[Withdrawn] Think big, act small and establish revenue stream


#81

It appears that the voting for this proposal is not very popular. I’m struggling with people believing that the ‘liquidity engine’ will save us all and that the belief is all in one person without any reputation and therefore nothing to lose. The only reason for this is that a majority of shareholders actually know Phoenix and vice versa and the track record he has. This would have allowed him to interactively pitch his proposal and thoughts something which can’t be done properly in the forum.

I still believe that the network needs a source of income. The events in the last 2 months are not only the result of people not following NuLaw. They are also the result of the reserves slowly and surely been eaten away by the high costs of liquidity provisioning.

Reducing these immediate costs as Phoenix proposes would probably buy us more time assuming they are successful and assuming Phoenix continues to be available being a single point of failure.

As others already said the high maintenance costs of the liquidity provision needs to be addressed. This can be done by centralising as Phoenix proposes or by embedding ways of profit in the blockchain / protocol itself as the proposal in the OP intends to do. Other options are building more advance bots with smart contracts which are able to create tiny margins out of high velocity trading.

I really hope that Shareholders can find something better than the proposal in the OP which actually does create a source of income and a price for liquidity. For what it is worth, I would be the first one to support any better alternatives.

I will keep myself available to provide some services like PyBot gateways and ALP for a few months as I have a decent infrastructure to do so. This comes at a cost, so when not utilised I will have to start using it for other ventures outside Nu. I will continue to provide services according to existing contracts (e.g NuDroid) as good as I can given the challenging environment.


#82

Creating businesses around Nu is crucial if we want to make NuBits an Internet currency.
Creating revenues models inside Nu (ex: tx fees) is also crucial.
The automatic burning based on coinage wants to be such a revenue model, I understand.
However, I still think it would be controversial for holders to lose nubits if they do not park, depending on the burning rate.
Any idea on the rate itself?
And in terms of implementation, what does @sigmike think?


#83

I’ve more or less responded here:


The rate will depend on the shareprice/sales and the time we want the peg established. The lower the rate and the lower the shareprice, the longer it takes to establish the peg with adequate reserves. In my proposal set at 50% together with the revenues plan to provide the confidence required to sustain the peg.

Re sigmike thoughts, I asked the same when asking for the details:
Basically his thoughts are also reflected in this earlier post: [Withdrawn] Think big, act small and establish revenue stream Leave it to him to respond in more detail, but from my conversations I understand the following: As most real world people operating within businesses, he believes in a model that can create revenue.

The trouble is that we have to sort out the debts first which is unpopular. It is certainly not only NBT holders paying with my proposal. The continuing auctions dilute the shareholders significantly, not even talking about the shareprice.

Going forward only NBT holders trading and using the liquidity will pay for that, generating revenues. Holders and quick transactions in- and out won’t be punished other than normal transaction fees.


#84

Yes it would have required basically unanimous support by non JL shares in order to even have a slight chance to pass. Good that you made this motion before even more work was put into this.

I read some posts that brought up the idea to make a new genesis block and to find a way to properly distribute the initial shares among actually interested and participating previous NSR holders. Looking at the correlation of opinions here on the forum and the voting in generated blocks, I think we can also keep the forum, and @phoenix can post his motions somewhere else - it doesn’t matter anyway if he posts them, since he can just create and add the hash to his client to make it pass.

Let me know if this idea of a new distribution takes any shape. I am almost certain that exchanges will be on our side.


#85

Why are you certain? Doesn’t the fork tax traders more? Does the new coin bring more profit to exchanges (more volume)?


#86

Together with the newly printed 20M NSR (+ future grants to himself), Jordan has around 60% to 70% of the staking weights. If a transaction is considered to be confirmed after 10 blocks, this means that a double spend attack both for NSR and NBT succeeds with a probability between ~0.5% and ~2.5%. Poloniex is registered in the USA, and if they suffer a loss due to a double spend then they need to reimburse their users and won’t get away with some BTER shit.

If Poloniex somehow gets informed about whats going on here with the Nu blockchain, then they will drop the daemon like a hot potato, or at least freeze trading, since its their own money which is at stake here.


#87

I’m not certain either; I’m less worried about exchanges at the moment than a solid community, a leader who doesn’t abscond, and a business model that includes revenue.

Also it is becoming more apparent that the distribution of Nu shares may not have been done fairly – that the end state was a potential majority of voting shares being held or under the control or influence of one person. While technically it is a distributed autonomous org, I don’t think it is in the spirit that many of us had hoped.

A fork would accomplish these. (Ugh, not feeling good to say that). I would not call it Nu.

Logistically it would be possible to do a distribution as follows:

  • all Share addresses showing a vote for this (or some other) motion would be accepted into the new chain.
  • for those that have minimal shares, we may need to leave the voting period up for an extended time – like a month – so statistically there is a chance to vote.
  • We may need to have a threshold of 80% of the funds on those addresses have to vote (and have to stay there)
  • new coin, new rules: we could eliminate all addresses used to vote for Phoenix’s candidacy for Chief of Liquidity ops
  • It’d be a chance to fix the “decimal place issue”

As far as goals or roadmap, in addition to all the above:

  • Maybe the new coin, exchange support, and pegged but profitable liquidity can all be in place before Nu burns down again.
  • Maybe we pivot hard and support a different currency out of the gate (i.e.: CNY)
  • Maybe we offer to buy USNBT at some fraction of NBT so people can bail, and we can sell them at parity to JordanLee on the 3rd attempt to re-establish the peg

#88

It’s not that unthinkable to have a fork. I used to think how to find the best parameter set (POS reward, transaction fee, not-voting=not-ageeing, how many days after moving before a share is able to mint … ). I thought if there is a grid of forks of Nu with different parameters/policies and people can move fund from one chain to another freely, then maybe the best parameter set can be found out. I guess @Sabreiib has something on competing currencies here.


