BlockCredits (BKC) are the transactional tokens used on B&C Exchange to pay for trades. It is expected they will be sold for 1.00 USD per BKC by elected custodians.
So if I want to trade on the exchange, I first need to buy BKC which I then can consume in my trades, correct?
Now the other side: Someone applies for a custodianship on the exchange. BKS shareholder approve the proposal and grant the custodian 1000 BKC. The custodian now sells those BKC (in a centralized way?) externally to the exchange and passes the revenues back to the shareholders in form of BTC. Correct?
Is there an incentive to act as a signer? Will they get compensated (through a part of the tx fee in BKC) for their availability and reputation?
I can also continue posting on BCT if you think that it is better there. (Cross-posted there).
Jordan, what are your thoughts for a potential “long con” attack of the B&C network, where a single entity controls multiple signers that are well-behaved until a critical trust is reached? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_trick.
As an early shareholder of Nu and a business partner of Nu, I welcome such a proposal.
Decentralized crypto exchange is a natural step towards complete decentralization of the financial world.
I have yet to read the full proposal on bitcointalk and to evaluate to which extent it would contribute substantially to the strengthening of Nu but I have immediately 2 questions:
To which extent such a proposal could constitute a second round of funding of Nu? In others, at that stage, more than 6 months later after the release of Nu, would such dilution increase the valuation of Nu (I hope so!) while at the same time giving already some returns to round 1 investors ( the investors that invested back in September/October 2014 in Nu)?
To which extent such a proposal would help the development of Nu itself directly? Please see my earlier post entitle “a question about the future of Nu development from the end of next month”.
I understand that the creation of cheap liquidity is key to Nu, which is what is intended with that proposal but for example, would the proceeds of that auction be used for paying the development of NuBot or the marketing activity of Nu, which could appear at first glance not linked directly to B&C Exchange.? Would the official team behind B&C exchange be the same team behind Nu Team ?
Would the new shareholders of those 100m NSRs be subject to the same background check that the early investors? We must be very careful about that. I would not want those 100m NSR be in the hands of speculators…
I’m welcoming this proposal mainly for the reason that we need to solve one of the last remaining central components of the crypto economy. Being able to exchange freely will remove a lot of barriers and risk for the ‘consurmers’ and with that a major step towards further adoption.
My main non-technical concern is the choice for BTC over NBT for dividends. As a NuShareholders this choice begs the question why our own stable currency is not good enough. The explanation that we need to attract BTC holders is an understandable one, but doesn’t remove all the concerns. When even the network designers/developers of NBT don’t choose for NuBits as a currency who would? It is like Microsoft launching a new product and giving away Apple Mac computers to their employees to please Apple buyers and hope they buy the Microsoft product.
Removing the dividends from the NBT economy doesn’t help to improve its liquidity and with that the success of the network in the long term. I hope that the choice for BTC will attract a lot of new B&C shareholders in compensation, but it feels still unsettling to me as a NuShareholder.
I understand that you can exchange your nsr for b & c exchange shares at parity but could you exchange b & c exchange shares for nsr?
A similar question would be: what kind of voting rights would b& c exchange share ownership give? Could you vote for parking rates with b & c exchange share for example?
I’m a little confused why the decentralized exchange can’t be added on top of the NuShares blockchain. Parking could be redefined to funds for use as liquidity. The blockchain itself could buy coins on the exchange and automatically distribute them to shareholder with no need to trust a 3rd party. The possibilities are far greater imo.
I’ve been at work all day and haven’t had a chance to read any of this, but I just wanted to post that I think we should give Jordan the nickname “The Machine” because I’ve never seen somebody that works and gets as much accomplished as him.
This motion and the way this discussion is turning show that Nu is not funded as a traditional entrepreneurial venture, based on rounds.
Also, I’ve come to the realization that NuShares might be auctioned at a price that does not seek to protect its previous stakeholders interest and that itself is disappointing.
BTW, a typical VC round financing should look like this:
Do you believe the value of the BlockShares network will exceed 12.5% of the market capitalization of NuShares? If yes, Nu is protecting the interests of its stakeholders by pursuing development of B&C Exchange through this auction. This also ignores any indirect benefits to the Nu network that would occur from having access to cheaper liquidity.
If you don’t believe the value of the BlockShares network will exceed 12.5% of the market capitalization of NuShares, we would be interested to hear what parts of the technical design you feel won’t allow B&C to compete effectively. In that case I think you would be correct that shareholder interests are not being protected.
As a side note, when shareholders originally purchased NuShares at 0.0018 USD they were told that 1,000,000,000 NSR would exist. Even if this auction is successful, only slightly more than 900,000,000 will have been distributed. I don’t see how the first wave of shareholders are harmed in any scenario other than the BlockShares network being worth less than 12.5% of NuShares.
EDIT: It is worth pointing out too that your example refers to a company that is not yet publicly traded. NuShares are widely available on public exchanges, and it would be very ineffective to auction NSR above market prices.