Following @Cybnate’s request I continue the comparison of XSPEC and NBT here.
In addition, your money is gone should @jooize die from a flu or get hit by a car. Not sure if that is the kind of savings account you are looking for @cybnate? Considering how (not) smart you are, I guess that is what you like.
We are working on addressing that. It has been acknowledged that it is not a great situation. The situation has evolved from the context of lost funds or dysfunctional responses in multisig accounts a while ago. It is understandable that shareholders are hesitating. However I believe that we should return to multisig asap but with some clear contracts and proof of significant shareholding included. It is not so easy to implement without having shareholders loosing the ability to mint and vote. Two crucial aspects of being a shareholder in the Nu network. Work in progress.
I remember that very recently a lot of money (NSR) was lost, when Phoenix had the sole control and responsibility over it.
Now you have another single point of major failure and call it not great.
I call it horrible, lessons not learned, irresponsible, shameless.
Buyers of NBT and NSR need to consider this risk. The way Nu does its “business” could be called funny if less were at stake for NSR and NBT holders.
I seem to remember the major reason that cause the dysfunctional responses and found the thread:
Here’s an assessment of one of the signers:
And here an assessment from a reputed contributor:
The situation is more complex than it appears and I wouldn’t want to spare Jordan from blame where he clearly earns most of it.
We can argue for ages about this. My takeaway from the events is that better contracts with clearer expectations and incentives for both parties are needed. I don’t agree it was well spelled out by motion, it was one of the reasons why I didn’t join FLOT. Having FLOT trying to sort out things on the way was not a good idea imo. Nagalim basically says the same in your quote. Shareholders and FLOT were clearly not on the same page.
The other part is to prevent people from jumping ship when it gets too hot in the kitchen they will need to have a stake in it. Some FLOT participants probably only had marginally small stakes or none. The only way to have stakes is at least prove ownership of significant shares when entering the contract AND have them partially locked up in a way tied to the contract. Ideally there should also be funds locked from contract holders (shareholders) when they are not playing by the contract. It sounds simple, but this type of contract is not yet simple to set up.
Re performance we all know that the fees are not covering expenses by any means. The same is the case for Bitcoin. The gains are being made on the asset itself. Eventually the fees should cover the expenses and you would have a sustainable blockchain, but we are years away from that, not only for NSR but also for BTC and many other coins.
So Xspec might win because their asset will increase in value when more people start buying because there is a believe than eventually some money might be made (BTW I have no idea what Xspec is about). NuBits will be stable, that is the point of it. When the money supply needs to shrink because demand is low providing an incentive to park Nubits is one of the options. Whether the provided rates are enough to have people parking the coin over selling it is a matter of markets. When BTC is increasing rapidly it will be hard to compete when it is on a downslide it will be easy and low rates might be adequate. Over time other methods for shrinking the money supply should be introduced imo.