Looking at the upgrade of Nu to 2.1, the situation of the official blockexplorer, the slow development of ALPv2 (I’m not criticising you, @woolly_sammoth & @desrever!), the lack of framework development to increase automation, etc. I wonder whether really lack of commitment to liquidity is our biggest problem.
I for one consider myself highly devoted to liquidity provision, although I might have different thoughts about it than others.
At least I talk about my thoughts and write them in the forum and in proposals.
What I miss is a more rapid development in areas where Nu needs updates and improvements as well as in areas, which Nu needs to discover.
The current liquidity provision is on a solid base.
Poloniex and NuLagoon are the main exchanges and the peg there is well supported.
Nu needs a vision that goes beyond inceasing trading volume at exchanges.
But even if we had that vision, I don’t know how we could try to make it come true.
Wouldn’t it make sense to create asset value through development rather than increasing liquidity volume?
More tools and keeping the existing ones working is imperative!
Saving costs at development to buy more liquidity and transaction volume at exchanges (that don’t generate revenue!) is dangerous!
A question that is related to this, because it might help understanding the situation:
how much NBT, BTC or other cryptocurrencies are left in the development fund? @JordanLee, can you please tell?
I don’t know.
We should try to get an overview of the development road map on the whole, different projects in particular and the budget that’s associated to them.
Most of that can only be provided by the core dev team or @JordanLee
The pace of development has indeed slowed. We used to spend 50,000 per month on core development. For a long time the target has been 10,000 per month. In recent months I believe the average spent is $2000 to $3000 per month. Development should be ramped up.
I would like to remind everyone that it has been more than six months now since I have received any compensation from NuBits, so what you are seeing is not the work of Jordan Lee. It is what development looks like without Jordan Lee. I don’t have any obligation to deliver anything.
Still, I am aware the 2.1 release has taken much longer than expected. I don’t do code reviews or manage issues but I recently spoke about this with @woodstockmerkle with the aim of evaluating whether it makes sense to continue working on the 2.1 (which consists of major changes to the inner workings of the code that reduce utilization of hardware resources) in parallel with a release to change the NSR denomination and remove share days destroyed from voting. We agreed that the dual path for development makes the most sense. So we ought to have a developer work on the NSR denomination release by basing it off of 2.0.3 code. It can be released before the optimizations that we are now calling 2.1. Whenever the optimizations are completed they will also be released separately. Basically, we code two releases independently. Whichever gets done first gets released first. In any case two separate releases should occur.
The trouble is, which developer will do it? I think @woodstockmerkle should focus on optimizations for what has been labeled 2.1. @Eleven has only done B&C Exchange development. He is getting a great deal done and it seems prudent to keep him focused on B&C. I spoke just days ago with @sigmike about his availability and he does not have time right now for the extra development. @glv prefers to only work on B&C, as I understand it. So we need to find a developer resource for the NSR denomination release to proceed. It’s time to tackle that problem, however, when allocating my own time I consider the liquidity issues I have raised recently to more urgent.
I am happy to report how many NuShare holder funds I have:
26.04 BTC
177,453 USNBT
These are not exactly development funds, as they are also actively used for liquidity operations. When asked what development funds are available, the correct answer is 10,000 USNBT per month, as established by motion, to be taken from the funds referenced above.
I have always been hesitant to handle any funds other than my own. I have done so simply because it seemed necessary to accomplish the work at hand. However, it has always been my goal to transition out of handling shareholder or development funds. The question that must be answered is who else is going to handle the funds? There doesn’t seem to be a good answer right now in regard to development funds, although I am certainly open to suggestion. All it takes is a trusted community member who wants to step up.
I don’t handle the actual payments, although I do see all invoices and all payments. Angela handles the payments. I have asked her to report publicly on the forum how much is spent each month on development, but it hasn’t happened yet.
Edit: As of May 7th, Angela has 5,495 USNBT to be used to pay developers for work on NuBits.
Thank you very much for the detailed insights, @JordanLee!
It was good to remind us. Without public reports such information slippes ones mind. Thank you for continuing work without being paid!
That makes sense if both paths are (mostly) independent from each other, which I suppose they are - otherwise you’d have chosen another path.
