As part of preparations for B&C Exchange we need to start thinking about how to best create an environment that encourages active participation. As with the Nu network there will be many decisions that BlockShareholders will need to make, including distributing BlockCredit custodial grants, setting transaction fee rates, and selecting signers.
When I brought up the idea privately, @Ben pointed out that it would be useful to have the same user credentials for all Peershare forums and I agree with him. Logging in and out of different accounts is a pain. Plus, having all Peershare implementations in one place would be a great way to start building a connected ecosystem. For example BlockShareholders will be interested in Nu liquidity operations, and Nu will be interested in the setting of BKC transaction fees that could affect total NBT demand on B&C.
I’d like the community’s thoughts on making this forum (discuss.nubits.com) a module of a “super-forum” for all Peershares instances. Right now discuss.nubits.com is structured like this:
Main Forum: Nu (discuss.nubits.com)
-> SubForum 1: The Plaza
-> SubForum 2: NuBits
-> SubForum 3: NuShares
-> SubForum 4: Motions
-> SubForum 5: Economics and Finance
A proposed structure could be something like:
Main Forum: Peershares (EDIT: something like community.peershares.net (credit to @Ben))
-> SubForum A: discuss.nubits.com
------> SubForum 1: The Plaza
------> SubForum 2: NuBits
------> SubForum 3: NuShares
------> SubForum 4: Motions
------> SubForum 5: Economics and Finance
-> SubForum B: discuss.bcexchange.org
-> SubForum C: future Peershare I
-> SubForum D: future Peershare II
-> SubForum E: future Peershare III
So, anyone could arrive at community.peershares.net and select the forum they want to communicate on. At the same time, individual boards like discuss.nubits.com can be advertised by Nu without confusing newcomers who don’t care about other Peershares. Every individual forum would be able to have their own branded colors. Discourse has been a great solution so far and I’m eager to see it used for other Peershares.
This modification could potentially be a lot of initial work so it would ultimately be up to @Ben to make the architecture decision if he thinks it is a viable solution. I think this structure would allow for some nice scalability in the future when we might have dozens of Peershares in existence.
I like this idea. Each subforum listed on the main peersharestalk page could also use its own logo and offer a short description on what that DAC/DAO is. We actually have a board on peercointalk to announce or discuss different Peershares implementations…
However, it barely receives any activity and still has threads from 2014 on the first page. I think one of the main reasons for this is because the developers of Peershares are mainly working on projects outside of Peercoin and often don’t visit that forum anymore except to catch up. Another reason is because the developers of Peershares haven’t actually focused on improving Peershares itself, so that other people or groups can take advantage of the template.
If we’re going to create this superforum by putting the focus on all Peershare implementations, then I believe we should start trying to improve the actual Peershares technology by merging in things like data feeds and motions and then promoting its usage as a template for DAOs/DACs.
This of course wouldn’t happen until after B&C is finished and developers have more free time. The superforum could be created before B&C is finished and the forum link on Peershares.net could be switched from Peercointalk to Peersharestalk. After Peershares is fully updated and in alignment with Nu, B&C and the latest tech, we could then do a revamp of peershares.net to update the website with all the latest changes and info. Peershares.net is pretty basic right now, but it could be much better if we put as much focus on it as Nu and B&C’s websites. This is not worth doing though until the actual Peershares tech is updated.
I’ve got a lot to think about regarding this proposal, but something caught my eye and I wanted to throw an idea out there:
Trying to play “catch up” on the Peershares codebase may be a time consuming proposition. Rather, because each individual implementation is unique and wholesale changes would be less breaking than on a “regular” blockchain, what if we just took a snapshot of the Nu 2.0 code and…
stripped out of the NBT token content (or left it in but made it so that the ability to create secondary tokens was turned off by default)
took a time to make it easier to bring all of the most commonly changed parameters together into a single file (all UI-related strings, blockchain configuration parameters like block spacing, etc.)
I’d have to talk to @sigmike and @JordanLee to see what they feel about this idea or if they’ve got any major concerns about the technical feasibility, but it’s an idea that has been bouncing around in my head for some time. It saves us a lot of time by not having to context shift back to the state of the Peershares code from the last time it was updated.
