Lack of commitment to development is our biggest threat now

[crypto_coiner]

The trouble is, which developer will do it? I

New recruits on par in terms of quality, with eleven.
That is not too hard.

[masterOfDisaster]

OK, let’s wait and see what will happen after Nu use up all its money.

I consider the money used up, if Nu can’t keep (or at least restore the peg). There’s some more way to go to get there.

Let’s see how many warm hearted investors will help a money losing company

You do realize that most startups start this way?
I’m not saying it changes for Nu.
I’m just saying you can’t call Nu doomed, just because it has at the moment more expenses than revenue; there’s potential!

how many fools will buy NBT kept as their old-age pension regardless of redeemability because you use large portion income into other fields.

I don’t know, but anyone investing (solely) in cryptocurrencies for pension purposes can be called fool - no matter whether it’s US-NBT, BTC or whatever!
I hope those who do invest in cryptocurrencies do only invest a small share for diversification purposes.

as a sole B&C holder, I refuse to help Nu again.

Again? Please remind me: when and how did BCE help Nu?
Isn’t it rather that Nu provided BCE with: idea, architecture, source code base, community, developers?

Anyway, as BCE holder it’s your right do decide whatever you consider helpful for the success of BCE.
BCE can’t be used with fiat, only synthetic fiat, and I’m damn sure, it works better with “crypto fiat” trading pairs.
Please tell me: what synthetic fiat will BCE use if not Nu products? bitUSD? coinoUSD? Tether?
I dare say the success of BCE partially depends on the reliability of US-NBT (and future products that will be released); Nu’s and BCE’s success are partially tied to each other.

[Sabreiib]

I Object.

Eleven is hired by B&C company and should not work for another company even if they pay them, as a B&C shareholder I am not very satisfied with the progress of B&C.

B&C has already helped Nu a lot by Buying lots of NBT months agao. If Nu shareholders(with 40% BKS?) have different opinion, you can vote via B&C network.

[Sabreiib]

Again? Please remind me: when and how did BCE help Nu?Isn’t it rather that Nu provided BCE with: idea, architecture, source code base, community, developers?

Anyway, as BCE holder it’s your right do decide whatever you consider helpful for the success of BCE.BCE can’t be used with fiat, only synthetic fiat, and I’m damn sure, it works better with “crypto fiat” trading pairs.Please tell me: what synthetic fiat will BCE use if not Nu products? bitUSD? coinoUSD? Tether?I dare say the success of BCE partially depends on the reliability of US-NBT (and future products that will be released); Nu’s and BCE’s success are partially tied to each other.

Jordan has bought many NBT months ago with B&C crowd-funding , I think this is the help, or help each other.

BTW, I don’t think NBT is indispensable for B&C because we have BKC. And of course, open source peoject has no copy right. At least B&C has some revenue to pay its liquidity providers for BKC.

BTW, if Nu has no money to pay Jordan and Sigmike while B&C can, they have nothing to do with Nu’s development, perhaps only emotional link. As Jordan said, he has no obligation to deliver anything to Nu without payment, that’s quite fair.

I argued for real revenue for Nu more than one years ago, and still raise idea of how to make profit for Nu yesterday, so I’ve already tried to be as helpful as possible to Nu, Don’t blame me, this is business, not personal.

[masterOfDisaster]

Jordan has bought many NBT months ago with B&C crowd-funding , I think this is the help, or help each other.

You are right, this was a kind of help.
And I agree that it was helping each other.
Nu had an increase of demand for NBT and BCE received an asset that is stable in (USD) value in difference to keeping BTC in the development fund.

I don’t think NBT is indispensable for B&C because we have BKC

I suppose BKC will be traded close to $1 most of the time, but the thing is: this is not (yet?) warranted like it is for NBT.
NBT has a track record of being stable on top, which BKC doesn’t have even if it’s announced as being pegged.
BCE can of course install liquidity provision with BKC and introduce BKC trading pairs. The tools for that (NuBot) are there and only need to be adjusted (new wrappers).

BCE can profit in many ways from what Nu developed.
And Nu can profit from reduced liquidity provision costs when using BCE multisig opposed to central exchanges.

