CCEDK welcomes and more than happy to announce that we offer liquidity of 5 mill NuShares (on both, buy and sell sides, 2.5 mill NSR on each side) in 6 trading pairs: NSR/PPC, NSR/BTC, NSR/NBT, NSR/Euro, NSR/USD, NSR/CYN!
We always supported development and had and still have a big trust in NSR, and Nu period, notwithstanding any troubles or hard times. We, CCEDK exchange, believe in NuShares, and want to invest and support this currency.
That is why, current moment we already put in trades around 5 000 000 NSR to support it and going to keep it up.
We believe in it, and have a strong desire to develop it.
You all are more than welcomed to visit CCEDK and trade in NSR!
We will keep here posting news and updates concerning trades in NSR
Than you for your continued effort to support NuNet.
It’s very welcome to see your faith in NuShares and NuBits:
Have you considered proposing for a role as LPC?
Running an exchange deals with handling money, keeping the trade engine online, etc.
Most of what’s required when being an LPC and running a NuBot is what you already do 24x7.
So why not provide liquidity and make some money by
the trading fees AND
a custodial fee
more users with even more trading activity being attracted by the high liquidity
That way you’d not only support NuNet directly (in which you have a big trust as you say), but you had a gain for the ccedk exchange as well.
Imagine the impact this can have when people want to find out where big liquidity is and decide to use ccedk instead of other exchanges!
Imagine there could be an Android wallet, that not only supports Shapeshift (Release 2), but ccedk as well to pay with NBT that are automatically converted then. Users could choose the best rate (between Shapeshift and ccedk) and the more users and the more trade volume you have, the better the rates
And as you don’t have to consider exchange default (to a certain degree; hey, it’s your exchange!) when calculating the custodial fee, I bet you can make a highly competitive proposal.
How does that sound?
You are right that @benjyz has made good points against exchanges being LPC.
I didn’t make this clear. I was thinking of exchanges being LPC in NBT/USD trading pair solely.
It will be hard to manipulate the market offering only NBT/USD liquidity.
And with the reporting that is required by LPC’s they will have a hard time to manipulate something and never getting caught with it (that applies to a certain degree to non-USD pairs as well).
Of all trading pairs I consider the USD trading pair the utmost important.
I don’t consider buy walls at 0.998 USD/NBT and sell walls at 1.002 USD/NBT being impartial or manipulating a market.
If crypto currency exchanges would like to be perfectly impartial, they’d need to step out of USD and other fiat currencies as well.
But there needs to be a way to deposit and withdraw fiat money to connect the exchange to the rest of the financial world.
I want that connection for NBT as well!
Knowing that the exchange offers deep liquidity in the USD trading pair, will make it easy to do arbitrage on non-USD trading pairs leading to a very little spread.
NuBots in non-USD trading pairs will simply not be necessary then.
I agree with this full stop. I have suggested this a few times. You mentioned the exchange default risk being mitigated and competitive fees which are also great points. In fact, it would push LPC competition on CCEDK into BTC/NBT, etc. which only increases the volume on CCEDK even more. There is no reason for shareholders or traders to worry about an exchange that decides to provide liquidity to NBT/USD. That is our stable and low risk pair. In fact if your exchange has low USD liquidity, having a highly liquid NBT/USD pair enables traders to easily exchange in and out of USD on their exchange.
When you look back, retrospectively, and look at all the marketing work CCEDK has made(well, I know Nubits head guys dont like to do articles, but I did and CCEDK and myself personally have made more articles on Nubits and Nushares than what has been done totally on Nubits and Nushares elsewhere), the fact that CCEDK said yes to have Nubits on their exchange when nobody else did, the volumes we managed to preesent on CCEDK promtoing Nubits and Nushares ones again on CMC, the time and efforts spent on promoting Nushares and Nubits on various forums, although some with less luck than others, and when you look at what was the activity when CCEDK was involved and what is it when it is not, you might want to rephrase this question to: what on earth made CCEDK think that they could help create awareness of Nubits and Nushares in a common goal of making Nubits the main currency in the world, and Nushares the preferred asset to invest in?
I dont want our efforts to seem like the only important ones here, but I believe we have done a great effort creating awaremess of Nubits and Nushares everywhere in the world, and we have been treated as our only purpose was to make Nubits look bad and Nushares as well, its just too bad, as I feel Nushares and Nubits has a great future, and especially with my own energy and positive way of presenting both!
I can only say that once all is settled with KTM and shareholders in general it is time to look for some currency who will appreciate the efforts an exchange thinking out of the box is offering. What other exchanges do you know of who has made one word in public about Nubits and Nushares?
