JordanLee) who turned into beast mode for whatever (possibly suspicious) reason.
