Nu just another noble experiment or more?

The Plaza
#1

Excerpt from and old article from 2016 about Bitcoin eventually failing which I believe holds more merit than ever:

Let’s also bear in mind what it is that makes some venture capitalists Bitcoin zealots: pure greed. That is the reason clearest to me for Bitcoin’s failure. Intended as a level playing field and a more efficient transaction system, the Bitcoin system has deteriorated into a fight between interested parties over a pool of money. In the beginning, Bitcoin was a noble experiment. Now, it is a distraction. It’s time to build more rational, transparent, robust, accountable systems of governance to pave the way to a more prosperous future for everyone.

Do you think Nu be such a system or are we also just a noble experiment to be written off eventually? I believe Nu has the capability when people can go past greed and immediate returns and have a long term view on profits and investments (Tesla style).

3 Likes
#2

When people realize Tether.to has no money backing it, people will come flocking to Nubits, we just have to be around long enough for that to happen.

1 Like
#3

I adore your endurance and your investor confidence.
Can you please tell me how you imagine Nu getting there, into that future where the long-term view on profits has become a dream come true (Tesla style)?

All I see are tremendous costs and not even a road map that shows the way.
This is different from Tesla, where the goal is clear (affordable electric cars for everyone) and the way to that as well (staring with more expensive cars, learning, optimizing processes, market penetration).

And the tokens (NSR) that are sold are of diminishing value ever since the first buybacks pushed them up to unhealthy heights.
This is different from Bitcoin, where the trend is the opposite.

#4

I adore your endurance in visiting and posting in this forum without being a shareholder. Something must attract you here. Probably the potential of Nu, or are it just missionary-type urges? :wink:

I think there have been enough scenarios presented on this forum which could make a difference. Starting with high costs is nothing strange as Nu basically needs to be built from scratch again. I believe our vision should be to provide one or more so called stablecoin in a decentralised and economic way eventually. We are clearly a long way removed from that right now. I’m just hoping that current and new shareholders can apply a long-term view as it has been proven often that short-term views to profits are not sustainable. It requires some courage to go that way though. Only a few can pull it off as most of the time short term greed takes over. So that’s why there is a question mark in the title.

They have been created and sold for unhealthy low prices for a long time before so maybe, just maybe the system works. It is worth another try I would say. And yes, the costs are high and unsustainable and scaling up is required to make any real profit in the future. The only way to achieve that is showing confidence, building infrastructure and providing a balance between some shareholder value in the short term and long term shareholder’s sustainable profits.

Bitcoin has a problem when it wants to be a currency people can use. It is just an investor’s vehicle right now and as long as it’s economic model doesn’t change it will just stay that until some realise that they are investing because everybody else does without any intrinsic value. That is just my opinion and don’t get me wrong I’ve owned and sold Bitcoin too just to make some money out of the craze. Just saying I don’t believe in the current model with a fixed amount of coins without inflation from an economic perspective. There are plenty of better alternatives, but I think that is off-topic in this thread which is about Nu.

Hope we don’t have to wait for that, and hope we can eventually proof you can provide a stablecoin services with decentralised reserves provided by a community at cost and/or shareholders looking for profits. Time will tell.

1 Like
#5

Once I was attracted by the potential of Nu. Then I learned better. I still see potential in the idea, but not the current implementation. Nu’s share distribution is questionable to say the least.
I’m still here to learn, albeit more often how not to do it as of late.
That’s why I think the only way to launch the idea is not as Nu, but as Augeas. It’s time for a new experiment. The old one failed and dies slowly. It’ll be obvious as soon as the Ponzi scheme collapses,

At the last start Nu had a dev fund and a vibrant community.
Since then the dev fund vanished (or is any of it left?), reserve got wasted on NSR buybacks, NSR amount was quadrupled and the NSR rate was bulldozed.
Seriously - how do you plan to build it from scratch? With what dev fund?

It requires courage and money.

Off tx fees, lol?
Oh, I know of scenarios. I even created one. I’m not aware of any scenario on the road map filling Nu’s pockets other than selling tokens (NSR, US-NBT and soon maybe other pegged currencies).
And that’s why I continue calling it Ponzi scheme.
It’s one thing to say there are scenarios. It’s a different thing to work towards them.
The most easy way to make profit would be from spread.
But apparently that’s something awful.
Alas, it’s the only way to make profit with what you have.
Ignore it and continue to die.
If you increase the spread and trading stops, your mission has failed, this experiment failed and you won’t reach the fairy tale land of long-term profit.

