In fact it’s not really stable until distribution is complete.
But the upper limit is fixed.
So it’s more time of its being a fixed supply than a stable supply.
I prefer fixed supply.
Im totally maleable on branding. I think we should think about how these acronyms are pronounced.
Is this currency created by nushareholders voting? Will the limit be hardcoded?
It’s better to distribute it widely
Not hardcoded. Adaptable, should btc change its hardcap so will we.
I agree distribution needs to be thought out and probably wncoded in motion.
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.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
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.
Off the top of my head I’d say that NXT was the first fixed supply PoS.
1 Like
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.
Do you know how they accomplish this without a separate security token for minting?
Very interesting!
But please explain how these new products would be useful and if they would increase the shareholders’ work. I have also in mind the other stable coins that we want to release.
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.
Sounds reasonable. But I guess that distribute most of them in short time can’t raise much money. How about something like to create this coins to replay Bitcoin’s history in 5-10 times speed.
1 Like
Cool idea. Bigger distribution in the beginning and everything. I really like that.
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.
How about NuCoins?
Is not the ideal choice. Google search list former use of that abbreviation with a very bad connotation:
I normally do such a quick search to avoid awkward situations.
I had some fun doing the background check for “btf” before I drafted [Draft] Motion to join BTF - masterOfDisaster and wanted to be elected as member 
…I might have printed a certificate of membership to show it to others, lol
Not bad!
On the contrary: rather good - especially compared to SS!
We can still use ‘Stable Supply’, but we can use NCN (NuCoin) for the abbrv. So BTC-NCN.
How about SQ Series (Stable-Quantity)? I like the idea of having a Q anyways, it’s memorable. So, SQ Series for fixed-supply NuCoin products, and SV series for our NuBit products.
Interestingly, nucoin.com redirects to Kraken’s exchange. I wonder if they would sell us that domain name.
NuCoin sounds great and it matches the existing naming structure for major cryptocurrencies. I like it.
Edit: Bitcoin-NuCoin is a bit awkward due to the double “coin” and varied capitalizations. What about B-NuCoin (B-NCN) for the Bitcoin-inspired product? That matches the naming convention for NBT products, such as US-NBT and CN-NBT.