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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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).
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.
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).
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
Looks like we have very polarised camps here which have been dug in deeply. I’m not very keen on putting this sort of thing through motions for the reasons mentioned above. It also sets a precedent, but apparently it seems to be the only way to move forward. So here is my proposed motion which also includes some improvements. I’ve also made the motion more generic, so we don’t need to have this discussion for each exchange again and again.
To me there is no value adding into a motion that it can be revoked. When there is evidence there is no bases to assess as whether the source of the evidence is valid, or whether the evidence is strong enough to take measures etc. This is asking for more trouble and discussions.
However I do support discretionary measures when time is of the essence, but I think they will need to be endorsed by the shareholders with a motion to be raised by the person who takes the discretionary action. When it is not endorsed within 14 days the measures will be rolled back.
Let me know what you think.
=##=##=##=##=##=## Motion hash starts with this line ##=##=##=##=##=##=
This motion is to express the desire of NuShares holders to list all NuBits and NuShares exchange resources in all current and future marketing materials which are under the control of the Nu team.
The listing of an exchange may be removed at the discretion of the Nu team if strong evidence arises that a listed exchange could pose as a liability to NuShares holders or users of NuBits and time is of the essence. Such an action will be followed with a motion for the Shareholders to endorse this action. When the action is not endorsed within 14 days after the removal of the listing the removed listing shall be placed back without changes.
The Nu team will also add the following disclaimer to both pages which currently list exchanges and any other lists of exchanges published in the future by the NU team on behalf of the NuShareholders:
The exchanges listed are not endorsed by the NuShareholders by any means. The NuShareholders cannot be held liable for any funds lost by using these exchanges. This listing only intends to be an overview where NuShares and NuBits can be traded. Users of these exchanges need to do their own due diligence before using these exchanges. This can be done by searching the discuss.nubits.com forums for any previous events or asking questions in the community.
=##=##=##=##=##=## Motion hash ends with this line ##=##=##=##=##=##=
I’m sure the wording of the disclaimer can be improved. But I’m just putting this up to test the waters.
“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.”
Maybe replace this bit with:
“The Nu team will do their best to list all exchange resources by default in current and future marketing materials which are under their control.”
We don’t really need to refer specifically to ccedk in the motion text.
Good point, I made it more generic and changed a few words to clarify. Like to hear some feedback on the disclaimer before having it up for voting. Is it too long, too short, should it refer to other disclaimers else where. Do we need to provide more guidance on risks?