FTC Delisting on BTC-E an Opportunity for NuBits?

creon 2015-01-19 16:41:27 UTC #14

That’s true, but even a short down time is extremely expensive for an exchange like btc-e. Furthermore I can imagine that they implement the interfaces to their engine directly into the wallet software, for various reasons.

This. Or we decide in a special motion that the code can be shared with BTC-e only (secured by an NDA of course).

masterOfDisaster 2015-01-19 16:44:10 UTC #15

Without a custodian at btc-e it will be an interesting test for the speed of arbitrage trading.
But maybe your doctor is right and the prescription includes not only a NBTUSD trading pait, but an announcement and some time to get a custodian ready as well.
On a different take you could ask why to put a custodial grant on such an anonymous exchange that btc-e is, though.

masterOfDisaster 2015-01-19 16:45:32 UTC #16

Whom will you hold accountable if that NDA gets broken?
Where is btc-e?
Who is btc-e?

I doubt that this motion would have a chance to pass.

creon 2015-01-19 16:46:56 UTC #17

Yeah right, they are pretty shady never got hacked so far though … Of course we would take that risk, you could include it in the proposal that we open source immediately on leak. I also think that you somehow can sue btc-e.

teek 2015-01-19 16:51:07 UTC #18

i’d take NBTUSD on btc-e in a second, i am pretty sure there is no problem with multiple custodians if nubot is running in USD as well… the problem is only with crypto pairs… is that correct @desrever ?

I’ve been trying to start my LPC for a long time as it was approved quite some time ago, but just hasn’t been working out… BTER still isn’t ready for multiple custodians as was originally proposed, and I just can’t take any exchange that lists XPY seriously.

mhps 2015-01-19 17:24:06 UTC #19

Forget NBTUSD on btc-e. Exchanges want TRADING volume. Back and forth frantic speculative trading, that is. NBTUSD is not for trading. It is a service, best installed on the page of payment processors and gateways, forext exchangers, etc. .

We need to have something like coinoUSD already has-- simple interface to enable buying with USD on egopay, OKPay, PerfectMoney … It’s a surprise that coinoUSD hasn’t given Nu a run for its money, so to speak.

[SURVEY] Liquidity Custodianship Business - Profitable or Not Profitable

desrever 2015-01-19 17:44:39 UTC #20

Very correct indeed

teek 2015-01-19 19:21:42 UTC #21

I guess you do have a point there…

SkullandHeadphones 2015-01-19 21:22:16 UTC #22

I’m on it, I trade there as well so I’ll send an email too

cryptog 2015-01-19 23:25:11 UTC #23

Instead of sending them each of us a message, wouldn’t that be better to get the efforts coordinated by the marketing manager of Nu? I means if the marketing manager of Nu which I understand is @tomjoad contacts them, shouldn’t that be enough?
I do not see so much point in flooding them with messages…it could get them annoyed and make discard any message containing Nu in the title for a while.
Just my take.

Besides, I think real data that shows the volume is a must.
Showing them that NBT had several times more volume than LTC could be also very convincing.

Well right now the volume on this pair is very low. But in the future, if Nu is successful, it should skyrocket.

tomjoad 2015-01-19 23:30:05 UTC #24

Exchanges don’t have the capacity to consider/evaluate every single competing digital currency project. They (like most of us) rely on simple heuristics for activity - and email volume is one of them. If plenty of users take a minute to write a brief message to BTC-e, they will take notice and begin investigating us further because they will assume we have an active (trading) community.

@creon is right however that our current closed-source status likely makes NBT/NSR less desirable for BTC-e in the short term.

cryptog 2015-01-19 23:53:42 UTC #25

This makes sense.

cryptog 2015-01-20 01:04:14 UTC #26

@Raythma Very nice plot.
Can one explain why the volume goes down and up periodically from very low to very high with highs going up exponentially?

Sentinelrv 2015-01-20 01:18:51 UTC #27

I’ve been wondering that myself.

cryptog 2015-01-20 01:27:57 UTC #28

I ve just sent a message to BTC-E support to add NBT.

wengone 2015-01-20 02:16:10 UTC #29

i sent a msg to btc-e on bitcointalk

miner 2015-01-20 02:31:54 UTC #30

PM sent, focus on growing community and immediate scenarios.

mhps 2015-01-20 03:29:46 UTC #31

A buyer of 1000 NBT with USD will generate 1000 NBT volume in a day and move on with his NBT and won’t come back to sell for a while or forever.

A buyer of 1000 NBT with crypto is probable a speculation trader and could trade back and forth 5 times a day and generate 5000 NBT volume in a day, and do this every day.

NBT/USD will generate much less trades than NBT/crypto unless normal commerce using nubits exceed speculative trading by 10 - 100 time.

Enable easy selling/buying Nubits with e-currency USD

cryptog 2015-01-20 03:55:34 UTC #32

I think you are right and you raise a very good point.
NBT/USD should be much less profitable for crypto exchanges than other pair NBT/Cryptos.
But still I think it would be nice for an exchange to have NBT/USD since it would enable traders to buy NBT directly.
However if Nu is successful in maintaining the peg, NBT/USD should offer no volatility.
So there is no profit possible like with BTC/USD for example.
This explains why NBT/USD has a very low buy side support on ccedk.

That is why NBT/USD should be offered not to traders (on crypto exchanges) but to consumers (via payment gateways as @mhps suggested here. )

NBT is basically a token you buy for buying things on the Internet. It is a currency.

So overall BTC-E should be more interested in NSR than NBT.

mhps 2015-01-20 04:02:22 UTC #33

Yes I think it probably is more interested in offering NSR trading to benefit from the success of NBT (and maybe BTCNBT)