It really can be a cooperation between Nu and BCE for mutual benefit. That requires staying fair to each other.
I suppose a lot of people are shareholders of both DAOs. And a lot aren’t. I just hope that most of shareholders realize that cooperation between Nu and BCE might lead to synergy effects that can outpace short term profits by trying to rip off one another.

I argued for real revenue for Nu more than one years ago […] Don’t blame me, this is business, not personal.

Real revenue is what Nu needs. Thank you for sharing your ideas!
After all this is why I didn’t ask for moving this discussion elsewhere: it’s related to development!
I don’t take any of this personal and I hope I don’t come across otherwise or did offend you.

[desrever]

More than a year ago I publicly asked on this thread on contractor compensation :

what is the Shareholders opinion in respect of having a Nu Foundation registered somewhere? We have seen this happening already with Ethereum (Switzerland) and now NeoCoin (Isle of Man). Their project is grounded to one or more foundations/legal entities in some country. They can have proper employees and make invoices with a legal validity. Without that, life of contractors will be forever confined in grey/dark areas and won’t encourage long-term commitment.

This pretty much sums up my view : for long term commitments we need a registered entity.

[Sabreiib]

If switzeland allow private company issue currencies…

But that still costs money, as a shareholder we should always worry about the cost/profit. I dream we can make enough profit to pay Jordan/Sigmike and other dev till they retired. And still confident about B&C becomes a profitable company.

On other side, this foundation is the weakness central node of decentralized organization?

[Sabreiib]

I totally agree with you that the loose pegging ie spread is needed, but Jordan, cybnate disagree.

I invite you to do an experiment after B&C launched, we provide liquidity to BKC with our own fund, and 0.9$ buy 1.0$ sell. If we can survive that proves we are right.

In Tomj opinion, we are just speculators outside mail office buying/selling stamps. He said stamp is always stamp not money in US, he is right on the fact but wrong on the reason. US government never allow stamps as money, so the result. However, nobody forbid BKC used as money, that’s the point. Furthermore, if B&C shareholders pass a motion that selling BKC in an anti-infaltion way, my Hayek dream nearly come true, I do dream people buy good crypto money as pension.

Interesting question: if stamp allowed in US to buy anything like dollar, and each stamp price increases with inflation rate, who will laugh to the end? FED or mail office? LOL

[masterOfDisaster]

I invite you to do a experiment after B&C launched, we provide liquidity to BKC with our own fund, and 0.9$ buy 1.0$ sell. If we can survive and that proves we are right.

I don’t have much funds to provide for this experiment, but I like the idea. I might join you as I think one can survive in that business.
BKC will be consumed by fees, so sooner or later you’ll be able to sell your BKC.
Btw. I’m going to buy at $0.91 and sell at $0.99

I only differ in the interpretation of the result.
In my opinion it shows that people buying BKC at <$1 and selling BKC at <$1 causes the price of BKC to float close to, but below the price at which they get sold by BCE.
US-NBT needs a relatively stable price.

But I’m on your side thinking that it’s not required to have lots of thousands of USD value at a very tight spread to call it pegged.
With NuLagoon (one of the official LP) providing funds at a tight spread, I’d dare supporting liquidity at exchanges only up to a few thousand USD at a very tight spread.

[Sabreiib]

1. B&C sells BKC at the ceiling price. ie 1$ (although can be added anti-inflation in future)

2. As an small experiment with several thousands BKC, we sell@0.99$ and buy @0.9$, the less spread you choose, the high probability to fullfilled but BTC volatility risk is also high, you may lose money, and the broader spread, the safer, but less probability making a deal. So in the end, the free market may reach equilibrium with multiple sell/buy walls , that’s a healthy market depth.

3. B&C don’t need to pay a single penny to such liquidity. Of course B&C can provide some revenue to tighter pegging if shareholders believe it nessesary.

4. The anti-inflation feature makes the spread less harmful to the so called pegging quality because buy@1.2$+sell@1.3$ is better than the toxic inflated USD. Would you hold an acurate 1$ for 10 years or a blurry BKC around 1.8-1.9$ in the end?