I think it would work better if we left in the ability to create secondary tokens, but disabled it as you said here. The reason is because it’s possible the credit model seen in B&C could become an important way of making money with Peershares. I can think of different ways already that it could be used to create more Peershares implementations.
Can we split the different topics to different threads, please? That makes it easier to participate in the discussion.
What about moving the last posts of @Sentinelrv and @CoinGame the other sheep - no wait a second: it’s a robot!?(@Ben it is!) (and this one here) to a thread, maybe called “How to make an updated version of the Peershares template based on the Nu 2.0 code”?
I like @Coingame’s idea very much because it provides easy access to the most sophisticated Peershares implementation that is available.
The option to issue new shares is very important and not included in the current Peershares template as are many of Nu’s developments.
I’m in favour of only turning off secondary tokens instead of removing them. Who knows what other business models might make use of that ability? Admittedly I’m not able to assess the implications of doing that on a technical level.
One might ask why Nu should care about the usability of the Peershares template. Frankly, this is not of the current main concerns of Nu. But my understanding of Nu it strives to be a successful business AND doing something good for people by providing cash-flow beyond the control of banks and governments.
Nu is for sure no good Samaritian, but from a moral point of view making an updated Peershares template available for others who might have great ideas doesn’t hurt Nu’s business (assuming the required changes are not too costly) and is aligned with vision of Nu (as I perceive it).
From a business perspective, NSR holders have already been provided with BKS. Effectively NSR holders have derived interests to see more Peershares DACs spawn. Because B&C Exchange is the perfect tool to exchange shares of those DACs - at least if we project a future that is even more decentralized than our present.
Why should those DACs rely on centralized exchanges if BCE might be just perfect for that?
And why should Nu and BCE not want many paying customers?
The more uniformity we find in the Peershares DACs code base, the easier it will be to have mutual profit from each other’s code development - or to learn from mistakes others do.
Nu might find some useful pull requests
Making money by making people happy sounds intriguing!
I’m not sure about the scope of the redesign of the structure; is it intended to be used for Peershares implementations that have nothing to do with Nu and BCE (except for the code base) as well?
I think so, because Nu and BCE might start with a shareholder base that has some intersection, but that is expected to change over time.
Intersections regarding organization, structure, code, economy will remain. The DACs Nu and BCE will be associated with each other for an unforeseeable future.
The same is true (in some areas more, in others less) for other Peershares implementations that will follow.
I think offering the possibility to participate in different subforums with the same user is very helpful. People who want to establish a border between different DACs can still create different user names.
We have our bcexchange.org teaser website finalized and are just figuring out hosting issues right now, but I’d like to point out that you will be seeing Cryptocurrencies and Cryptoequities split into separate sections. We want people to think of B&C Exchange as a decentralized exchange that has dedicated markets for cryptoequity and DAOs. I hope that users will eventually trade Peershare DAOs like traditional equity markets and cryptocurrencies like traditional forex markets.
The Peershares template would first need to become current. However that is carried out is up for discussion.
Once the template is current, Peershares.net would then become the main overall website. It would need to be revamped with lots of information, similar to Nu’s website. Documentation is important for people starting their own implementation. I envision some kind of page that states the philosophy behind Peershares, most likely written by Jordan, something which talks about the negatives of the “one blockchain to rule them all” philosophy and the positives of different Peershares for diverse business models all working together or in competition with one another. This philosophy statement is important for separating ourselves from competition like Bitcoin and Ethereum that want to do everything under one chain.
As Tom pointed out, each subforum would include its own separate branding. Actually clicking on any of the subforums would leave behind peershares.net and take you to another website (for example discuss.nubits.com) Each suforum would need a link to get back to the main Peershares.net community page. Using “Home” wouldn’t work, since using that should still take you to the home page of NuBits.com or B&C’s website. Something else would be needed in order to bring you back to the main central hub.
Why is this all important though? Before B&C, we didn’t have any financial incentive to improve the Peershares template. Now it’s a different story though. B&C can profit from the trading fees of different Peershares and Nu can profit by providing NuBits and liquidity. In order to profit though we need more Peershares. In order to convince people or groups to create their own Peershares we’ll need to add all the important much needed features like data feeds, motion voting, secondary tokens, share grants and burning, etc…
Once the technology is there and current, we also need to make it easier for people to create their own Peershares. This will require a revamped website, documention, videos and a merged Peershares forum. Providing the merged forum will make it easier for people to find all of our other Peershares (increasing business), including those that weren’t created by our team.
