Draft - Motion to create 1 unit of multiple pegged currencies

The [NuEU thread][1] made me think that we should re-visit the idea of having multiple currencies on the blockchain, except with a caveat.

I’d like to poll everyone (and especially the development team) whether it makes sense for us to add multiple currencies onto the Nu blockchain (including at a minimum Euro, Yuan, Yen, and GBP) right now. However, rather than launching full operations for new products, we would instead simply generate a 1 unit custodial grant for each. Each solitary unit would be held as an inactive placeholder for future expansion. This course of action would allow us to claim that we created the first pegged product for each major world currency in all of our future marketing materials. This strikes me as an important advantage to retain.


=##=##=##=##=##=## Motion hash starts with this line ##=##=##=##=##=##=

The Nu development team will add support for Euro, Yuan, Yen, and GBP pegged currencies onto the blockchain. No brand names will be created without additional motions. A custodial grant will be made to an address specified by Jordan Lee for 1 unit of each of the respective pegged currencies, to be held as a symbolically inactive unit. To move a specific pegged digital currency into full operations, a shareholder motion must be introduced that proposes launching the specific pegged digital currency.

=##=##=##=##=##=## Motion hash ends with this line ##=##=##=##=##=##=
[1]: NuEU


The protocol presently supports multiple currencies, although I suspect as we actually prepare to implement our second currency, testing will reveal a few details that were overlooked in our initial development that will require some adjustments.

The client doesn’t support multiple currencies now, but this could be added with a few weeks development effort, I would guess. Client validation of custodial grants currently prevents custodial grants for anything but NuBits. Version 2.0 (formerly known as 0.6.0) , our major protocol change release, could allow grants to any currency if @sigmike or @erasmospunk make that change when they make the change to permit NSR grants.

Shareholders should understand the biggest burden in supporting additional currencies has nothing to do with the protocol or the client. Separate, duplicated liquidity operations are the real issue that will limit our support of additional currencies. However, voting for passage of this motion is different than actually making the decision to the currencies in question, as @tomjoad makes clear.

I would like to see some discussion about which currencies should be covered by this motion. Yuan should be our highest priority, followed by the Euro, with Yen and GBP being less urgent. Should other currencies be included in this motion? Should Yen and GBP be excluded for now?


How to support new peg without confusing users?

In hindsight perhaps NuBits could have been the equivalent to NuShares and the currencies follow the sensible naming scheme NuUSD, NuYuan, NuEuro.

The following resource may be of use in estimating demand for cryptocurrency by national or regional currency:

It’s the daily volume for various Bitcoin trading pairs. Today it shows more than 70% of BTC trading is for USD, about 22% is for CNY, 2% is for EUR, with all others being less than half a percent.

While I agree that trading volume is important, I think we should also consider how far merchant adoption and currency use is developed in the corresponding currency regions, since in the end we want people to use NuBits and not to hedge them.

Then the image will look very differently, because the Renminbi volume indeed mostly comes from day trading while there is a largely increasing number of services in europe which accept crypto currencies, and also the political landscape to start such a service is much better there.

That’s why I vote for NuEuro before NuYuan.


Nice suggestion.

It happens that I just have had a chat with a Japanese exchange owner interested in NuBits and NBT/JPY.
I will hopefully make an announcement on it soon.

I think adding just NuEUR and NuCNY would be good enough for the proof of concept.
It would be good to do this and have the ability to test this ensuring that all future Nu changes support multi-currencies from a technology perspective. As soon as we have credible liquidity providers and suitable pegs for any other currencies we can get into business relatively quickly even if it is just low profile. As @tomjoad mentioned before, being prepared to move quickly can be a good marketing advantage and showing that the network can actually technically deliver won’t hurt the share price I imagine. I would be considerate of current development and adding it as part of the 2.0 release would be suitable in my opinion.

So I would vote in favor of such a motion.


Yuan and Eur are the most needed to show that major currencies can be added to Nu.

However I think that we should consider, shortly after we show that adding multiple currencies is possible, adding the most popular currencies for remittances in Asia like IDR and PHP

We saw that we are increasingly popular on bit coin Indonesia and I believe adding NuIDR would be very beneficial.

The consensus so far seems to be that the motion should be limited to the Euro and Yuan. Covering 95% of active markets is likely enough for now as a mere symbolic gesture. I will leave this draft up for the weekend to see if any new opinions arise and then formalize the motion on Monday.

