[Passed] Motion to list all NuBits and NuShares exchange resources (including CCEDK)

Motion RIPEMD160 hash: 6516593789424c8b4c871e178ff648f0e5f0485a

=##=##=##=##=##=## Motion hash starts with this line ##=##=##=##=##=##=

This motion is to express the desire of NuShares holders to list all NuBits and NuShares exchange resources in all current and future marketing materials which are under the control of the Nu team.

The listing of an exchange may be removed at the discretion of the Nu team if strong evidence arises that a listed exchange could pose as a liability to NuShares holders or users of NuBits and time is of the essence. Such an action will be followed with a motion for the Shareholders to endorse this action. When the action is not endorsed within 14 days after the removal of the listing the removed listing shall be placed back without changes.

The Nu team will also add the following disclaimer to both pages which currently list exchanges and any other lists of exchanges published in the future by the NU team on behalf of the NuShareholders:

The exchanges listed are not endorsed by the NuShareholders by any means. The NuShareholders cannot be held liable for any funds lost by using these exchanges. This listing only intends to be an overview where NuShares and NuBits can be traded. Users of these exchanges need to do their own due diligence before using these exchanges. This can be done by searching the discuss.nubits.com forums for any previous events or asking questions in the community.

=##=##=##=##=##=## Motion hash ends with this line ##=##=##=##=##=##=

Verify. Use everything between and including the <motionhash></motionhash> tags.

This motion is a response on this thread: Is CCEDK a Nubits exchange? Then add them as such or vote accordingly


Verified. Voted.

6516593789424c8b4c871e178ff648f0e5f0485a verified and voted

This motion can use a little more love as voting stays behind. Just noticed that BitShares have about 25k on fund just on BitUSD liquidity on CCEDK. If they were really about to default Ronny would have ran away by now, but he didn’t.
Also just like to emphasize that it would be odd to continue LiquidBits on CCEDK when this exchange is not listed. I would consider not continuing LiquidBits in the future if this motion doesn’t pass and CCEDK is not listed.


Let’s call a spade a spade.

I agree. There is no reason why we should not mention CCEDK.
The liquidity operations are now decentralized and counter-party free from shareholders’s perspective.
The exchange default risk that exists at CCEDK is the same as any other exchanges.


If we’re talking about avoiding being held responsible for exchange failure (at an emotional level by the user), while trying to be a little bit selective, in addition to a disclaimer we can declare to the visitors some plausible basic rules on the minimum requirement that an exchange is listed.

Say we list an exchange only if it hasn’t been known to be hacked over the past 3 months, and we reserve the right not to list an exchange even if it has passed the minimum requirements, and it would take time for us to delist an exchange after knowing it’s hacked.

It doesn’t even have to be a part of the motion; the point is to let users know about a bar we have on listing an exchange. Even if that bar isn’t very high it is easier for them to understand and sympathize with than that “I don’t give a damn” disclaimer.

If we really want to list exchanges that don’t meet the 3-months rule (say) or other secret criteria, we can put them in an separate category, and a publicized exchange failure event will be noted. A rule like “hasn’t been hacked for 3 months” is somewhat a weakly discriminative rule, so even if an operator can’t get in because of that he won’t be very disgruntled.

1 Like

@assistant motion vote 6516593789424c8b4c871e178ff648f0e5f0485a

I see this motion has crossed 50% votes and is at 48% for share days destroyed, but has only received votes in 31 of the past 100 blocks.

1 Like

We need more support from shareholders. This motion is not specific to CCEDK in case you have an issue with CCEDK.


I suspect people taking their coins offline maybe to the extensive testing with B&C and Nu2.0 wallets going on. I can’t think of another explanation of the sudden drop, but interesting to hear from people why they dropped their support in the last day or so. Hope they don’t think it passed, because it didn’t yet!


It seems this has passed


1 Like

As requested by shareholders, CCEDK has been added to both https://nubits.com/exchanges/nubits-exchanges and https://nubits.com/exchanges/nushares-exchanges.

Perhaps @ronny will take this opportunity to end his silence on the promised fund repayment to NuShareholders, as it is now three weeks past his original promise with no details yet provided. After this show of goodwill, NuShareholders deserve a detailed repayment schedule that CCEDK and @ronny can be held to.


Banx.io should be added to the list of exchanges as well for both NuBits and NuShares

Sorry for the lack of replies recently. I asume you can understand that my focus is really where I see the possibilities of generating income, which should in fact be appreciated from your side, as a part of getting back on top of all an ready to repay lost funds. I have spent months trying to be active here, hoping that I would this way be able to show you that support from your side, just as you have done lots to Bter would have helped greatly to speed up fund repayments, but only little support was shown, and I realized that part of it was also due to CCEDK not being listed on Nubits, although supported via liquidity bots etc. What does this kind of message not tell new users, Nubits bots operating on exchange, but exchange not listed. So, I am only happy that I took the initiave myself to ask for CCEDK to be listed as exchange, for the Nushares holders to then decide for themselves, instead of letting a few decide for them.

Well, now we have proof that at least some Nubits shareholders believe in CCEDK. I appreciate this very much, and we can now start looking forward trying to reduce and resolve any open amounts as soon as possible. I can only say I have as always this interest to solve matter a.s.a.p., it does seem more and more unlikely to be done for the one year anniversary of Nubits, but time from now on untill then will show if there is still a chance or not, but it will have a lot to do with some interaction from Nubits community as well. I am not saying you have to, how could I, but it is definitely going to be helpful to speed up this process.

Our main concern after the loss of funds to one single user on exchange, was to get the exchange back up as soon as possible, and we can see that we are slowly getting back again, untill now with a small, however consistant support from some Nubits sharesholders, and hope this will start to show and increase now with CCEDK once more listed as exchange for both NuBIts and NuShares.

I would like this commnt here also to be about the prospects in being able to reimburse lost funds based on co operation in a proactive way rather than expecting CCEDK to fund it from other sources, sources which are still used only for development.

I am making another topic based on which way we are able right now to start reimbursing lost funds, and will put the thread here also once done. @tomjoad is asking for a specific repayment scedule and this i what will do then, but because of it being specific it will have to be based on the involvement of the Nubits community in this way. Other way is to send funds when we have some extra, but it is obviously not yet.

Hi @tomjoad

Here are the details for the Motion Vote on 6516593789424c8b4c871e178ff648f0e5f0485a:

Blocks: 3885 (38.850000%)
Share Days: 1082330066 (36.013068%)

Has assistant been waken up? Seems to be a response on an old request?

Hi @tomjoad

Here are the details for the Motion Vote on 6516593789424c8b4c871e178ff648f0e5f0485a:

Blocks: 3856 (38.560000%)
Share Days: 1074455170 (35.649599%)