A roll your own Peershares DAC/DAO may also be important, but it’s something that would probably only be important to those who want non-customized Peershares. For example Teehe only wanted to use Peershares to track shares and didn’t need to be highly customized like Nu or B&C. If we find there is great demand for non-customized Peershares used just for tracking company assets then we could think about creating this.
Once the Peershares tech is updated and the website is made more informative and easier to setup your own, Nu can profit from providing NuBits and liquidity and B&C can profit from trading fees. The more Peershares that pop up, the more profit can be made from them. We can create an entire ecosystem this way based on Peershares.
Edit: My only question is from @tomjoad’s example in the initial post. Are you expecting the central Peershares community hub to list the subforums in Nu and B&C? The way I saw it, the page would just be a non-interactive list of different forums along with logos and descriptions, yet you included subforums like the plaza, NuBits, NuShares, etc… Would this page include all that or no? Also, would it be interactive, such as displaying the latest posts for each forum to the right or no?
I included those sub-sub-forums in my OP just to make it clear that an additional level would be built on top of our existing forum. I like your suggestion of having community.peershares.net be a list of different Peershare instances (along with logos) without much additional complexity.
@Ben is the expert on UI modeling, he would be better equipped to make recommendations.
I think this is a great point that isn’t often stated. The easier we make it to create additional Peershares, the more BlockShareholders and NuShareholders can benefit.
I had a question for @Ben or @tomjoad. Does the current forum software allow us to create external links? Above I was talking about this as a static page that just lists Peershares implementations (logos, titles and descriptions) and links to their individual forums, but it might be necessary to provide specific boards for those interested in talking about Peershares itself.
So rather than making this a static page, it would be its own forum dedicated to Peershares with different boards focusing on different Peershares topics. Plus, on the same page you would also have the non-interactive listing of Peershares implementations that act as external links to outside forums.
So hopefully that made sense. It would be the usual discourse forum with specific Peershares boards, plus listings for all Peershares implementations. At least with the smf forum on Peercointalk, we can create external links in place of interactive boards, so I assumed the same should be possible with Discourse. That would cut down on the difficulty of creating a new page from scratch. Instead, the main difficulty would be creating universal accounts to connect this Peershares forum, Nu, B&C and others.
Can you create external links like that on Discourse? If so, rather than creating a static page which lists all Peershares implementations, you create a normal Discourse forum specifically for Peershares. The forum would contain various Peershares related boards for discussion. In addition to the normal discussion boards, you would add external links for each Peershares implementation. They would each contain a title, logo and description.
The Nu forum currently defaults to the latests posts, which lists every single thread as long as you keep scrolling down. The Peershares forum would open up to category view instead, so every new person visiting would see something similar to this…
There would only be one listing for NuBits, one listing for B&C and one listing for each new Peershares implementation that popped up. Each listing would link to that specific external forum. Defaulting to the category page would allow everyone to be exposed to the various Peershares that are listed. If it defaulted to latest then nobody would see the listings and it would defeat the purpose.
So doing it this way, not only would we have a listing for various Peershares, but we would also have our own forum and boards for discussing Peershares itself. I imagine this would be easier than creating a Peershares listing page from scratch. All you would need to do is setup a new forum and add boards, external links, logos and descriptions. The hard part would be creating universal accounts, so everyone can use the same login for all 3 or more forums, Peershares, Nu and B&C. Does this make more sense?
I imagine merging accounts in two used Discourse instances would be quite a mess, so I think at least universal accounts should be decided about before a BCE Discourse is setup.
Do we want to centralise account control between the suggested projects (Peershares, Nu, BCE, …)?
Benefits I see are that identities are maintained across sites, people only need to register and login once. Cross-site identities might not be desired by everyone, and they may have to logout and login a lot. Hacking the central authentication server would compromise one’s account on all sites. Who (or what) should be in charge of that server? Which sites or projects may utilise the server?
I would like a connected system like that, provided it’s reliable.