Voting Closed: Disbanding Select P4C Projects & Reallocating Dev Funds

For someone who wants to improve the image, branding of peercoin.

“because Jordan Lee was found out to be a scammer and now owns over 51% of the network”

Is some pretty damming and forward statement with no evidence linked for others to investigate and come to the same conclusion if this is the case.

I personally have had many dealings with Jordan Lee and everything was more than amicable… The whole concept of peercoin security being done by those who have the most to loose is surely under threat if what u say is true?. Can you actually provide any evidence to say that 51% attacks have happened. And that they were from Jordan Lee?

Something like this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=102638.msg10617014#msg10617014 gives your reader much more reason to believe what you are saying and shows u have done your homework.

Fuzzybear

[quote=“Sentinelrv, post:20, topic:4082”][quote=“hrobeers, post:19, topic:4082”]How many peershares forks are running without counting the ones created by the peershare team?
I started one, but it’s not running anymore. I’m interested in hearing more stories.[/quote]

From my understanding, there are none. Nu and B&C were the only ones. Augeas is a brand new fork, but the only reason it exists is because Jordan Lee was found out to be a scammer and now owns over 51% of the network. Nu is dead because of this, as he now has the ability to perform a 51% attack on the network, plus he can pass any motion he wants by himself and increase the supply at will.

Also, since it looks like he will most likely refuse to hand over B&C dev funds to shareholders, B&C will most likely also be dead. Nobody knows what kind of network Augeas will become. I have also notified them about PeerAssets in case they decide to give up on Peershares.

Basically, Nu and B&C have exposed the flaws of the Peershares model. People didn’t realize these flaws a couple years ago, but they do now. Somebody can own 51% of a corporation in real life and can make whatever decision they want and have total control, however there is no comparable history/security that can be attacked in real life. That is one of the major flaws with Peershares.

A 51% attack can’t be committed with PeerAssets, as the security of the network is instead being handled by Peercoin. Peercoin itself would need to be compromised in order for that to happen. Distribution will no longer be a vital part of security with PeerAssets.

Plus there is the fact that blockchain security experts like Sigmike can be expensive to hire in order to do security patches for the network. As hrobeers said, DACs should only have to focus on their core business, not worry about all these other security issues and how to fund blockchain upkeep.[/quote]

I am inclined to agree. Events at Nu since the summer have certainly been surprising, and Jordan/Phoenix very caesartorial, but if scamming was his agenda, he could have sold someone the Tower of London for much less effort than claiming to set up a stable, decentralised cryptocoin

That is not to say Nushareholders should not be on the alert

This is a community, not just you guys, I believe that make a vote will be fair,More than 51% of victory,I hope yours don’t learn from John Trump
by the way,cheat lee was missing

Fuzzy, I probably should have explained things a bit more for you, since you haven’t been around. I didn’t explain because this is all well known by everyone at this point. It has become the common joke around here. We don’t know exactly what has happened with him, but there are two theories. Either he is truly trying to scam people, or that he believes so much in his system that he became corrupted and tried to secretly take ownership of the network for himself. Let me explain what happened and what most previous NuShareholders believe happened.

It all started with this motion…

https://discuss.nubits.com/t/passed-motion-to-end-lpc-operations-of-ktm-jamie-and-nsr-sales-of-jordan/1466

When our network began, we had a way to increase the NuBit supply at the will of shareholders. We then decided to add a way to decrease the NuBit supply at the expense of increasing the NuShare supply (due in the 0.6.0 release). It should not be surprising then, that a mechanism for reducing the NuShare supply would also be introduced, to complete our flexible supply of both shares and currency.

Specifically, I am proposing that in most cases, instead of distributing dividends, proceeds from the sale of NuBits be used to purchase NuShares in the open market, which are then burned. This is commonly done with equities and is known as a share buyback. Due to low liquidity in the NuShare market, we can expect such activity will have a marked positive effect on the NuShare price. This high NuShare price will enhance our ability to sell NuShares later when we are in the opposite part of our economic cycle and need to support the NuBit price. Therefore, we will have two complimentary mechanisms which are the exact inverse of one another:

  1. When NuBit demand is low, NuShares will be created and sold while NuBits will be purchased with the proceeds and burned. NuShare supply increases as NuBit supply decreases. This depresses the NuShare price as it supports the NuBit price to the pegged level.
  2. When NuBit demand is high, NuBits will be created and sold while NuShares will be purchased with the proceeds and burned. NuBit supply increases as NuShare supply decreases. This inflates the NuShare price as it suppresses the NuBit price to the pegged level.

