I would also like to thank you for producing the final motion. However, and as much as I would love the source to be public, I also believe it’s too early and will hold my vote for now.
3 Likes
as long as closed source is not holding NU back, i hold my vote. i agree it is too early. if the public wants the open source then they are welcome to buy shares in order to vote for it 
2 Likes
Tks @Ben for introducing this motion.
I believe it is too early. Some entities with a lot of capital could crush us because they would want to eliminate any form of competition.
We need to have an established position in the market before doing do, imho. Maybe in a few weeks.
2 Likes
I would say several months or more. We need to have data feeds implemented, the NuBits burning proposal needs to be figured out as well as the discussion about the evolution of liquidity. Lots of important things.
1 Like
nothing is impossible but i agree it s rather a matter of months.
1 Like
besides one of the main topics right now should be to find a way to reduce the loss on custodians walls
see here.
Playing devil’s advocate, it’s important to remember that open-sourcing brings a tremendous amount of benefits for development. We should open-source at the point where we feel a competitor could not successfully duplicate what we’re doing. I think we are approaching that point very quickly.
1 Like
To easily check on the status of this motion, visit https://nubits.com/about/source-code. The motion currently sits at 1% support and rising.
1 Like
When you see this and this it is obvious that the competition wants to beat us. That is why it is very important to make sure we have secured a solid position before disclosing the source code.
There is far more to this than simply possessing the code. Nu’s first-mover advantage is important, but in my opinion the quality of execution and public profile trumps everything.
As several on this forum have noted, Bitshares is doing their project a disservice with the unprofessional and sometimes childish manner in which they have misrepresented and attacked Nu and its developers. This is entirely consistent with their past actions and I would not expect this behavior to change anytime soon. I feel confident that serious investors have taken notice of this, as reflected in the current trading activity of both tokens. Some in the Bitshares community insist the Nubits volume is being faked, yet they are contemplating plans to do just that:
If the Nu code goes open source, there might be a danger of its adoption and implementation by a high-profile, well established company like Apple or Google. I doubt, however, that a public company would want to be linked with an alternate currency pegged to the USD.
It would be difficult for a crypto startup to execute an outright copycat strategy because of Nu’s significant head start. Bitshares won’t copy the code simply as a matter of principle. They disdain Nu.
For these reasons, I favor making the code open-source.
3 Likes
The code should be made open source. It not only adds trust but allows service operators running the code to easily make modifications. Freedom to view and modify the code is very important and this should not be put aside for short sighted fears of potential competition.
3 Likes
So this means even if this proposal passes the actual release date of the source code will still solely defined by the developers? Is it intentional that the proposal doesn’t contain a deadline for that?
It says “and to take those steps”, meaning the developers have 45 days to release the source code from the moment motion passes.
That’s not what I read. The developers have 45 days to inform shareholders of the required steps. There is no restriction on the time that is needed to take out these steps. But maybe I am just reading this wrong, and the part after the “and” in my quote above is considered to be mandatory within the 45 days.
Developers will have forty-five (45) days to inform Shareholders of the steps required to open the Nu source code to the public, and to take those steps.
I think you’re reading it wrong. You skipped the key part again. It states that there is a 45 day window to inform of the steps and take them.
Thank you for this clarification. I still would be in favor of the formulation “[…], and to take those steps within the 45 days” but as long as everyone agrees that it is meant this way, it should be fine.
1 Like
I see where there was some ambiguity. It could be worded a bit better, but I think you raising the question has cleared up the intention of the wording. Thank you.
I agree that at the end of the day, assuming that the source code is open, what differentiates Nu from its competitors is the team, the community and the level of innovation sparked by the ideas of the early shareholders. But we need to remind ourselves that Nu is first and foremost a business.
As every business, we cannot afford disclosing our corporate secret sauce.
Yet Nu is also a software that benefited from bitcoin’s open source code.
Well Bitcoin released with no competition. I haven’t heard anyone say we should never open source, just not yet. I am more inclined for the second half of this year.
That’s my thinking as well, around 3-6 months. Just look at all the community has accomplished since September. I can only imagine what kind of position we’ll be in half a year. Everyone will want to be working with Nu.
1 Like