[Passed] Motion to provide seed funding for B&C Exchange - a decentralized exchange built on the Peershares platform

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.



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… :smile: 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.


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.


I have finalized the motion. If you wish to vote for it the motion hash is:


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.


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.

You can present it concurrently if you wish, there’s no requirement to wait for the passage of the other motion.


Title should be modified to “voting” then and “draft” to “finalized” in the motion.

Writing is not my greatest strength so I will take some time to properly format my ideas into a readable format. If anyone would like to help draft the motion please pm me. I sure could use the help.

You are right, integrating with other payment processors would just be like coinbase to a lesser extent. It’s not hard to imagine expanding that a couple steps further to incorporate the ACH systems and their counterparts.

If we were asking about how valuable B&C will be to Nu, I feel the amount is staggering. On a couple occasions I have said here that I feel NuBits is the answer to the fiat problem decex (and unregulated exchanges) will face and becoming the market choice for a base pair in crypto trading will propel us to mainstream real world adoption. I actually think it is a necessity, given the landscape of cryptocurrency. I am also one of the traders who bumped into mappum when he was doing market research for Mercury and talked his ear off about this issue and NuBits, if that helps to show how sincerely important I feel this project (B&C) may turn out to be. I think it will be an order of magnitude more valuable than the dilution hit NuShare holders will take.


I supported you advancing this motion even though I am opposed to its passage because it will help the community forge a consensus and then we can set our differences aside.

I just wanted to say that this thread is a testament to Jordan’s design of Nu. It just amazes me that we can have intense discussions like these and arrive at a conclusion and move forward through voting. I feel as if over the last couple months, shareholders are starting to become more engaged in the process and take responsibility for the future of the network. These are exciting times indeed!

As I tried to express here, I think the main issue with the liquidity provision activity is to make it predictably profitable.
Right now, even with pools (nupool, nulagoon), it seems that not so many people are willing to participate.
Of course nupool is capped but nulagoon is not.
I believe the main reason for that is because right now providing liquidity is not profitable.
Yes you get a reward from the pool, but whether or not you would end up in the black, depends on the volatility of btc/usd and that is a complete unknown.

If we are able to make liquidity provision a predictably profitable business, then there is no doubt that this market will get very big, providing nu with a huge liquidity (on both sides).

The question here is whether or not B&C would help substantially Nu make liquidity provision a predictably profitable business.
I am not sure about the answer.
It seems that Jordan Lee focuses on the fact that this exchange would reduce the costs of liquidity provision from Nu’s perspective but this not really the point.
The point, imho, is to make it a profitable business from lpc’s perspective.
So I would argue that decreasing the rewards (making it less costly from Nu’s perspective) to lpcs would attract even less liquidity…

Which makes me want to suggest that the the trade fees should go to the lpcs, not Nu shareholders.
That way, there might be a way to attract plenty of liquidity.

Decentralization would make the exchange much more robust to thefts. In this regard, lpcs would be much more willing to deposit money than with centralized exchange but decentralization in itself would not make liquidity provision a profitable business.

What do you think?

I am personally concerned.

1 Like

Doing so would make BlockShares worth much less though, as there would be no future revenue for its shareholders. You could accomplish the same functional result by allowing LPCs to have a small spread on trades to generate a profit.

Right. I forgot about that. What about keeping only half of the trade frees then?

I would like to do so but so far no lpcs are doing so (as far as I know) since pools are limiting tightly the extent of the spread. As for lpcs that do not use a pool, what is the situation? What don’t we encourage them to increase the spread for still a decent grant (but lower than if the spread was at a minimum)?