This motion was the beginning of Nu’s downfall. What ended up happening is that we did NuShare buybacks with most of our reserves, placing the reserve value in NuShares, leaving us with only a tiny reserve left in Bitcoin. When Bitcoin started rising in price about 4-5 months ago, everyone was selling their NuBits, which put tremendous strain on the peg. Our Bitcoin reserve was wiped out pretty quickly. We tried to delay running out of Bitcoin by offering to buy NuBits back at $0.95 instead of the normal price, that way we had enough time to do NuShare auctions to raise additional funds to support the peg. However, Jordan’s system linked above failed. As soon as people realized Nu was bankrupt, NuShares collapsed in price and nobody wanted to buy a depreciating asset like that. With no way to draw support from NuShares like planned, the peg went into freefall.

About a week or two later, Jordan returned under a brand new forum name, Phoenix. We didn’t realize it was him at first, but it quickly became obvious. He had the exact same personality, writing style and made the exact same arguments. It was not known why he changed his user name and he wouldn’t explain it to NuShareholders when asked about it. He simply ignored it and made it his sole mission to restore the peg.

Shareholders were discussing about how this happened and exactly what went wrong and how we could fix it. Jordan’s NSR buyback program was listed as the single largest cause. Then there was also the fact that Nu had no actual way to earn revenue to continue operation long-term. Revenue was supposed to be earned through on-chain transaction fees, however NuBits were mostly used off-chain on exchanges. Our liquidity operations to support the peg are expensive. With no revenue to cover these expenses, even without the NSR buyback program, Nu would have eventually run completely out of funds to support the peg.

So ways to incorporate revenue were being discussed and even some motions popped up detailing how we could run a sustainable operation and maybe even make a profit. Jordan/Phoenix didn’t want to hear any of this though. He setup motions to begin the process of restoring the peg. probably something like 90% of people on the forum were voicing opposition to his plan, because they didn’t want to restart Nu until we were able to incorporate some kind of revenue scheme into the system. Jordan/Phoenix ignored all pleas from shareholders to incorporate ways to earn revenue and didn’t think it was important to discuss. Shareholders were so upset with him because they wanted Nu to be sustainable in the long-term. Simply restarting Nu without a proper way to generate revenue would end up leading to the same result in the future. Nu would end up running out of reserve funds to support the currency due to the costs incurred.

Jordan/Phoenix then began setting up motions that created a position know as Chief of liquidity Operations and began actively campaigning to take this role for himself. This role meant that he would be the sole decision maker when it came to liquidity operations. He was trying to centralize all power to himself. He would control the funds and he would decide what to do with them. And suddenly all of his motions started passing in the face of overwhelming opposition from shareholders on the forum. It didn’t make any sense. How could his motions to centralize power to himself all be passing when pretty much every shareholder on the forum was against him?

There was one possible explanation that people kept coming back to. Jordan/Phoenix purposefully sold us all on the NSR buyback program knowing that it was going to crash the system. While shareholders were conducting NSR buybacks and raising the price, Jordan/Phoenix was on the other end selling his NSR into the buybacks and getting BTC for it. Once the buyback program ended and Nu’s BTC reserve was tapped out, it was only a matter of time until BTC started rising and Nu would run out of funds to support the peg. Once NuBits went into freefall and NSR price collapsed, Jordan most likely used all the BTC he earned from selling into the buybacks and bought all the NSR that was being sold by everyone. If this is true, it means that he purposefully crashed the peg in order to achieve enough NSR to fully control the network by himself.

