Is CCEDK a Nubits exchange? Then add them as such or vote accordingly

Based on increasing amount of questions from users why CCEDK is not mentioned on Nubits official boards as exchange, I have to ask you guys to let me know in which direction we are going.

I have all the interest in supporting Nubits onwards, it is however a waste of time from my side if you have no interest in real support of CCEDK.

And by real support it is obvious that without being mentioned as an official exchange of Nubits, well that should be self explanatory.

I am ready to put my efforts somewhere else if it continues like this.

It should be in your interest to have the traffic increased, and adding CCEDK could surely help.

It also seems you should put up a vote to have CCEDK removed as Nubits exchange, as this has not been done untill now, although CCEDK no longer appears anywhere.

If the vote decides, there is no longer an interest in CCEDK, I will also take the step and remove all trading pairs from exchange, no problem.

This way it is at the moment does not benefit Nubits and it does not benefit CCEDK.

I will be looking forward to hearing your reply, in order for me to know in which way I should co ordinate my future efforts and work.

Thank you for your previous support.

Yours sincerely

Ronny Boesing


It would be great if you could make a motion, @ronny .
Personally I think the FIAT pairs are useful.
Tks for your hard work.

Not sure if this is me who has to do it, There was not a motion to remove CCEDK as exchange in the first place, so it seems it lies with whoever decided to remove CCEDK from there.

Not sure whether voting is required I think we can put up your exchange. There has been some concerns about the solvency of your exchange, but that might also be the case with other exchanges (e.g. BTER) listed now or in the future.

We just have to put a disclaimer that the NuShareholders not necessarily endorse any of the exchanges listed and that the usual risk of keeping money on exchanges apply. Let the market do its work and level the playing field, I don’t believe we are in the business of providing accountancy checks on solvency of exchanges or recommendations the last time I checked. Just my thoughts.


If we have a liquidity operation there then we’re supporting it and we should have it on the website.

Besides, it would bring us to a nice 3x3 grid:

1 Like

Could you please provide us with an update on how you intend on repaying the debt CCEDK owes NuShareholders as stated by you on May 12th?

Apologies if I’ve missed you stating this elsewhere.

1 Like

I too would like to see an update of this, as the end of June is rapidly approaching.

This should really just be put to a motion. It’s that simple. Do NuShares holders want official properties to be associated with CCEDK or not? CCEDK was removed because they were hacked and requested that Nu team leadership collude in covering up the damage done. It was well within @tomjoad’s position to do so.

We removed when they were hacked. We removed BTER when they were hacked. We removed CCEDK when they were hacked. ended up shutting down. BTER was re-added because they openly communicated the impact and resolution of the problems when they were discovered. To this day CCEDK has not publicly acknowledged the event or resolutions on their website. So, they have been treated in line with how we have handled every other exchange hacking event, but they have not responded to the event how every other exchange has.

That is my understanding of why they have not be added back to the exchange page like BTER has. A motion vote can easily decide if NuShares holders care to override a decision that was made. I think the decision was, and is, within Tom’s position of managing the marketing on behalf of NuShares holders. I haven’t submitted one before, but if I have time this evening I will submit a draft to re-add CCEDK to our current and future exchange listings (unless someone beats me to it).


And if it passes, CCEDK will immediately be added back to the Exchange listing on

I’m not thrilled with how things went down but it would certainly be nice to see CCEDK back in operation. Passing some type of solvency audit would be enough for me to give my support back to CCEDK. I don’t think we need a motion to add them as a listed exchange, we just need proof that our users are safe there.

Wonderful thing about our network is we have a means to build distributed consensus on these types of disputes. Let’s use it.

Motion RIPEMD160 hash: DRAFT

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

This motion is to express the desire of NuShares holders to list CCEDK as an exchange resource in all current and future marketing materials which are under the control of the Nu team. This motion may be revoked at the discretion of the Nu team if strong evidence arises that CCEDK could pose as a liability to NuShares holders or users of NuBits.

=##=##=##=##=##=## Motion hash ends with this line ##=##=##=##=##=##=

Verify. Use everything between and including the tags.

1 Like

This would make it an exchange for both NBT and NSR. The NSR volume there is very small, but at the same time so is our daily volume and we have very few NSR exchanges. I would be comfortable with this.

I still would love to see @ronny reply to the questions about his intended schedule at this point in time and may hold back my votes until he does so.

I do not agree with this logic, which implies that there is a quality control on exchanges, that Nu is responsible for which exchange to list on the exchange page. The exchange page should list any exchange with a NBT or NSR market open. There should be no implicit or explicit endorsement. There should be no motion passed to permit or not permit a particular exchange or type of exchange to be listed. Only because Nu has this motion thing doesn’t mean a motion is always the solution.

Nubits should be a simple transparent element in greater economy, a predictable and responsive tool, not a nanny assuming more liabilities than the market demands. Nu wants to draw users and partners, not push them away.


traders can decide too use the exchange or not nubits exchanges list should provide only safe one with nbt/nst especially for new users looking for trade platform that have no clue of history hacks problems or fix’s so not damage nubits rep

if Exchange with a large amount of nrs voting power start adding motion and voting on them they can simply vote for them selves another form of voting would be preferable if this occurs again maybe a assistant bot vote kinda thingy :stuck_out_tongue: example on total users on nubits 51% needed to pass vote

@assistant ccedk vote: 1 = vote yes for ccedk from current user

reply from @assistant bot
1 vote added to add ccedk motion current votes 10% etc

If they are a shareholder, they have every right to push the votes one way or another. Our NSR distribution should hold up to these kinds of tests.

I understand what @mhps is saying, but I am going to play devil’s advocate and make an absurd example. What If I said I allow trading on my ‘platform’, but I really am just stealing people’s nbt and there’s no way to withdraw? What criteria is there for putting my ‘exchange’ up on the website? Are my auctions an ‘exchange’? They are certainly an open NBT/NSR market.

That said, I definately think the bar for being put on the website should be low and having an entire liquidity operation (LiquidBits) seems to me plenty sufficient. In my mind, the shareholders have already voted on this by supporting LiquidBits to operate solely on CCEDK pairs.

1 Like

yes but exchange can use shareholders coins exchanges wallet to mint and vote with users founds I don’t consider that a shareholder… let say the exchange has 100 mil Nsr on their off line wallet they could add a motion and vote for their own motion I think having so much leverage on your own Motion shouldn’t be a fare vote most will mint with it users founds miring is not a problem i’m fine with that, more support for the network

If we cannot stand up to an exchange minting, we’re going to have some serious trouble. If this hypothetical exchange really has a big enough Nu user base willing to leave funds on exchange such that they have 1/8 of all NSR in distribution, then their opinion surely matters a great deal and they should have a say in the vote. They would still need to convince a large portion of voters to vote for their motion. If our consensus processes cannot withstand an exchange minting, then we have vastly more problems than the exchange listings on our website.

That is not an absurd example. Just an example of garden variety fraud. That can happen to any cryptocurrency, to any exchange of anything. There is little Nu can do about NBT and NSR users. Admit it.

Your auto auction is an exchange. A unique and valuable one at that.

This has been discussed before. I think exchanges should offer minting/voting for the users with users fund, to attract customers.

Realistically, there are only like 2% of all NSR on exchange order book now. We are talking about things long in tthe future.

@Nagalim , I have stated that we expect to start with weekly payments starting from end of June, and this is still the idea for the amount to be finally settled end of September. Since we have not reached end of June yet, I dont even see what is delayed as such? I cannot give you any information more clear than this, as we basically plan on paying as much as possible weekly.

1 Like