[Passed] Motion to introduce new NuBits products

[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.

[masterOfDisaster]

I had time to think about the motion for some more time.
I find it impressive. It’s a very comprehensive overview of Nu’s future.
It’s sketching the next steps into the right direction.
And it’s time to start with the preparation, because the implementation will take some time.

I still think that a granular decision about what to introduce and when is useful.
But I think that such a systemic vision is needed to get the ball rolling.
To vote on a motion for it in the proposed way (as a comprehensive overview) is Nu’s way to form consensus.

Each shareholder that supports additional pegged currencies should vote for a motion like this.

The development work for the adjustments (Nu client for Linux, MacOS, Windows; NuDroid) requires funding.
Ultimately the control over the next currencies to be included remains in the hands of the shareholders.
Or are there funds that would be used for executing the changes and pay for the development work?

My understanding is that grants for each additional currency that is part of this motion (once it passed) will be created.
After it’s clear which of the currencies finds shareholder support and passes

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.

could be performed.

Is my understanding in compliance with this motion and the next steps?

[mhps]

I can hardly keep up with Nu development these days and B&C will surely generate truck load of new topics. The draft motion is about important and exciting topics but I hope it won’t start to request much man power until B&C is stably operational, tiered NBT peg liquidity is setup and kept rationally, and BTC volatility risk of NBT/BTC pair is effectively mitigated. Or I feel our resources will be spreaded too thin.

Also the forex market is very deep in liquidity and hedging instruments are very accessible to traders. Is there and chance that we are openning Nu LPs to potentially big fiat currency price risk by offering multiple fiat pegs?

[tomjoad]

I hope it won’t start to request much man power until B&C is stably operational, tiered NBT peg liquidity is setup and kept rationally, and BTC volatility risk of NBT/BTC pair is effectively mitigated. Or I feel our resources will be spreaded too thin.

The nice thing about this motion is it allows us to plant our flag in the ground, without having to venture into the jungle so to speak. We can create the beginnings of several new products, even if it will take months before shareholders authorize full-scale operations. I agree that B&C Exchange should be the first priority for development right now to expand the demand for NBT.

How do other people feel about the concerns @willy has raised? My own preference is to put everything through at once and then let shareholders decide in separate, independent motions when to activate the new NBT products. However, if that approach would stall this motion, I am willing to compromise and introduce unique hashes for each individual new product.

[cryptog]

How do other people feel about the concerns @willy has raised?

I have no issues with the Yuan or the Rubble so putting all together is no issue to me but if there is a significant number of shareholders asking for separate hashes, then it should be implemented.

[desrever]

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 am not sure about this, if we had to get full ethical about it then we should drop USD support all at once.

I personally have no issue now in tracking any old world (government-backed) national currency

[mhps]

The nice thing about this motion is it allows us to plant our flag in the ground, without having to venture into the jungle so to speak.

Don’t we have to have a wallet for all these new tokens besize only generating one unit of the token on the blockchain? The wallet change is I guess a lot of work. Emitting new token might not take a lot of code but needs handling with care.

How do other people feel about the concerns @willy has raised?

About the Yuan Nubits, it’s useful but the PRC gov’t won’t be happy. Blocking all Nu related sites in China is trivial. This may have implication on viable usecases. Also note that there are two Yuans, CNY and CNH. Offering pegs of the same Yuan nubits inside and outside China will allow easy arbitrage between CNY and CNH and could be seen as a direct threat to PRC’s capital control.

[willy]

ethical

My concerns are of a monetary nature. There is an ethical part, but I strongly believe that the Yuan is no currency you want to save your money in.

[cryptog]

About the Yuan Nubits, it’s useful but the PRC gov’t won’t be happy

The Chinese does not need NuYuan to circumvent capital control. They could use instead NuBits (NuUSD) right now. So the argument that NuShareholders should be afraid of NuYan is weak.

[zoro]

i am afraid whatever has to do with N.korea, Russia or China

[cryptog]

N.korea, Russia or China

I fear nobody. I do not want to do business with the cabal. I do not care about the nationality. Cabal is everywhere, especially in the US, Europe, a bit in China and has control over Japan and SK.

[zoro]

you mean this?

Cabal

i don’t believe these conspiracy theories
i think we are living in a more simpler world where profit rules!

[cryptog]

No offense, it is very naive to refer to wikipedia to get information on the cabal
It is like asking the US government to create Nu.
Well fair enough.
I think I am shifting away from the main topic. So I ll stop the digression here.

[Sentinelrv]

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 am not sure about this, if we had to get full ethical about it then we should drop USD support all at once.

I personally have no issue now in tracking any old world (government-backed) national currency

My concerns are of a monetary nature. There is an ethical part, but I strongly believe that the Yuan is no currency you want to save your money in.

Is this really a reason to not vote for the motion though? People in China are going to use the Yuan regardless of whether NuShareholders think it’s a good idea or not. If a Nu competitor starts up and pegs to the Yuan because we refused to, then we will be losing potential business. I don’t think shareholders should take on the responsibility of deciding which currency is good or bad for people to use. It’s really none of our business in my opinion. Our job is simply to provide a high quality pegged cryptocurrency for them to use, not to protect people from making bad decisions.

The exception I believe is if offering Chinese NuBits created too much of a financial risk for Nu. For example maybe it somehow negatively affected our liquidity providers like mhps mentioned above. I don’t know if there is any increased risk compared with supporting US NuBits, but if there is then that would be my main concern, rather trying to prevent people from doing what they’re going to do anyway. And of course this is only my opinion on the matter.

[mhps]

The exception I believe is if offering Chinese NuBits created too much of a financial risk for Nu.

If the PRC government were to react the first thing to happen is probably Bter or any Chinese exchange being forced to close cn-NBT market. Then cn-NBT will exist only in exchanges outside China. It will possiblly become CNH-NBT where CNH deposit is available and liquid, or stay as CNY-NBT if Nu offers CNY-NBT/BTC pair using CNY/BTC price feed. The latter is an interesting case as Nu basically created a currency pegged to the CNY (Yuan that only allowed to circulate in China) outside China.

[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.