Nu suffers from not having a good nbt/USD pair to support. Doesn’t B&C solve that problem? Isn’t that good for Nu long term?
1 Like
If its about that then I assume that we can encourage many exchanges to implement a NBT/USD pair if we pay them $200,000 out of our capital to do so. I am not arguing that there is no benefit for the cryptocurrencies traded on B&C, my only question is if there is nothing else we can do with $200,000 which could bring Nu into the state where it originally was intended to be.
3 Likes
I could see liquidity costs to NuShareholders dropping from 10% per month down to 2% or lower in the medium to long term. That is a significant long term benefit for the Nu network.
1 Like
If we bribe an exchange and it goes down for whatever reason, we’re out of luck. What I’m saying is I feel we already went this route and it didn’t really work. If we make our own exchange, we can be much more confident that those kinds of things won’t happen, in theory.
2 Likes
Well I really don’t want to become the most hated community member here because I am arguing against all this, but I neither think that the exchange default risk makes 80% of the current liquidity compensation, nor do I think that B&C in its current state is in any way more likely to succeed than any other decentralized exchange project. I furthermore assume that BKS holder will act in a responsible way for their DAC and remove any NBT pair which does not give enough volume, just as with any other coin.
OK I am really stopping here 
There are many others who probably want to say something and I am cluttering the topic with my personal concerns, which is not fair. I’ll keep observing how this develops and I am confident that shareholders will decide in the interest of Nu.
1 Like
You might be more familiar with crypto than I am. Plus I often hope for the best. But I agree that i can’t be bad to be prepared for the worst 
If Nu is successful, NSR holders will have a good time.
If B&C is successful, BKS holders will have a good time.
So from a pure monetary perspective each NSR holder (based on design at snapshot rime, although I like the distribution model proposed by you! will become BKS holder.
As almost all initial BKS holders are NSR holders, one might say, there’s not much to lose for NSR holders, if at least one of the two prospers (and if the BKS holders hold ).
I was hesitant and almost refraining from writing the following, because it sounds super pessimistic and partly offensive.
But maybe it’s necessary to voice this kind of thoughts…
When Nu was funded (not the initial sponsor but the point when the NSR have been sold) PPC and BTC have been at rates far above the current rates.
People who received NSR in exchange for PPC or BTC are (monetarily) far better off than with the PPC and BTC if they had kept them.
But this is only theoretically true.
The market for NSR is thin. It’s impossible to sell large amounts of NSR without plummeting the price. So while the market cap of Nu is impressive, NSR holders can’t make much of it (currently).
You can wait for NSR markets to become more liquid, or you search for other ways to turn your shares into fiat (as this is still required to pay bills…).
Creating a distributed exchange (there’s for sure demand for it) and giving the shares to NSR holders increases the chances to make either one or the other to money if necessary.
Money moved from PPC and BTC to NSR. Now it might move from NSR to BKS.
Peercoin is still here and doing well (e.g. Emeth’s PeerApps will be supported in the next Peercoin release).
Peershares are doing well and have been forked by the Blackcoin community.
Nu is still here. The peg could be defended even in recent dark times.
B&C might come to offer a decentralized exchange.
Whatever will come after that - all that has been created so far is helpful, useful, necessary, in one way or another if we want to get an alternative, maybe even a replacement for the currently dominant monetary system.
It did begin with Bitcoin, but it didn’t stop with Bitcoin.
Nu might need to take the next steps.
…if only I knew which are the right ones…
I tend to believe in the abilities and the visions of those major personalities.
Don’t take this for blind belief - I try to question what is proposed.
The B&C idea is proposed by those personalities, they stand behind it and that idea doesn’t sound that bad after all
I have no better alternative and given the current financial situation of Nu it might become hard to continue development after a few months from now if there’s no fresh money.
Do you think people will more likely pay prices above 0.002 NBT in an auction if they “only” get NSR for that, or might they rather pay prices above 0.002 NBT if they get NSR and once it’s done BKS for them?
Nu needs to move, let’s try to find out in which direction and how 
2 Likes
I like your responses and think they’re constructive for further discussion.