I guess some people get financially abused for so long that they feel unease when the kindly treatment comes to them: when you hold money doing nothing for years, nothing ought to happen to the buying power. They don’t belive “anti-inflation bond” and “liquid currency” can become one----the good money. Let’s make this dream true!

5) If BKC succeed in the “coase” pegging, then Nu may use BKC/NBT pair to achieve “fine” pegging for much lower risk/expenditure. ie B&C provide both safer platform and relative stable backing asset!

[Nagalim]

Nu does not wait till it runs out of money before leveraging NSR. Do you mean wait until we’ve diluted the same amount that we bought back and we’re at break even? Or do you mean wait until 5 years later when we’re still going strong? We can easily coast for a few years off supply growth. By the time it’s really an issue, we’ll have volume-dependent fees and be generating ‘real’ revenue. The only reason it looks like we’re in trouble now is because nbt supply has been on the decline for several months. Give it a few months of remaining steady or growing and you’ll see how temporary the depressed Nu economy is.

I would not vote for any attempt to peg BKC. It is not in the business model and would be throwing money down the drain.

[Sabreiib]

I would not vote for any attempt to peg BKC. It is not in the business model and would be throwing money down the drain.

I as a BKC liquid provider, don’t need to acquire any permisson/motion for BKC pegging, this is freemarket and I am self funded. Just do what I like to do! I believe only government can stop me by canceling my internet access or sealing the software port.

[Nagalim]

That’s not pegging, that’s just trading. Of course people will be trading on BKC pairs, that’s not really a question.

[Sabreiib]

Free market will make the business model come into being, free market will tell you people favorite the accurate 1$ NBT or loose pegging BKC from a much profitable company. The invisible hand is the ultimate judge, not us.

[Nagalim]

It’s interesting to note that Nu profits when they lower the price of the peg and B&C profits when they increase the price they’re selling at. Just a funny thing to think about.

You’re right, we’ll see what people do. However, I think that BitUSD has shown that people don’t like the free market model very much.

[Sabreiib]

Because in cryptoworld, lots and lots of central bank haters, they hate bitUSD, NBT, Tether and any other FIAT pegging money(inflated).

However, they like gold standard(BTC) or Hayek’s good money(anti inflation).

That’s my belief, time will tell.

As far as I know, B&C will charge fee based on blockchain data size, it’s stupid to maintain 1$ for ever, that means B&C shareholders income decreases every year given the same trade volume. Or they have to slowly lift the BKC price per KB on blockchain, I’ll vote for an anti-inflation sell price for BKC, guess which side the majority shareholders will choose?

[Hyena]

USNBT sucks because USD sucks and is going down the drain. That’s why no one wants NBT. Hell, I don’t even want it because I see the economic collapse of the US. And I know BTC fanboys don’t want it for the same reason. USNBT would have made sense if we were able to establish NBT/BTC trading pairs in all major exchanges. It didn’t happen so there is no other reason to support that peg.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-collapse-of-the-western-fiat-monetary-system-may-have-begun-china-russia-and-the-reemergence-of-gold-backed-currencies/5521107

I’d propose starting a yuan peg ASAP and start marketing the shit out of it. This is why ETH and their DAO is so successful — they play dirty and it works. I’d rather grant NBT to someone willing to market our product than to someone developing another obscure technical piece of software around Nu (by devs for devs style).

If we peg to yuan we can advertise it as the first cryptocurrency ever that is essentially backed by gold since it follows yuan. USD sucks and erryone in the bitcoinworld knows it.

[Nagalim]

We need Nu 3.0 to get multiple currencies? We should make a timeline for the multiple currencies thing. I think many people would be willing to push that to the front of the Nu dev line.

[Sabreiib]

Hyena, as a man living in Yuan’s world for many years, yuan also sucks, all FIAT are the same.

This government never, never think for the next government 4 years later, they always overstimulate the economics, and the bitter result tasted by next 8 or 10 years goverment, who care? They already retired! The rule was already demonstrated by Hayek, and apply for both capitalism and so called socailsm governments.

FIAT sucks! Capitalism has problem because it’s not 100% capitalism so far, there are monetary monopolists, not free markets.

[Hyena]

Of course it sucks. The question is — which sucks more in the near term future: yuan or US dollar?