Someone who do care and meant this liquidity on CCEDK as a way of showing that there was plenty of interest for Nushares!
We are still here and appreciate all the support the Nubits community is willing to offer and as you can see it is paid back tenfold in marketing, and mind you none of it is paid for but merely acheived through engagement and interest, and journalists spot that immediately!
You clearly are suggesting this with your long-winded and martyred tone.
No, you have been treated as an exchange that dishonestly tried to keep a theft quiet, attacked our team’s ethics, and ignored questions from @JordanLee as to why you suggested it was Nu’s fault that BTC was stolen from your system. It is disappointing to watch your failed strategy of hoping that prolonged silence will make traders forget that CCEDK has still not made a public statement or apology on its website.
Nu is heading towards an era of larger, more trustworthy centralized exchanges, with the goal of one day establishing reliable operations on trustless decentralized exchanges. I have no idea what would motivate someone to use CCEDK at this point.
Honestly @ronny, we’re not trying to be nasty about this, but the things mentioned here by @tomjoad are all true…
And regards to this…
I have personally read custodians here that have recently decided not to provide liquidity on your exchange because of the damage that has been caused by not being completely open and transparent.
Have you seen the difference in reactions here between BTER’s hacking and CCEDK? I have read reactions of people here being appreciative of the transparency, honesty and constant updates that BTER has provided to address their situation.
In contrast, we know that you were giving false statements about the health of your exchange just prior to Jordan revealing this wasn’t the truth. You decided that trying to keep this information secret was the best course of action and even after it came to light, we have had nothing but silence and important unanswered questions from your end.
I think you need to face the reality that your current strategy of silence is not exactly inspiring confidence in your exchange. I think what you need to do is accept the reality of what has happened, start a new thread, apologize to the community and come clean and answer any questions we can throw at you open and honestly. Then you need to publicly announce this on your exchange and give informative and constant updates until the problem has been resolved. This attempt at true transparency could possibly help to repair some of the damage that has been done, but there can be no guarantees.
I appreciated what you did to help promote Nu greatly, but this is a completely separate issue and has changed my opinion of your exchange greatly. One thing that is clear is that your current strategy is NOT helping your cause. It is completely up to you to accept what has happened and do your best to be transparent, open and honest about it. I hope you take my words seriously.
I hear you @Sentinelrv, you speak clear in a way appreciated, and we will get back as soon as we feel we have some solid infomation. Untill then we just felt it was talk, sorry if that is not clear.
I understand your point with Bter, I also understand that going out and saying we are now ok again can change a lot, but we are not Bter, and we want to be able to stand up for what we say when we say it, so any requests for comments before that really just dont go, sorry. We expect to make general statement sometimes next week, and dont worry, I dont need your guarantees. Our focus is to get back with or without the support from Nubits, we do hope ofcourse it will be with.
We lost btc due to NU not being open source, its as simple as that, but I will try to explain in later communication how this was possible, although I believe @Ben could enlighten you on that part, as he was the one giving great help getting us back on right track after seeing numerous users running away with Nushares or btc exchanged from Nushares not belonging to them in the first place.
More information on our various hacks and similar issues it is unclear to me why @Jordanlee did not post that second letter to KTM, when I sent both of them to him, so if you want information earlier than what I can give you, you might just want to have that second letter.
@ronny, while it’s true that a configuration issue involving the avatar=1 flag was the catalyst for NSR transfer issues within CCEDK’s user wallet, it isn’t reasonable to attempt to assign blame to the availability of Nu’s code base.
Our team has always been available (free of charge) to discuss implementation with anyone looking to add NBT or NSR to their exchange or site. You and I have engaged in many conversations over the past eight months, through IM, email, and voice calls, so I know that it’s not a lack of availability on our part. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that the CCEDK development team went ahead with a launch of the NSR markets based on assumptions without testing different scenarios, or asking for a review.
Implementation details (including the clearly marked notice about the avatar switch) have been available on our documentation site (docs.nubits.com) since mid-October.
Even if Nu’s source code had been open before you had implemented the markets can you honestly tell me that you, Oleg, Ivan, or Nick would have put aside the time to review the code in depth to discover the differences on your own?
You need to stop this, @ronny. This is your fault. I warned you that your exchange was leaking NSR into my account and you did not address this problem with any sense of urgency. Your dev contacted me in Russian, while I clearly do not speak it. I highly regret that I trusted you and your team to fix the problem instead of taking the path in which @mhps took in regards to alerting the community in a loud manner when AllCoin had this problem.
@GreatScott Thank you for returning the Nushares had you received wrongly. And sorry for having someone speak russian to you, it was asumed with the name you presented on exchange and was only considered an extra service going bad.