[Passed] Motion to introduce new NuBits products

[woodstockmerkle]

To confirm that CNH is the Yuan used exchanged outside of the mainland (i.e.: H for Hong Kong) CNY is used within mainland China.

As there is a spread, which would be more appropriate for Nu to peg to?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-two-yuan-dilemma-1441023511 is interesting. It mentions that China allows for a maximum of $50,000 exchange into USD annually.

[mhps]

As there is a spread, which would be more appropriate for Nu to peg to?

I depends on the usecase or purposes of the cn-nubit. For PR purposes it doesn’t matter.

[Sentinelrv]

There is also B&C and other decentralized exchanges, which the PRC government wouldn’t be able to shut down trading at.

[masterOfDisaster]

It will take some time for B&C to handle fiat pairs. I have no idea how to handle fiat pairs there, to be honest.
Someone who is clever needs to have an ingenious idea.
So BCE will be no option for CNY/NBT pair for some time.

[Sentinelrv]

I meant that they could deposit Yuan at a centralized exchange like BTER and buy Bitcoin or NuBits, then send it to B&C and trade for Chinese NBT, that is if they shut down these pairs on centralized exchanges. I’m also thinking though that if the PRC government wanted to get nasty they could also force BTER to remove all NuBits pairs, such as NBT/BTC, which wouldn’t be good.

[tomjoad]

This motion has been hashed for voting: 5febe97664ed02c8d24dbb444b6a9f43f7a8dea9

I held off for a few extra days to make sure all shareholders had a chance to give their opinion. There seemed to be general consensus that this motion is a good idea, with the primary disagreement coming from the selection of new currencies to peg to (such as CNY/CNH). I hope those shareholders who agree with this motion’s content but disagree with a particular currency’s inclusion will consider voting for this motion. Because a subsequent motion is required to authorize currency operations, it would still be possible to prevent a specific NBT currency product from becoming widely traded.

One good question that was raised was whether the CNY or CNH would be pegged for CH-NBT. I think that should be decided in a subsequent motion to authorize full-scale trading. This motion only commits to the creation of a Chinese NuBit, not the particular peg that will be maintained.

The only adjustment I’ve made to the motion text is to change C-NBT and E-NBT to CH-NBT and EU-NBT respectively. That change will align the branding with US-NBT and make the regions clearer.

[Sentinelrv]

I thought the dashes had to be dropped as well?

[tomjoad]

I thought the dashes had to be dropped as well?

If it’s an issue for exchanges I’m sure they will shorten it up to CHNBT on their own. Having the dashes aids in comprehension where possible though I think.

[Cybnate]

Will support this and add to my datafeed tomorrow.

[crypto_coiner]

This motion has been hashed for voting: 5febe97664ed02c8d24dbb444b6a9f43f7a8dea9

Great – looking forward
Voted

[tomjoad]

The Nu block explorer is down at the moment, but this motion has received votes in 41 of the past 100 blocks.

[cryptog]

5febe97664ed02c8d24dbb444b6a9f43f7a8dea9 verified and voted.

[sportscliche]

I would like to vote no for reasons stated in another thread, but no longer have the necessary computer hardware to run the nu client.

[zoro]

if you don’t vote at all is the same as you vote ‘no’.
this motion vote is only if you like to vote ‘yes’

[Nagalim]

Not if @sportscliche doesn’t have the computer power to simply mint. To vote ‘no’ you have to keep minting.

@sportscliche can you please link to where you expressed your reservations for this motion?

[sportscliche]

Here’s what I posted in another thread:

[Poll] Which Currency Should Nu Support?

I completely agree with @Sentinelrv. Nubits should be singularly focused on the $1 peg until it proves to the financial and crypto world that it can handle anything thrown at it. Current volumes do not allow it to make that claim. This will take time. Yes there is reason for optimism, but the community should not become overconfident when the experiment is still in its infancy. Further, adding new pegged assets dilutes the message…when people think of NuBits, they should think 1 USD. At …

[masterOfDisaster]

Further, adding new pegged assets dilutes the message…when people think of NuBits, they should think 1 USD. At least for now.

I hear your concerns.
But it’s not that new assets will be here with the successful vote of this motion.
It will take some time - a lot of time - until the pegged assets go live. The development team is busy with BCE. For the time being NBT is the only pegged asset Nu offers.
As introducing new pegged assets takes that much time, it’s no bad idea to lay the foundation for the introduction now.

[sportscliche]

I’m sorry to be in disagreement here. One can look at other blockchain projects and see the consequences of taking on too much, diluting the effort, diluting the message, and then suffering the consequences. Heck, I’m currently suffering the consequences of BCE development, as I anxiously await the release of Nu 2.1 to allow me to resume minting. Please understand that I don’t fault the devs for not prioritizing this. I know I’m in the minority. My point here is the community must be pragmatic about what can be accomplished with the available resources. I’m advocating being cautious and conservative.

I strongly prefer that nu do one thing really, really well — establish itself as the premiere dollar pegged crypto. The community may think that milestone has already been achieved and by some metrics it has. But unless there is a substantially increased, sustained trading volume, it may be dismissed by some as little more than an experiment or curiosity. By “increased” I’m thinking at least an order of magnitude or more.

When I read the motion, the message I get is “full speed ahead with more pegged assets”.

[masterOfDisaster]

I’m sorry to be in disagreement here.

It’s healthy to have different opinions, different views that are being voiced. This is what made Nu as strong as it is.

My point here is the community must be pragmatic about what can be accomplished with the available resources.

My assessment might be wrong, but I feel the community is playing a bigger role every day.
Organizing the liquidity providing is and will be important for the success of Nu - with one or more pegged assets. Shareholders might consider posting drafts for NuBot grants; running NuBot is not that hard.
Tier 4 and 6 management is being prepared for handing over to multi signature custodians.
This community rises to meet the challenges!

I strongly prefer that nu do one thing really, really well — establish itself as the premiere dollar pegged crypto.

NBT has been stable for over one year. How many more years to go?
The liquidity is high, the software runs stable. This might not be completely true for ALP, but NuBot is awesome! The wallet software works great.

But unless there is a substantially increased, sustained trading volume, it may be dismissed by some as little more than an experiment or curiosity. By “increased” I’m thinking at least an order of magnitude or more.

Don’t you think that additional pegged assets might help increasing trading volume?
That would be good for Nu.
Nu is the experiment, NBT merely one of its facets - in my opinion.

When I read the motion, the message I get is “full speed ahead with more pegged assets”.

If I got that message, I’d be on your side.
The message I get is: let’s create a framework; prepare the next steps to allow some movement as soon as Nu is ready to go.
Nu needs a better distributed liquidity providing, more custodians, more NuBots, more automation, more metrics, seeded auctions, more experience, etc. to go full speed ahead.

What Nu already achieved is promising. I don’t fear for its future, not at the moment.
I think one key to Nu’s success is to enlarge the community.
I guess announcing new pegged assets can help there; to have a bigger community supporting the new assets on the market.

[Sentinelrv]

I agree with MoD. I believe it’s not the time right yet to introduce new pegged assets due to all the reasons mentioned above, but that’s not what this motion is about. It’s about preparing for when NuShareholders are ready to pull the trigger. My main concern is whether Nu will be able to handle the demand B&C will bring. B&C will be finished and operational before we ever get to introducing these new pegged assets, so we’ll have plenty of time to see how the peg handles the increased demand before committing to sell new ones. So I support this motion to help get things started.