Discussion: Adding new products to the Nu network

I’d like to get a community discussion started about the merits of adding additional currency products to our Nu brand. Everyone is welcome to contribute their thoughts.

Several such products are possible: a Yuan-pegged currency, a Euro-pegged currency, or even an inflation-adjusted US currency.

There are benefits to introducing new products:

  • Local demand may exist in countries for their own national Nu currency
  • New products could be matched to compete with products our competitors will be offering
  • Removal of capital gains and losses, eliminating any tax implications from using the currency beyond income
  • Simpler currency conversion, as opposed to solely maintaining NuBits as our only product while pursuing more CNY/NBT and EUR/NBT trading pairs.
  • More products could give Nu more brand prestige if executed properly

There are also negatives to introducing new products:

  • New products take away from the simplicity of Nu and make it harder to comprehend. Bitshares is a notable example of a project that has stretched itself too thin, confusing the market.
  • Additional resources would need to be spent on creating an overall “Nu” website that could link to individual currencies.
  • Any product named after a currency like “NuYuan” or “NuEuro” would make us a target for regulators. NuBits are a digital token that very closely approximate a $1.00 US value and are not marketed as anything other than that.
  • New products could divert demand from NuBits, which is our flagship product.
  • There would be additional complexity added to being a NuShareholder, although with the introduction of data feeds in the near future that issue is minimized.

I would like to hear discussion on which way people are leaning, the time-frames they have in mind for implementation (if they support the idea), and challenges/opportunities I may have neglected to add to the short lists above.

It’s important to note that the technical challenges associated with introducing new products are not significant. The far more important issues are related to marketing strategy; analyzing the effects of regulation, network demand, brand cannibalization, and user satisfaction.


My initial reaction is that I support the idea. It just seems like a natural progression for the Nu network if it were to become a success around the world. The question is when, the additional complexity being my biggest fear. It feels like something we should consider when regular ol’ NuBits is showing strong signs of success by itself. Once NuBits is known and understood by a good portion of people and an additional product would not confuse them, then it might be a good time. When will that happen, you got me there. It’s so hard to put a time frame in the crypto world. I could see us considering it 6 months from now, but that’s just a guess.

In any case I think whether or not we should do this will start to become much more clear as we progress. I’m curious what others think though.


Same as Yurizhai, I’m also stuck in the timelines versus the risks of confusion with many products.
It is hard to weigh up the pros and cons. In marketing terms it is focussing on deepening or widening the market.

Deepening the market with NuBits is one for the long haul. Building the NuBits ecosystem will take years, but shortcuts in adoption can be taken as I have already laid out in my vision as an example with instant exchange wallets where NuBits provide the stability in value while using the existing ecosystems of e.g. Bitcoin or Peercoin.

Widening would potentially divert demand or even change the flagship. I don’t think we should compete with ourselves, either we invest in something better than NuBits which has a good chance to replace it. E.g. a partially insured and inflation adjusted dollar or chose an entirely different product.

I don’t see NuBits pegged to Yuan and Euro as particularly strong products in the next 6 months. They are nice to have and if we can introduce them and market with relatively low effort we should do it (e.g. with partners). But I think this requires clear branding separation with only references as ‘from the makers of NuBits’. I don’t think they would divert demand from NuBits being different markets. But is would divert our resources for supporting them.

Examples of entirely different products can be:

  • a token based on the value of the Top 10 currencies in the world or a basket of good representing economic activity on a world scale. It would be harder to maintain pegs but I’m ignoring the technical difficulties for this discussion.
  • Products like the Music DAC our competitors are launching soon. I think NuNet have the flexibility to pull this.
  • Other uses of the NuBits blockchain e.g. voting even if you don’t own shares. Incorporation of Bitmessages for a small fee etc. This can be used to add more value to the Shareholders and decreasing the risk profile of NuNet.

Maybe we need to make a SWOT with possible products and try to weigh them into the SWOT matrix with all their positives and negatives. The choices and the weightings are complex and dependant on your focus and risk appetite.


To keep it short and simple:
I think that Nu’s portfolio needs to be expanded and I like to have a plan ready for when it’s needed.
But I don’t know how to determine the right point of time to execute the plan (if there is a right point of time).
…I feel it’s way too early now.

@Yurizhai’s approach (“Once NuBits is known and understood by a good portion of people and an additional product would not confuse them, then it might be a good time.”) sounds good, but still leaves the question open how to measure it and how to set the thresholds…

Confusion and complexity will be overwhelming until we get infrastructure in place : automatic voting with feeds to start with. A shareholder cannot be asked to follow multiple products, on multiple markets, at different times. Motions, custodians, rates, requires a complex analysis for each situation. Same goes with monitor NuBot liquidity.

So, I see it as a concrete possibility only when Nu advances its infrastructure.

And, before adding peg to other fiat, I would personally love to see the first ever true stability : inflation adjustment.

And, peg to assets instead of fiat (precious metals etc).

Summarising, here is what I see :

  1. Spend loads of time refining modus operandi for NuBits and improving existing infrastructure. Getting better at votes, rates, peg, and bot.
  2. Add gold-pegged product : easier price to track, and will give us the chance to operate multiple products at the same time. Improve infrastructure .
  3. If above experiment succeed, add a inflation-adjusted product.

I was thinking along the line of adding assets (ETFs and commodities), currencies are all alike. But I have difficulty thinking of an elegant way to pay for nuSomeAsset with SomeAsset when buying. We can do it with currencies because we have internet currency payment processors that are already interfaced with exchanges. If we use market contracts to peg against an arbitrary index, then it’s more like what BitUSD is doing.

I think we should focus first on making the first real crypto currency out there, something that bitcoin has not been able to accomplish so far and won t need to.
If NuBit is very reliable as a currency, then the blueprint will be copied and applied to other fiat currencies, no doubt about that.

If a Japanese exchange integrates NBT, I guess they will need to have USD/JPY as a pair…