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 exco.in when they were hacked. We removed BTER when they were hacked. We removed CCEDK when they were hacked. Exco.in 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).