On the forum however he was presenting a show for everyone, claiming that real shareholders were voting for his motion while simple forum posters were against it, while in reality the most likely scenario is that he pre-planned all of this and that he was now most likely controlling voting by himself, pretending for the public that shareholders still had full control. And then mhps came out with this analysis of Nu’s blockchain, confirming what we all feared: https://discuss.nubits.com/t/voting-address-census-who-are-voting-for-what/4300

NSR auction started being conducted to raise enough funding to restore the peg. Massive amounts of NSR dilution was required in order to make this happen. It’s possible that Jordan or friends of his were the ones that were buying, but we don’t know this. The peg was restored recently and Jordan/Phoenix asked for a massive performance bonus of 110 million NSR here…

https://discuss.nubits.com/t/voting-performance-bonuses-for-peg-restoration/4661

After criticism from the community started, a bunch of brand new accounts popped up out of nowhere supporting him and all of his posts. We believe these were just more sock puppet accounts of his. Jordan/Phoenix then posted the following…

https://discuss.nubits.com/t/voting-performance-bonuses-for-peg-restoration/4661/44

He is now just handing out NSR like they’re candy to brand new forum accounts simply for agreeing with him, most likely another way to get more NSR for himself.

Here is a thread showing that much of the dev funds for B&C Exchange simply went missing. Jordan/Phoenix controls it and refuses to answer any of our questions.

https://discuss.nubits.com/t/bks-expenditure-where-did-the-money-go/4645

While Jordan seems to control all of Nu, it is obvious he doesn’t control B&C yet. He does control a significant amount of BlockShares, but not enough to control all voting. Anyway, when B&C was first trying to raise funding for development, it was said by Jordan that we were not able to raise enough. Suddenly these seed investors (who never posted publicly) magically came onto the scene and funded a lot of the goal for a large portion of the shares. We did not think anything of it at the time, but now we are starting to realize that these secret seed investors were most likely Jordan finding a way to get like 30% of BKS for himself without having to put in any funding.

Anyway, he doesn’t control B&C yet, even though he does have a large share. Because of this, we were recently able to pass a motion to form a multisig group that is supposed to take over B&C dev funds from Jordan/Phoenix once 6 individual multisig members are elected. However, another brand new forum account has popped up because of this development (most likely belonging to Phoenix). This new account is making threatening posts indicating that Jordan/Phoenix most likely will not comply with any motion that B&C shareholders pass that order him to hand over the dev funds. This to me seem to be an indication that the dev funds might not exist any more, but we don’t know yet. Either way, all of this is possible because Jordan/Phoenix would refuse to make any accounting public, even when asked. We trusted him too much and now it looks like we might have lost all of our dev funds to him forever.

Much has changed though recently. Woodstockmerkle worked in secret to identify the shares belonging to people who did not vote for Jordan/Phoenix’s motions and created a separate network based on that. He calls the network Augeas and NuShareholders who no longer have control over the network can claim their shares in Augeas by importing their NuShares wallet. The Augeas network has no purpose or product yet, however it is free from the influence of Jordan/Phoenix. That network was announced here…

https://discuss.nubits.com/t/the-augeas-launch-thread/4682

Anyway, I understand that there is no direct proof, but there are too many things that point to this or some of it being true. Just go to the Nu forum and look around. It has been chaos over the past 4-5 months and there has been much hate for Jordan/Phoenix, even to the point that a separate network had to be created to get rid of him completely.

A vote can be held if you guys want, but I think more discussion is needed first to figure out what will be included or excluded. We also need to give more time in case developers from previous projects still want to continue those projects or not. The two weeks is given for them to have a chance to speak up if they want to.

FuzzyBear, so what is your opinion on Peershares funds after I have explained the above. Would you still wish us to leave those funds out for the work you did? We need to hear back from you to see if your thoughts have changed first and then we can figure out if we need to have a vote or anything on this. If you still wish to keep the funds for your work, then I will support that, however I hope you see above that I was not just making stuff up.

Hey Sentinelrv,

Many thanks for your explanation and links to the important threads and evidence. The issue seems to me to be one relating to the Nubits Nushares model, not the Peershares model from what I can see. The pegging of the $ against the crypto combined with the ability to vote on motions to decide how the DAO moves in what direction is what came under scrutiny when people realised that certain motions were not passing and other gaining community support.

The voting motions and Nushares / Nubits aspects were never implemented in Peershares. I have a fork that is soon to launch that would very much NOT want to see these funds moved from this repo and though Peershares was Jordan Lee’s initial project I do not feel it should be abandoned just because of one bad experience in a fork of it. Same goes for the roll your own DAC project.

Fuzzybear

[quote=“FuzzyBear, post:27, topic:4082”]The voting motions and Nushares / Nubits aspects were never implemented in Peershares. I have a fork that is soon to launch that would very much NOT want to see these funds moved from this repo and though Peershares was Jordan Lee’s initial project I do not feel it should be abandoned just because of one bad experience in a fork of it. Same goes for the roll your own DAC project.

