Thank you @tomjoad for your elaboration.
I was trying to put the everlasting hope for the next thing to be the most awesome thing the world has seen in the tongue-in-cheek comment
I mean, seriously, there’s no continuously available testnet? How do they test protocol changes, new client versions, etc.?
But there seems to be more trouble related to upgrade.
If I read comments like
I wonder how that is not controlled by the BitShares holders.
At Nu there would at least be the chance to have the terms defines by the NuShares holders.
Having that in mind I admire @JordanLee’s continuous efforts to decentralize Nu even further. The motions are a very powerful feature to guide this development.
Despite all the bad feelings the bashing from parts of the BitShares community, but especially Dan Larimer, brought the Nu community:
the assertion Nu were a ponzi scheme improved Nu.
I’m not saying the assertion was ever right. But this assertion fueled the development of NSR grants.
With NBT and NSR grants (and hopefully seeded auctions somewhen) Nu is in the perfect position to scale.
The relation between NBT and NSR is very much like the one between bitUSD and BTS, just more efficient and agile like @Nagalim pointed out.
The trouble some of those who shorted bitUSD1, 2 now have would not trouble those who provide liquidity for Nu.
If Nu were to make a radical change that made liquidity providers want to get rid of their NBT before, they could sell all their NBT for $1 of value each.
If BitShares seriously wants to evolve, it’d do well to look at competitors and at what they do - especially if that works well - and try to build on that and improve it.
I feel Nu did that when they tied NBT “irrevocably” (until NSR holders decide something different ) to NSR - but in a more efficient way than bitUSD are tied to BTS.
Thank you, BitShares for helping Nu!