Nu 3.0 will contain new NuBit products, but it will not contain volume-based fees. This will be done to quicken the development of new products. In addition to the currencies spelled out in motion 5febe97664ed02c8d24dbb444b6a9f43f7a8dea9, another type of currency will be created.
Fixed Supply NuBits (FSN) mirror the supply of their fixed asset. For example, BTC-FSN would never have more than 21 million tokens in existence assuming the BTC code does not change. The practical application of this would be to rapidly distribute the current supply (15 million) then to release additional tokens on a periodic basis to match the inflation rate of BTC. The ultimate distribution mechanisms (auctions) and period between supply adjustments would be determined after creation. The price of FSN NuBits is determined by the free market demand rather than any kind of price fixing mechanism.
BTC-FSN will be added to the list of additional currencies being coded into the core client in Nu 3.0. All blockchain mechanisms for FSN will be the same as price-stable NuBits. FSN creation will still occur as custodial grants to NuBit addresses.
The Nu 3.0 client will also contain a simple procedure (button) to import the private key of one NuBit address to all other NuBit wallets represented by that client.
This looks like a very interesting product Nu could offer.
After reading some posts (beginning here: Where are the central bank haters?) it looks like a very promising approach.
I’m inclined to think this will soon be on my data feed after voting starts.
@tomjoad, what is your opinion on the naming? I believe Fixed Supply NuBits (BTC-FSN) is easier to understand, while Stable Supply NuBits (BTC-SSN) would match our marketing slogan better (The World’s Best Stable Digital Currencies). As you said in the thread MoD linked above, the word stable can take on a double meaning, “price stable” and “stable supply.” However, I’m not sure if stable supply is as obvious sounding as fixed supply. What do others think?
The good thing about this is that the security of the network isn’t dependent on a good distribution like Peercoin is. NuShareholders provide that security and they get paid for their service through the selling of currency and burning of transaction fees. Proof-of-stake security without the inflation.
I have a couple questions though. When taking into consideration our marketing plan, we’ll need to know whether this is truly the first fixed supply proof-of-stake currency, or whether another implementation exists on another network. Does anyone know of this being tried anywhere else?
Also, besides higher decentralization and security (which are already taken care of by minting NuShares), what else does a wider currency distribution accomplish? Basically, why else is it so important? We would need a good plan in order to fairly distribute 15 million coins. We don’t want to end up with a situation like NXT, where a small number of people own the majority of all coins.
It could be nice to have FSN but the main issue right now is that we are not able to make regular sales of NuBits.
Are you implying the fact that we would be able to make more revenues from FSN than from regular NuBits?
I wouldn’t say more revenue, but hopefully at least a product which could bring us additional revenue without the requirement and costs associated with liquidity provision. Pegged NuBits would still be our main product and in my opinion hold the greatest potential. I don’t see anything wrong though with putting out new products like this, which could bring Nu some additional income, which would help support our existing operations, including development and liquidity provision, etc… Once released, the only thing really required from us is to secure the network by minting and continuing to add to the supply over time.
I’m interested in this motion. However as said I also believe the key issue is the distribution. This has tripped up so many altcoins in the past. I’m not sure how to do that properly, but I do know that it will set the demise or success of this coin.
If we can’t find a good example where this has been successfully done, we might as well refrain from this.
Distribution is key, but only from a profit perspective. From a security and otherwise perspective, distribution is meaningless. NSR is the security token. The only reason to distribute to many is to get as much money as possible. If one person is willing to front a ton of cash for all the BTC-FSN we create, fine, let them buy a majority. Why not? They’re putting money straight into our coffers at no cost to network security.
Edit: I want to make a point here about transparently announcing the sell price. This is suuuuper important, that the auction not be seen as compromised. That’s why a seeded auction-type would be good, where instead of highest bidder we distribute the BTC-FSN evenly to all bidders weighted by their bid. If we announce the number of auctions before hand, most serious players will simply divide their funds among the auctions.
FSNuBits will prove themselves. I doubt they will fetch much at creation, honestly, but every cent goes straight toward our reserves. They will be useful with time as the Nu network proves itself as a secure network.
Which of course brings up a good question of timing of the auctions. But I am not, and probably never will be, in a place to tackle that question.
My preference would be to offer two “series” of digital currency products: Stable-Supply (SS Series) and Stable-Value (SV Series). You’re correct that it works perfectly with our “The World’s Best Stable Digital Currencies” tagline that has been the backbone of our branding since release in one form or another.
A NuBit is one stable-value unit of a digital currency, so it seems that a SS series of digital currencies should have a different naming convention. Options could include NuBTC or NuBitcoin to capture broader interest, or an entirely separate term altogether like a NuAsset or NuReserve. I believe @Nagalim is correct that we should consider the marketing appeal of it, but I am not in favor of using the term “NuBits” for a non-SV series of products.
Edit: Adding a SS Series of products might necessitate a brand focus adjustment from “NuBits” to simply “Nu”.
Sample description: Nu is a blockchain network that allows dynamic management of digital currency products using decentralized governance. It offers an SS Series of products for hardcore Bitcoin users, gold enthusiasts, and Austrian economists, and an SV Series of products for users who prefer to have their digital assets retain a constant fiat value. Nu offers experimental digital currency products that satisfy all different economic and practical uses.
This high-level branding approach was discussed before our September 2014 release, but we decided on a singular-product (NuBits) focus to quickly build brand awareness of our product. If the real issue facing blockchains now is governance (@CoinGame), it would make sense to refocus our primary brand on Nu (with an enterprise-level website like a NAME.nu extension) and then have separate sub-level websites for SV Series (NuBits) and SS Series (Name TBD).
The simple and fair solution would be to distribute ~15 million coins to their existing Bitcoin holders. B&C Exchange has plans to distribute a limited number of BKS to Bitcoin holders, so the mechanism exists (or will exist). Then, sell the remaining 6 million NuBitcoin over time. We would have a large, distributed base from the beginning, and future profit potential from the 6 million NuBTC.