[Passed] Motion to introduce new NuBits products

[huafei]

which exchange will accept this new products?
B&CEXCHANGE will be one , but where is B&C

[cryptog]

Very exciting motion overall!

and 25,000 NBT worth of liquidity confirmed prior to launching

25k might be a bit too high though.

[Sentinelrv]

Indeed, very exciting! You’ve done an excellent job of turning the previous discussions into a workable motion. I’m glad you went with the naming conventions we talked about before. I can see the C-NBT color seems to be inspired by the fiat Yuan and the E-NBT by the European Union flag, which is also printed on fiat Euros. It’s just a shame that the US-NBT couldn’t have originally used green (rather than yellow) to look more like the green US dollar.

If for some reason we had to go with the 60 day option of centralized dual-side liquidity to bootstrap the new products, would @jmiller and @KTm be interested in participating?

[zoro]

i also like it!
But, my feeling is to wait first for B&C to be ready. The new currencies would need more people and more work. B&C will give us a “hand” a big hand

[Cybnate]

Like the unifying NuBits brand, definitely support that. Not keen on the inflation adjusted dollar either, the SDR is more promising.

There is certainly a consideration to change the USD-NuBits logo to green as Sentinelrv proposes. Timing and transition should be rather done sooner than later. We can still leave the Yellow logo as the generic site logo so a transition can be made at slow pace if needed at all.

25,000 NBT seems a lot to start with, but maybe just adequate to maintain a peg across two exchanges. Any further reasoning behind that number?

Is there an assumption that we won’t have a second coin until B&C exchange is running, whenever that may be? Given the exchange default risks with centralised dual-side liquidity providers not a bad idea though.

[tomjoad]

There is certainly a consideration to change the USD-NuBits logo to green as Sentinelrv proposes. Timing and transition should be rather done sooner than later. We can still leave the Yellow logo as the generic site logo so a transition can be made at slow pace if needed at all.

I think our current logos should remain as they are, given their widespread usage across many different websites, exchanges, and news articles. It was a coincidence that the colors I suggested lined up with the Yuan and Euro notes. It’s probably a good idea to avoid making explicit visual comparisons to existing fiat currencies.

Is there an assumption that we won’t have a second coin until B&C exchange is running, whenever that may be? Given the exchange default risks with centralised dual-side liquidity providers not a bad idea though.

It would be ideal to add these new products and update the website simultaneously with our NuShare denomination change. That way, we can contact all partners, services, and exchanges simultaneously to notify them of the comprehensive branding/product changes to NuShares and NuBits that would occur. I will add language to the motion hash specifying this preference. I think that it would be ideal to have B&C Exchange functional first, but I would leave that up to the judgement of the development team to decide.

25,000 NBT seems a lot to start with, but maybe just adequate to maintain a peg across two exchanges. Any further reasoning behind that number?

That figure is a rough estimate of what demand might look like after the initial spike. I’m open to other liquidity level suggestions as I have no better insight than anyone else here.

I do think it is likely that demand will spike in the first month or two as people try out the new NBT products, and then we’ll return to normal demand. This could be a problem if we want to avoid parking rates or NSR auctions. This potential demand spike would be a strong argument for a limited term dual-side liquidity provider, with liquidity pools being set up and fully activated 60 days later once demand normalizes. There is temporary counterparty risk involved, although it would be much lower than NuBits in 2014 because shareholders could require that the dual-side liquidity provider only uses B&C Exchange. It is an inferior long-term solution though, so the dual-side custodian would only be active as long as it takes for liquidity pools to activate and demand to normalize.

[Cybnate]

This potential demand spike would be a strong argument for a limited term dual-side liquidity provider, with liquidity pools being set up and fully activated 60 days later once demand normalizes.

Up for discussion, but I think it might need 90 days in total including gradual handover to the liquidity pools and assuming a stabilised demand. Having said that it would be easier for e.g. Euro NuBits than for SDR NuBits to provide liquidity, so maybe a more flexible approach is needed.

[willy]

Is it possible to split this draft? The package is quite big.
One might want to support euro nubits, but not sdr/cny.

[masterOfDisaster]

Is it possible to split this draft? The package is quite big.

I think this is a valid point.

Supporting the new branding and preparation for additional pegged currencies should find a lot of support.

And I think the support for the general idea wouldn’t be affected from the individual preference regarding the next supported currency/currencies.

So splitting the motion into parts would generate even more motions that need to be discussed, followed and voted on, but it would provide the shareholders with more granularity for the next steps.

