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.
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.
I noticed there are 19 votes for a hash that is intended to represent this motion, but it has a typo in it:
The first digit should be a 6, not a 0. If you are voting for this motion, please check to make sure your hash is correct.
Putting it off will slow down overall development, releasing the source code equates to having many many more people join the development team.
All the new eyes on the project will increase the number of reported bugs, new developers can review old code and add features.
It is a devil’s dilemma. New developers can also take the code and launch a copy of Nu and work on that. At this stage that might be more profitable especially if they can get marketing power behind them and are willing to invest.
I’m still taking Desrever’s list as a guide (link). Will assess the situation on where we at around Easter again.
I have spent quite a bit of time thinking about this issue the past couple weeks, and have reached a point where I have cast my vote in favor of becoming open-source. It is somewhat earlier than I expected to vote for this motion.
We are in the beginning stages of seeing a widespread movement towards stable-value digital currencies. 2015 will introduce many new projects aiming to replicate what Nu has accomplished. As this global discussion begins to form, discussion will expand beyond simple project comparisons (such as NuBits vs. BitUSD) to structural comparisons based on the pioneers of specific approaches (The “Nu model” vs. “The Ethereum model” vs. “The BitShares model”).
I believe our competitive advantage will actually be reinforced by new projects imitating/forking our Nu model. As many of you may have noticed, there has been a recent increase in the amount of criticism of our project. This is the natural precursor to intense competition in a growing, lucrative niche.
By open-sourcing, we can build legitimacy for our model if other groups create Nu forks. If the “Nu model” had ten forks a year from now, and the “BitShares model” had three forks, there is a strong chance that public consensus will be more positive to our approach. Previous concerns I had – namely, that these forks might not succeed in maintaining a peg – may not be as serious as I thought either. There are two possible outcomes that will occur:
The “Nu Model” succeeds in that the majority of forks maintain price stability. The outcome is that our design is validated and Nu is seen as a brilliant design.
The “Nu Model” fails in that the majority of forks fail to maintain price stability. As long as NuBits are still $1.00 US, the outcome is that the NuBits project is validated, as it is clear that it requires a very talented team to manage peg stability operations successfully. If this happened, NuBits has a sustainable competitive advantage that is inimitable.
Also, every fork of Nu will either be open-source (meaning Nu can simply incorporate any additional features developed for other projects), or the project will be closed-source (and will suffer from the same criticisms we have heard so far). In both scenarios Nu has an advantage.
There are still downsides of course. It is almost certain that some groups will fork the Nu code, hold 99.999% of the shares for themselves (even if they publicly claim to have sold them to many users, there is no way to verify numbers), and achieve a massive market capitalization that might surpass NuShares in the short-term before the price collapses. This problem really isn’t different from what Bitcoin faced in April 2013 with identical-clones being released and dumped.
I think I’ve come up with a solution to this problem. This risk can be mitigated by adopting a set of standards and best practices around using the Nu model, such as committing to selling shares to a minimum number of users to ensure sufficient decentralization. A list of best practices would protect the Nu brand from reputational risk when three budding entrepreneurs create a Nu clone, distribute only 0.01% of shares, achieve a very high market cap, and then have their peg fail. This list of best practices will also reinforce our project’s position as a source of expertise and knowledge in the field of stable-value digital currencies. We want people to say “Project X’s stable-coin is far riskier because they have not demonstrated compliance with four of the ten best practices that are being used by the successful pioneering Nu project.”
In short, I think that open-sourcing will not only help quicken development of Nu, but it will also provide us with a significant advantage in structuring the debate in 2015 to not be “project vs. project”, but instead “design vs. design”. We want people talking about the “Nu model” of splitting currency and equity into fungible units, just as people currently associate “Bitcoin” with blockchain technology. The solution isn’t to hold every other car on the race track at the start line until we get far enough ahead; the solution is to open up the technology so that our car can go even faster. Open-sourcing will speed development of not only our project, but the public acceptance and validity of the Nu design versus other designs.
Enlightening vision you wrote there.
There is one last thing that bothers me.
What if a group of people with far more funding and resources than Nu currently has pops up and competes with us?
I believe that funding is important but what is even more important is the quality of team and the community behind the project. In other words, rather than the funding, what will make Nu succeed is the intellectual and marketing assets produced by the team and the community.
So if Nu is enough confident in its current design and community, I believe we should open source now.
What is your view on that?
If this occurred, the Nu design has been validated. If the new competitor is open-source, their innovations can be merged into our protocol. If the new competitor is closed-source, they are unlikely to ever gain widespread acceptance.
I think we may be overestimating the number of groups that have the capacity to duplicate us. BitShares and Ethereum are two that come to mind, and neither has shown much enthusiasm for the Nu design yet. In the case of BTS, they’ve shown outright hostility and they would lose all credibility with their users if they adopted our design. More mainstream companies like Apple or Google would face a mountain of legal and risk compliance challenges in offering a pegged digital currency. I think we’re in a very unique position of competitive strength right now as a global project with no national identity, and a team of talented contributors. Our talent base would only increase after open-sourcing in my mind.
Right. If Nu opens source the project, Nu will be benefitting from improvements.
At the same time, the competition is reluctant to implementing the design of Nu for they have their own PoS algorithm (they want to keep their uniqueness and their proudness of doing differently than us)
Open sourcing the project now will put some positive pressure on Nu immediately to act quickly (for example regarding the acquisition of new LPCs)
At the same time, pegged cryptocurrency cannot be produced by conventional companies because they need the legal framework which is not yet in place.
Open sourcing now would boost our credibility, bringing new fresh blood into the project.
I believe the success of Nu is in its ability to bring new LPC on a regular basis.
Those new LPCs will come in masse if they are confident in the integrity of the system (a bit like miners are confident in the ability of bitcoin-qt to prevent double spending) and the integrity of the system depends on its transparency.
If the code source is transparent, there will be an immediate consensus on whether or not Nu is a standard for Humanity (1) or a shadowy secretive corporate group aiming at easy cash (2) .
To me, if Nu is something it will be (1) but for the rest of Humans, as long as it is not open sourced, it could be (2).
That is why I will cast my vote today in favor of open sourcing now.
They could gain widespread acceptance, if they have bots with ultra-deep liquidity, deployed on most exchanges and payment processors, on all major currency pairs. The users don’t care or even understand whose one-dollar coin it is. They will just use it. For example Ripple is gaining acceptance despite it is centralized at some level.
However Nu can still survive by keeping innovating, even its market share drops. It won’t be the end of the world. I am almost positive on open source.