#89

Unfortunately that’s not so easy because JL can easily move or mix the coins, or obfuscate their trace by sending them to an exchange and back to new addresses. The initial distribution of PoS coins is an unsolved problem and the approach taken in Nu now proves that it requires a lot of care and transparency to somehow ensure proper decentralization.

And even with a good initial state the system can diverge quickly if shares can be traded on exchanges and the price drops. As mentioned numerous times on this forum, by many different people, the best way would be to make shares non transferable (i.e. they cannot be sold) but only to allow to burn shares for NBT (and vice versa), such that the DAO can protect itself in a bad market situation by adapting the share / token price on-chain.


#90

Can we poison-pill the motion? “If this motion passes, the Chief of Liquidity Ops role is hereby eliminated”

Fully understand that it is not ideal. But what is the best way to capture the representation of those who see a different direction?

One of the criticism of the dividends was that it could be sending value to addresses that were lost or no longer active. I think with a modified dividend system, where they are distributed only to shares that were seen voting in the last N days/weeks/months.

It would definitely change the construct of share ownership as voting rights, not a hot stock to flip. Though without a doubt some market would emerge for the shares.


#91

My 2 cents:


#92

I only find 1/5 number of blocks a day compared with before.


#93

that’s interesting


#94

(1) JL theory: a peg perfectly maintained --> NSR goes up --> we can feed back positively the buy side of NBT walls
(2) non-JL theory: peg maintenance costs and should be paid for by revenues coming from the use of the peg

I believe currently, (1) and (2) should be tested on a thought experiment basis first, and tested then by running the practical experiments, to find out


#95

Offtopic: Doing a bit better but still lost half. The difficulty is still increasing to a situation more than a year ago. With the high SDD’s seen recently it is clear that a lot of shares have been taken out of cold storage to support Phoenix’ proposals.

I’m on the fence. I support an evolving and competing network and if one stalls then it would make sense, but maybe it is too early. It will be very interesting to see what happens in the next few weeks, someone’s reputation, although anonymous is on the line.

Reverting back to the same centralised model as we tried when we started Nu would be a loss and repeating mistakes without learning. The liquidity provisioning costs would be lower than the decentralised model, but a revenue model with a remote chance of succeeding now or in the future is still lacking or at least not being communicated clearly. I would hope that some improvements will be made, but that only happens when Phoenix is really smart :sunglasses:


#96

Interesting


#97

NSR is at 57 SAT, there are over 20 BTC in close sell orders in the NBT market with no buy support. At the same time the entire buy side order book of NSR contains less than 8 BTC.

Do the math, and cast your vote accordingly. There is no way to escape this vicious circle without forcing the NBT sell wall tokens to be sent to an offline wallet. Don’t wait until you are entirely forgotten, both by the customers and by the community members who cannot look at this any longer.


#98

Unfortunately I can’t agree more.
If this is going on much longer this way here, one might create a new way elsewhere…


#99

Until the Shareholders realise that phoenix is not the chicken with the golden eggs, this is going nowhere.
I noticed that the support for this proposal is also waning, probably indicating that either the supporting shareholders of this proposal stopped minting or just sold whatever they had into a bear market. It might already be too late.

Will give it another two or three months to see if phoenix and supports get back to common sense or miracles happen. If not I will announce that I turn off the lights and all infra still on standby from my side and move on to greener pastures.


#100

The sooner there is unity around the notion that we don’t break our promises to NuBit holders and we don’t plot plans to steal their value the better. @Cybnate you have hurt confidence in NuBits and our network with this horrific idea of burning NuBits that customers hold and paid $1 for. This after you and about a half dozen other incompetent actors destroyed 2 million USD in our market cap and another 500,000 USD in NuBit value. Shame on you and your co-conspirators! You and your co-conspirators made everyone (NuBit holders, NuShare holders, BlockShare holders, NuLagoon users and contractors) losers. We could have all won if our plan had been followed. That is very sad.

I have been able to raise the price level of NuBits more than 300% in a month, I have tentatively stabilized the price for weeks now, and I did so with zero reserves and no park rates. It has been a spectacular performance.

The results very strongly indicate we had ample funds available at the end of May to rebuild tier 4 reserves and continuously offer good liquidity at $1.00. We have averaged around 3000 USD per day in NSR sales after you and the other rebels destroyed 85% of NuShare value, nearly as much of the NuBit price, and the vast majority of confidence and trust in our product and network. I estimate that had we made an earnest attempt to sell NSR before any loss of liquidity occurred we could have raised three or four times as many reserves to due a higher NuShare price, an unbroken peg and much higher confidence in our system. That is around 10,000 USD per day and $300,000 over the last month. That would have been plenty. It is painful to me that we didn’t take that path. After all, that was our formal, painstakingly created plan.

Having played a central role in the loss of around $3,000,000 in NuShares, BlockShares and NuBits I think it is fair to say your are personally responsible for hundreds of thousands in losses. Will you please stop adding losses by advocating institutionalizing theft among us? Is that too much to ask?