[tomjoad]

@willy I was careful in selecting the language to make sure that this motion only creates a single placeholder unit for each new NBT product. Operations cannot begin until a separate motion is authorized.

Mass public creation and sale of these new currencies should not begin until a subsequent motion is passed authorizing one or all currencies to begin trading.

This motion would be a large step forward for our network, but it would certainly require a lot of preparation and education to the public. I would prefer adding all new products at once in one sweeping motion, announcing it at the same time as the NSR denomination switch, and then focusing on educating the external community on the improvements. It is also simpler to do the required changes (creating different logos, updating the wallet client) all at once for three new products, rather than duplicating effort at different points in time.

If a shareholder feels strongly that the network should never offer one of the three proposed products (and who knows, maybe someone does), I would encourage them to draft a motion requesting an amendment to this motion.

[desrever]

Thank you for offering such a systemic vision, what you are proposing is a radical change, yet I also see it as a natural step forward from here.

I agree with general lines, just some comments :

On naming and currency codes: many exchanges only allows for alphanumeric chars for the code (so the hyphen won’t do in some places) .

We need an (additional?) naming schema compliant with exchange’s shortcodes .

NBTC
NBTEU
NBTUS
NBTX

---

Also please consider that this might take a non-obvious amount of effort to adapt liquidity provision software which is now USD-centric.

The software became large and complex and many parts require some hardcore refactoring for this to become available, and also many smaller scale (subtle) changes and testing.

[zoro]

i hope we won’t need a different wallet for every NU product!
i mean a different NU client.

[desrever]

considerable effort must be done also for NuDroid (and have our products added on shapeshift) .

This is a crucial motion for NuBits future, I wish to see more action and discussion

[tomjoad]

We need an (additional?) naming schema compliant with exchange’s shortcodes .

NBTCNBTEUNBTUSNBTX

Good observation. I favor CNBT, ENBT, XNBT, etc. as being similar to USD, AUD, CAD dollar denominations. What do others think?

This is a crucial motion for NuBits future, I wish to see more action and discussion

Agreed. You’ve pointed out a couple important considerations that we should keep in mind. Many of those considerations will impact the details of subsequent motions to launch these products (if this motion succeeds).

[Sentinelrv]

I like it better as you’ve suggested with the region/location at the beginning and NBT at the end.

[willy]

I’m still in favour of splitting this motion. I know that this is the first level of the introduction process, but the motion text states

The network should create three new currency products: Chinese NuBits (C-NBT), European NuBits (E-NBT), and Special Drawing Rights NuBits (X-NBT).

I myself wouldn’t vote for the motion as it is, because, like I expressed a couple of times already, I’m strongly against touching anything that is even remotely linked to Chinese government. This motion is an expression of shareholder interest to pursue those plans further.
Implementing E-NBT and X-NBT appeals to me, but I have no possibility to express this without stating my support for C-NBT at the same time.

[desrever]

What do others think?

I like it, I think we can go the extra mile to five chars and use two letters when possible : EUNBT,USNBT, CNNBT, XNBT is fine

[Cybnate]

I myself wouldn’t vote for the motion as it is, because, like I expressed a couple of times already, I’m strongly against touching anything that is even remotely linked to Chinese government. This motion is an expression of shareholder interest to pursue those plans further.

I can feel your issue with this. That same government I believe actually prevents NuShareholders from accessing some relevant sites related to NuBits and Bitcoin and I won’t talk human rights…

Maybe softening the motion a bit and replace “should” with “may” and then add on subsequent motions to vote for implementation of each coin. That would require another vote to actually create the product on the market (besides the technical 1 coin creation). That leaves options open, and maybe we want to create a Swiss NuBit instead in the future?

[zoro]

dollar will collapse, yuan is controlled by an “unhuman” goverment, euro is controlled by germany’s corrupted car industry, british pound is controlled by greedy and corrupted banks, etc
what is left for us to implement in NU?

edit: don’t mention SDR, it is a mix of all the above.

[Gilbert]

I consider an extension of Nubits too early.
We need in the years to include a discussion of what is a stable currency. It is a purchasing power, the value of which you should define. For a stable currency and real assets, such as real estate, metals include (copper). So in the future we need a wealth management. We need scientists who think about what an average global currency may be worth. You could set the value of a currency to the consumption of a person in a year. Or does one describe a currency basket as. Food, energy, mobility, communication. That brings us to the question ‘where’ …
Edit:
You can specify a currency on the earth’s resources per person. The more people there are, the more expensive is the resource of the earth per person.