I’d appreciate to find a solution for this. It could relieve you from work, which others might as well do, if there’s an answer for some questions. If there’s no solution you might consider being enlisted on the payroll again.
Having the shareholder fund under control of a group very much like FLOT, but dedicated to payments related development can be an answer to the question who is going to handle the funds.
But how to assess mile stones and determine that the agreed work (or time) has been delivered is another matter.
Maybe somebody with experience in software development has an idea how to do that.
The devs rating each others work can lead to awkward situations just as having a group of people do it.
This is one of the situations in which I consider a single person doing the job (requesting a payment) better than having a group of people do it.
If that single person is evaluating the payments, this person should be part of a multisig group. Having that person separate from the multisig group brings no security benefit. If that person requests payments and a separate group executes the requests without chance to verify the correctness, it’s not necessary to have a split reponsibility.
A 2-of-3 group should be appropriate to increase the security of the funds (malware, hackers, etc.)
Reports by Angela might help getting a feeling for what is going on. I hope she finds the time to present some of her work.
So all the money left for Nu company is less than 200K USD. I am curious about what will happen if these money is used up in 2017? Stop develepment? Stop liquidity providing?
Print NBT from air? and burn them for NSR? OK, if you believe NSR market capitalization is “Aladdin’s lamp”.
I have no NSR, so even Nu die I won’t lose anything, even Nu die in the arms of B&C, just say a word “sorry”.
But I’ve raised an idea for Nu’s revenue, to develope a browser plugin conencting to wallet, and use it pay content on the internet and charge 1-3% fee, even cooperate with porn industry(in legal conutries), or any other industry fond of new technology.
the assets Nu has.
In the end it doesn’t matter whether NBT or NSR get granted.
If there’s enough demand for NBT, you can very well grant NBT to fund development.
Else you’ll end up selling NSR to remove those NBT from market.
Tell me: what other assets does Nu have? Patents? Does Nu sell licenses?
That’s what Nu needs of course. Otherwise all assets will be consumed by liquidity provision and development sooner or later.
Nu’s asset are 200K NBT in Jordan’s hands, and shareholders’ NSR.
Liability are the sold NBT on customers’ hands. Nothing more. I am afraid Nu even cannot afford Jordan/Sigmike’s salary in 2017.
No income(0.01trade fee neglectable), just continuous expenditure on LP/dev now, very serious situation.
On the contrary, B&C’s expenditure is extremly low, I can even afford 8 PCs as signers running 24X7 with internet access by myself. So B&C can easily reach financial balance. B&C may provide extreme low fee for NBT LPs, but cost cut is not revenue any way. BTW, B&C crowd-funding(BTC) has already helped Nu a lot, without those BTC (around 240$ each then) transfering to NBT, Nu faces tougher situatuion now. If all the fund kept as BTC, B&C now has twice money for development, but as a former NSR holder I don’t complain about it.
Dream for many customers buy NBT and hold regardless whether NBT are redeemable? I doubt that will come true. IMO, Nu has the last chance to survide: payment tool for online content, even for porn.
To become a profitable DAO is very difficult now, neither bitshare nor etheruem(DAO) has achieved that target. They usually tell storty, sell concept to absorb blood from outside, for speculation reasons.
Bitcoin lives till now because Satoshi had buried “gold” on the road, the new minted coins every day.
If Nu/B&C becomes the first profitable DAO, it can be recorded in the history. Let’s move on!
I’d argue that Nu has raised over $700k (equal to the circulating nubit supply) while B&C has only raised it’s initial $200k or whatever. This concept that an increasing NBT supply is not revenue that we can use is broken. Yes, we will dilute with shares when we have to. So will B&C until it is up and running. Don’t forget that Nu has burned far more shares than it has diluted via liquidity operations. Like 2 orders of magnitude more.
OK, let’s wait and see what will happen after Nu use up all its money. Let’s see how many warm hearted investors will help a money losing company, and how many fools will buy NBT kept as their old-age pension regardless of redeemability because you use large portion income into other fields.
And I would strongly against transfering BTC to NBT if their is new B&C crowd fund in future,as a sole B&C holder, I refuse to help Nu again.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