Separate from this motion, I’d like the community to begin thinking of brand names for these new products, as we will inevitably need to refer to those symbolic individual units by a name. There are multiple approaches we could take:

1. Nu-FIAT. - The largest advantage is ease of recognition. The largest disadvantage is the potential for liability issues if the Nu network is seen to be offering a digital “official” fiat as opposed to a token that merely approximates the fiat’s value. This naming convention also feels similar to the BitAssets collection (BitUSD, BitCNY, etc.) which we want to avoid comparing ourselves to. Another potential disadvantage would be if users question why NuBits aren’t called NuUSD.

Example: NuEuro, NuYuan

2. LOCATION NuBits - When you hear an expert talk about “the dollar”, it is always assumed that they are talking about the US dollar (USD). It has become the standard. However, there are multiple variations across the world, including the Hong Kong Dollar (HKD), the Australian Dollar (AUD), and the Canadian Dollar (CAD). This naming convention would allow us to keep NuBits as our flagship product, with regional variations to follow.

Example: European NuBit (EUN, ENB, or ENU), Chinese NuBit (CHN, CNB, or CNU)

3. Non-FIAT names. Anything else. NuBytes, NuTokens, etc.

I favor the second approach personally. Talking about European NuBits or Chinese NuBits is simple, avoids direct associations with the fiat currency, and allows us to create new logos with minimal revision. Another added benefit is that www.nubits.com can retain its domain name without losing clarity. All we would need to add are rotating Nu logos across the main front-page block, and minor edits to some content sections.

It is important we get this correct from the start. Darkcoin is undergoing a potential rebranding of its product and there seems to be widespread confusion and disagreement.

I like the way it looks… but it’s really hard to say five times in a row.

NuBits: Stable crytpo pegged to a basket of goods.
Nu USD, Nu Yuan etc for everything else.

1 Like

I think rebranding “NuBits” is not something we should do.

Massive confusion ahead.


Well, in a perfect world (imo) that is what it would look like. Branding from NuBits to Nu USD would not be as confusing as it would seem. Nu USD is very self explanatory. A “new” form of USD. To me Nubits is a good unique name and therefore should be pegged to its own unique currency.

Of course this has to be weighed carefully against NuBits existing momentum.

I have no doubt NuNet could sell NU USD with the same features as NuBits. But I highly doubt that selling a new, totally different product under the name “NuBits” would work.

NuBits = 1 USD; allways a dollar … etc … the marketing doesn’t allow NuBits to be something different than 1 USD :nunet:

It could actually work quite well with some minor adjustments to our marketing language.

Rather than “NuBits are worth $1.00 US”, it would become “NuBits are stable digital currencies”.

The front page tag-line would change from “NuBits are the world’s first stable digital currency” to “NuBits are the world’s first stable digital currencies”. A NuBit would be any stable digital currency put out by the NU network, and US-NuBits would become one of the products.

Brands change their slogans all the time. The core promise of NuBits would be kept: stable value.

1 Like

I hear you. What role does the NBT currency code play in this mental image?

Haven’t thought that far ahead. Looking forward to hearing other opinions about product names first before abbreviations are addressed. I know @Ben and @CoinGame often convince me of better alternatives to these things.

This actually makes sense. I like it. So the naming would be setup as follows…

1. Nu or NuNet refers to the network itself.
2. NuShares refers to share ownership in the network.
3. NuBits refers to any pegged digital currency supported by the network.
4. NuUSD, NuYuan, NuEuro, NuYen, etc… refers to specific individual pegged currencies.

With this naming setup, whether you’re using NuYuan or NuUSD, every specific pegged currency would have it’s own individual name, but they would also all be referred to in a generalized way as NuBits. So for example, NuUSD would be considered a NuBit. NuYuan and NuEuro would be considered NuBits as well. As long as it’s a pegged digital currency supported by the Nu network, it would be considered a NuBit.


@Sentinelrv Not quite what I had in mind, but very close. I agree with your first three points:

For the fourth, I would stick with “US NuBits”, “Chinese NuBits”, “Euro NuBits”, etc. Think of “NuBits” as interchangeable with “Dollars” in my previous example. It is the base unit that represents stability, with regional associations. Just like US Dollar, Hong Kong Dollar, Australian Dollar, etc.

I still think using the actual fiat terms like “NuEuro” and “NuYuan” are needlessly risky for our network. I could see scenarios where shareholders are accused of digital counterfeiting in some jurisdictions, which is not something anyone wants to face.