Even B&C not finished, it can still issue another kind of stable currency - Hayek money

B&C shareholders, let’s move on rather than just waiting for the software development. I suggest B&C issue the first Hayek money in this world, if success, we can attract more people thus promote the BKS price then this project has more possibility to finished.

There is possibility that N&C will never be finished, dear shareholders, are you going to sightless wait or do something?

Unlike Nu, my proposed solution has a decent profit model: BKS shareholders pledege some BKS to get some BKC, and spread trade on BKC/BTC or BKC /USD pair, LP makes living by spread fee, this is sustainable.


Without B&C showing being able to finish there is no anchor to BKC’s price. If BKC is free floating there is a great risk that spread profit is eaten by volatility.

B&C is just a clone of Nu, does Nu have an exchange function? So how would NBT get anchor?

B&C can do anything Nu can, and more.

With the developments funds in the hands of Phoenix, I don’t think we can get anywhere near developments competing with Nu. As a Nu Shareholder I wouldn’t be that keen anyway. I rather see B&C development started with the remaining funds, so we can also get a better idea what is need to complete it.

Good shot!

BTW I support trying something new (e.g. HYK coin) instead of just launching another Yuan cryptocoin (Bishares got one and Tether might launch one soon).

I was just thinking about: wouldn’t it be interesting to have a company behind (backing) B&C project in order to raise some additional money for its development?

i.e. then that company would offer some equity/convertible notes/shares at https://bnktothefuture.com/apply-for-finance and somehow the company would make some profit from B&C exchange or HYK coin spread trading.

As a bonus we would attract tons of visibility to those projects (B&C + HYK coin) from the specialized fintech media while funding the project there: https://bnktothefuture.com/search/pitches

Advantages: more potential funding, investors, dedicated developers, users, community members, shareholders, advertisement…

A known, non anonymous company running an anonymous decentralised exchange? Sounds like a contradiction in terminus.
Not sure how you envisage that working in the real world. Not likely that such a company would be able to comply to all regulations.


Why not? A company can fund development, provide value-added clients, and web/app frnt-end service to the the anonymous decentralized exchange.

My dear @Cybnate

This “contradiction” is already happening with such decentralized projects and their respective companies like:

Project: Synereo; Company: Synereo LTD; Tel-Aviv, Israel
Project: MaidSafe; Company: MaidSafe.net Ltd; Scotland, UK
Project: Loyyal; Company: Loyyal Corporation; US
Project: Uphold; Company Info; Cayman Islands
Project: Storj; Company: Storj Labs Inc.; US
Project: Factom; Company: Factom, Inc; US

Some of the above mentioned projects are even more ambitious in decentralizing the way we do stuff (even more than Nu and B&C). What they share in common: all of them raised money via angel investors or VC in order to develop their decentralized projects.

Some of them you can see asking funds here:


I see no problem with companies building decentralized software. Ethereum started that way too:

The Ethereum software project was initially developed in early 2014 by a Swiss company, Ethereum Switzerland GmbH (EthSuisse). Subsequently, a Swiss non-profit foundation, the Ethereum Foundation (Stiftung Ethereum) was set up as well. Source: Wikipedia

BTW B&C project could even follow their steps and create a company for platform development, then liquidate that company after full project launch:

The Ethereum Platform is being developed primarily by a volunteer contributor team — many of whom will be receiving gifts of ETH in acknowledgement of their dedication — and will continue to be developed on a volunteer basis by some developers as well as under a more formalized contracting or employment relationship for other developers. The group of developers and other personnel that is now, or will be, employed by, or contracted with, Ethereum Switzerland GmbH (“EthSuisse”) is termed the “Ethereum Team.” EthSuisse will be liquidated shortly after creation of genesis block, and EthSuisse anticipates (but does not guarantee) that after it is dissolved the Ethereum Platform will continue to be developed by persons and entities who support Ethereum, including both volunteers and developers who are paid by nonprofit entities interested in supporting the Ethereum Platform.

Source: “Terms and Conditions of the Ethereum Genesis Sale”

Do you still think all those teams, developers, business men and companies in general are stuck in a “contradiction”? :wink:

This company would only be officially responsible for developing decentralized software and management of all aspects related to it e.g. paying developers (sigmike, eleven, etc)…

Interesting viewpoint I didn’t immediately consider. I’m with you that separating development work from other activities could work in crypto friendly environments. Just note that the projects you mention are indeed decentralised, however they are not in the business of issuing stable value cryptocurrency and shares. I think they are in a friendlier regulatory environment than Nu potentially is.

1 Like

@Sabreiib, just thought I’d let you know they were discussing Hayek money in the peercoin.chat development channel.



I told you, https://peercoin.chat/

Once you’re in you need to go to the development channel, (#development) which should be listed on the left pane.


Were you able to get on?

Sorry, first time go there.

It seems peerchemist already read my suggestion.