I don’t think the default risk is 80%, I think the issue is having an exchange that has active alt/USD pairings. We could bribe cryptsy with the money, but then we’d be pretty dependent on them.
Maybe we could bribe cryptsy and btc-e…
I can only speak for myself, but for me it’s the best thing that can happen!
Arguing against this makes flaws and weaknesses transparent, might even provide alternatives. The result will be a hardened design or the decision that this shouldn’t be done.
I can only encourage you to go on!
3 Likes
I felt the same way about the open sourcing motion
Nu suffers from not having a good nbt/USD pair to support. Doesn’t B&C solve that problem? Isn’t that good for Nu long term?
I would love for this to be the case. What I can’t yet figure out is how a fiat gateway could be integrated without jumping through a large number of technical and regulatory hoops.
Thoughts?
2 Likes
I want to be able to just buy nbt with my credit card at slightly above $1 and sell directly to my bank account. Then I can buy ppc with nbt or whatever, preferably on the same exchange. Is this the vision for b&c?
Not in the initial phases. Processing CC transactions requires a separate layer of infrastructure (and KYC/AML regulations) beyond what B&C’s design calls for.
A payment processor could integrate with B&C, but that would be a third-party service.
Update: Thinking more about this, charge-backs would be a particular tricky risk to solve for.
It has been suggested by some that Nu will not have any development team when development on B&C starts. We may not have development of new things, but will we at least have technical support in case of problems? Also, Jordan mentioned continuing to develop NuBot along with B&C. It doesn’t sound to me that everything will shut down when this happens.
1 Like
So what if we make a coinbase kinda thing with nbt instead of btc rather than a decentralized exchange?
I think what @mhps has mentioned is a great first step towards an undertaking similar to what you suggest, but Nu can’t really start a platform like coinbase integrated with bank accounts due to the regulations of the legacy financial system around the world, I feel. Maybe one day… 
I am not sure how this acts as an alternative proposal to B&C, as they are two different products and services.
Though, thinking more about it, aren’t these very payment processors mhps is talking about (OKPay, etc.) how BTC-e can exist as it does with a fiat exchange? The admin is anonymous, but has found a way to integrate quite a few good options. Imagine that B&C exists already, and the @mhps led NuBits custodial operation has grown to be integrated with all of these payment processors, like BTC-e has done. There are many different ways for people to move fiat in and out of NuBits and, by extension, B&C thanks to the NuBit custodian and a fee. So Nu now serves as a comprehensive payment processor for B&C exchange, and profits from it. All without tapping into the funds raised from trade fees on B&C. I guess when the profit became large and noticeable enough from the Nu custodial operation, the payment processors would just integrate NuBits themselves. But, hey, that is just adoption.
2 Likes
Oh yes it can, the custodian system is able to do exactly this. You want to launch an NBT coinbase service? We fund you with an NBT grant and you pass back the revenues according to the proposal or simply burn the earned NBT up to the grant amount.
The only thing what hinders people from doing this is that there is a large development effort to be done in advance, which in part is highly generic (like the bridge tools in @mhps posts). How many of those tools can we develop with $200,000? How much value will this bring to the Nu ecosystem? Is this better or worse than a decex (for Nu)? The Nu development team is absolutely capable of performing each of the tasks, this is only a question if they think that this is a better idea or not.
3 Likes
I have finalized the motion. If you wish to vote for it the motion hash is:
20e1ec16c5527c3873699e702c96a980c22faed9
I wish I could accommodate everyone’s diverse vision for how we should proceed, but that obviously can’t be done. After carefully considering everyone’s input, I believe the finalized motion in the OP is the best course of action.
If you disagree, you are free to present a motion to replace or modify this one.
3 Likes
Does this motion allow for a later motion to decide if the exchange should be an independent blockchain or merged into the nushares blockchain?
No motion can prevent other shareholders from raising their own independent motion. We have a beautiful system in that way, as no individual shareholder can be coerced into remaining silent. The current design document specifies a separate blockchain however, so a new motion would need to override that (if this motion is successful).
In that case, if this motion is successful I will release a second motion asking for the exchange to be integrated into the Nu blockchain.