Nu has a problem when it wants to provide a stable currency trading in pairs other than the pegged ones . It’s just a hedger’s vehicle right now and as long as its economic model doesn’t change it will go bankrupt from it.
I’ve said it more than once and repeat it once more: if you wnat to survive longer, forfeit the BTC/NBT pair and focus on NBT/USD. If that’s not possible, it’s game over already.

I concur.
Bitcoin will fail, because it can barely be able to sustain all the mining industry off transaction fees. But it’s a long way until only tx fees remain. As halving the rewards continues, some might think of workarounds. Maybe Bitcoin transitions to PoS, lol.

Nu has no money backing it either.
It hopes to have enough assets to get money for backing it.
That failed once and will fail again.
When a year ago the reserves were depleted, the peg crashed.
Some say that organizations or individuals failed. I say the design failed. With partial reserve (and that not even in the assets you peg to!) you have only limited capacity to get money.
Do you understand why I’m so vocal about pegging NBT/USD instead of BTC/NBT?
Do you know NuSafe or have read thoughts about short-term lending?
As long as Nu is more and more getting centralized, you know you are on the wrong way.

#6

Can you elaborate on this?

I am under the impression Tether tokens are sold and bought back for face value, which is how Nu was originally designed, and since they are a legit company they have bank accounts with all of the money backing it and submit regular balance sheets.

I came here for a decentralized version of that idea, but it morphed into shadowy figures having all of the trust without any accountability.

Yes, Nu is a noble experiment and it is up to us to make it into more. Otherwise we are just wasting our time here to make JordanLee rich.

1 Like
#7

There’s money backing it, but not only can it be lost/stolen, but locked at a whim: https://themerkle.com/wells-fargo-blocks-180m-in-funds-belonging-to-ifinex-and-tether-customers/

…so different from Nu…

I’d rather spend money and efforts on Augeas. The reason is:

1 Like
#8

I saw a crypto news post that said their peg broke when there was a disrepency in their balance sheets, how can Tether be trusted now?

#9

I think it’s a drop in the bucket beyond the negative PR Nu has, to be honest. I’m not defending Tether, though. I know it’s flaws. Why do you think I am on this forum?

#10

any link to the article?

#11

@Cybnate, may I ask you for your opinion on this? What do you believe happened when @jooize failed to compare two exchange prices as Vice Chief of Liquidity Operations on behalf of the Nu network. Could you please be so kind and tell me what comes to your mind when you hear about such behavior?

#12

Cryptocurrency is supposed to be decentralized, tether just ruins the idea of cryptocurrency by having a central point of failure.

#13

As I already said, you aren’t telling me anything I do not already know.

I think you are missing the fact that Nu has a central point of failure.

#14

Off-topic: WoollySammoth has been answering that in another thread about park rates. My view is similar and I was disappointed when I read about that event. Room for improvement and further automation is the answer eventually.

#15

Nu was never meant to have a central point of failure, ruined by people who were elected to have total control over the money supply.

#16

That’s how the project started when the incorporators and “seed investors” kind of elected JordanLee.
It continued when book-keeping was done that wasn’t available to share holders and only for JordanLee. Correct me if I’m wrong.
For a period of time it was better when FLOT was in place. The control was shared and the financial reporting the best Nu had.
Then FLOT was slaughtered to centralize control again. The reasoning was far-fetched, but it did its job.
Now the total control is in the hands of those who control the network and can set fees to zero without the help of anyone.

It’s worse than Tether where you have central points but those are at least seizable as opposed to the central points at Nu.

#17

My short-term loan design is there. It solves the decentralized issue and profit problem.

But seldom of you on this forum accept it. So I am just waiting for Nu’s failure, without anything can do.

2 Likes
#18

Could you please tell who control Nu project, ie money :slight_smile:, and who maintain & develop it now?

As far as I can get from the 1st glance @jooize & @woolly_sammoth are ones from those people?

#19

@jooize controls the central reserve. @woolly_sammoth controls the nubit trading bots. @Phoenix controls the majority shares (or has a private channel with the majority shareholders that no one is privy to).

1 Like
#20

@Nagalim

Thanks :relaxed:

But what about the developer(s)? Is the project’s developments frozen as well as B&C Exchange?

Pity to see the latter abandoned, amid the rise of DEX’ ICOs :unamused:,
wonder if the B&C could compete with those new projects.