Fuzzybear[/quote]

Thanks Fuzzy, I’m sure the community will agree with you.
Peershares is a valid project, nobody doubts that.
Now we know that you still have plans with it, I’m sure the funds won’t be touched.

Can fuzzy make something happen with the funds by Jan 1?

Which funds? and what do you want me to do with them? sorry I dont understand your post

Fuzzybear

the funds from peer4commit,

Peershares : 2438.19 PPC
Roll your own DAC: 1987.22 PPC

not much, considering current price level but it is something

Which funds? and what do you want me to do with them? sorry I dont understand your post

Fuzzybear[/quote]

It happened when JL made firing the entire liquidity operations team his top priority. The liquidity infrrastructure couldn’t function without daily human actions. JL literally pushed the peg into the void with his own hands. From his posts it seemed to me that he might not realize what he was doing because he didn’t appear to realize key details such as who-does-what and wider spreads, that had been going on for months. I suspect that this blunder was one of the reason of his identity suicide.

So why the stipulation of Jan the 1st to do something with them by?

Fuzzybear

[quote=“irritant, post:31, topic:4082”]the funds from peer4commit,

Peershares : 2438.19 PPC
Roll your own DAC: 1987.22 PPC

not much, considering current price level but it is something

Which funds? and what do you want me to do with them? sorry I dont understand your post

Fuzzybear[/quote][/quote]

[quote=“FuzzyBear, post:27, topic:4082”]Many thanks for your explanation and links to the important threads and evidence. The issue seems to me to be one relating to the Nubits Nushares model, not the Peershares model from what I can see. The pegging of the $ against the crypto combined with the ability to vote on motions to decide how the DAO moves in what direction is what came under scrutiny when people realised that certain motions were not passing and other gaining community support.

The voting motions and Nushares / Nubits aspects were never implemented in Peershares. I have a fork that is soon to launch that would very much NOT want to see these funds moved from this repo and though Peershares was Jordan Lee’s initial project I do not feel it should be abandoned just because of one bad experience in a fork of it. Same goes for the roll your own DAC project.[/quote]

I reached out to you to see if you could chat with us about PeerAssets, but I’ve received no response. Whether this is due to lack of time or interest, I’m not sure, but I will caution here that if you do go with Peershares for your DAC, it will be much more of a struggle to get it launched. You will need to ensure that when you conduct your ICO that you find enough investors to have a properly distributed DAC, or else you will run into the same problem that Nu did.

You will also lack support from the community, as the DAC will exist outside of the Peercoin ecosystem. If you were to use PeerAssets instead, distribution is not important for security and since the DAC will be hosted on top of Peercoin, you will have the full support of the community, including advertising and investors. I’m sure the community would be willing to do what they can to support any DAC on top of Peercoin, because it would only serve to make our network stronger, more useful and valuable. Building outside the Peercoin ecosystem will do nothing for the community, so there is less of an incentive to support the DAC. I would stongly recommend that you go with PeerAssets instead in order to take advantage of these benefits. We are always available to talk about it with you in case you change your mind.

I updated the op with this…

Voting Begins:
After almost 3 weeks, no one else has come forward to claim these projects. Since a long time has already been given to voice opposition, we will settle this by giving a short 3 day voting period.

After some discussion, the following project funds WILL NOT be reallocated:

  • PyBitmessage
  • Peershares
  • Roll Your Own DAC

The following projects WILL have their funds reallocated if the community votes to do so…

That is a total of 11,841.34 PPC that will be reallocated, 75% to PeerAssets and 25% to PeerKeeper.

Voting Rules:
Please vote yes or no. Your membership on this forum must be at least a week old and have at least 2 posts prior to the beginning of voting. This is to prevent fake accounts from affecting the voting. Voting ends late Sunday.

I vote yes. It’s obvious that these two projects are vital to the success of Peercoin. They will help us get off the ground and start moving forward again.

The OP is confusing about whether or not peershares and roll your own dac are being reallocated. I vote yes if those projects are excluded.

I vote yes, as long as peershares and roll your own DAC are excluded.

Sorry. I made it clearer. Those projects will be excluded.

Yes.