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

[tomjoad]

I will submit a draft to re-add CCEDK to our current and future exchange listings

And if it passes, CCEDK will immediately be added back to the Exchange listing on https://nubits.com.

[pennybreaker]

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.

[CoinGame]

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.

[Nagalim]

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.

[mhps]

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.

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.

[NubitGuy]

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 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

[Nagalim]

a large amount of nrs voting power

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.

[NubitGuy]

If they are a shareholder,

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

[Nagalim]

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.

[mhps]

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 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.

[mhps]

let say the exchange has 100 mil Nsr on their off line wallet they could add a motion and vote for their own motion

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.

[ronny]

Zero (0%) Trading Fee on Buy/Sell Bitcoins (NBT/BTC a.m.) on CCEDK.com

My personal goal for having the above mentioned amount settled is on the day of celebrating Nubits 1 year anniversary on CCEDK exchange September 23rd, with weekly payments up until this date from end of June

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

@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.

[Nagalim]

I’m convinced and am on team ‘get ccedk up on the website’. I’m a fan of putting it up on the website by default and proposing a motion to take it off, then seeing if that passes.

[Cybnate]

I think Ronny has clearly communicated on discuss.nubits.com how the settlements work with users who lost money. You can argue about whether that should be Twittered around, but a statement on the CCEDK website that settlements have been achieved and that payments are underway would be nice but not a showstopper to list them on NuBits.com.

At this stage we have to assume that Ronny follows up on his settlements in the same way as BTER does. In both cases we don’t know for sure whether that will happen but there is a clear intention by CCEDK which has just been confirmed again.

So I think either BTER should be removed or CCEDK should be added if we apply the same rules. And again I think it is worth to add a statement that NuBits doesn’t endorse any of the exchanges and that users do need to do their own due diligence when trading of keeping coins on an exchange e.g. by reading our forums. The current information in this forum is more than adequate for every user to assess whether they accept the risk.

BTW I would support someone defining a full list of verifiable criteria when an exchange should be listed or not, but I’m not sure whether that is feasible without many disclaimers and/or third party involvement.

[masterOfDisaster]

The exchange page should list any exchange with a NBT or NSR market open. There should be no implicit or explicit endorsement.

That’s what I think as well. The exchange page shall provide an overview of places where NBT and NSR can be traded.
Which one to choose is up to the customer and not to Nu.
I see no reason to act as a guardian for customers.
A disclaimer

that the NuShareholders not necessarily endorse any of the exchanges listed and that the usual risk of keeping money on exchanges apply.

seems to be appropriate.

Wouldn’t it be better for Nu and CCEDK not to make it unnecessarily hard for CCEDK to pay back its debts by excluding it from the exchange page?

[tomjoad]

I don’t support the ideas of the previous posts. As shareholders we do have an obligation to protect new users, and we do have an obligation to only display exchanges that we believe are acting responsibly. If I were a new user thinking about getting involved with NuShares today, I would be hesitating to join a community that thinks it has zero obligations in ensuring user safety. Placing CCEDK on the exchanges page of https://nubits.com is an official endorsement from the Nu network.

Prioritizing short-term goals like trading pair availability at the expense of the long-term reputation of the Nu network is a dangerous road to follow. If shareholders want CCEDK on the exchanges page they should pass a motion directing me to do so, at which point I will comply immediately. Motions exist to generate consensus on contentious issues and this is an ideal situation to use it.

[Nagalim]

32020c2d2894af2c0274f3992580f166264d448e confirmed.

[masterOfDisaster]

The behaviour of CCEDK back then in February hasn’t been like I’d have liked CCEDK to behave. But it seems that they have learned a lesson and try their best to pay back their debts to Nu. I don’t know what else Nu can expect or demand.
And I don’t see the difference to bter when looking at the current status - both owe Nu money and both try to pay it back.
One is listed at the exchange page. The other isn’t.
There was a big difference treating the situation as it was fresh. Not listing CCEDK while listing bter has a bad aftertaste of punishing that behaviour.

Trying to display only exchanges that Nu believes to act responsibly shifts a resonsibility to Nu which Nu can’t cope with - Nu doesn’t have information to determine which exchange acts responsibly.
Nu can try to provide additional information about exchanges to assist the decision of customers (but even that would be too much for my taste).

a full list of verifiable criteria

I don’t see Nu making decisions for NBT/NSR users (which is done by selecting exchanges that are listed). That is just not in line with my understanding of enlightenened customers doing business.

Nu provides a stable crypto currency. As far as I’m aware Nu’s portfolio doesn’t include rating exchanges.

[mhps]

As shareholders we do have an obligation to protect new users … Placing CCEDK on the exchanges page of https://nubits.com is an official endorsement from the Nu network.

That is certainly good intention. But sorry Nu can’t even protect itself from all sort of interntional or accidental mishappenings at exchanges, losing tens of thousand. The best Nu can do to protect users is teach principles and guide lines and pointing to source of information (such this thread).

[NubitGuy]

Attention fake Fb exchange

a site just popped up on the radar as a fake exchange trying to emulate Poloniex Exchange
by posing as Poloniex on facebook https://www.facebook.com/poloniextrades trying redirecting people to login fake site with : http://bit.do/poloniex-exchange

this is why should be careful adding sites when investors know the fake scam these scammers might try different tactics making their own fake exchange…one gox was enough