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?
Thank you.
The “Summary of Architecture” section gives a detailed view, but here’s a relevant quote from it:
The B&C Exchange code base will be a fork of the Nu 2.0 code base. The only features of Nu that will be disabled completely are park rate voting and parking.
As a fork of the Nu network, nothing that occurs on the BlockShares network will impact the Nu network. They are completely independent once forked.
You aren’t exchanging your NSR for BKS, you are being given BKS in the same proportion out of the whole as the NSR that you hold at the time of that the blockchain snapshot is taken.
Presumably there could be some market that develops on the exchange in the future that would allow an BKS/NSR pair, just like any other crypto/NSR pair.
BKS shareholders would vote on different motions, contribute to the upvote/downvote for a signing node’s reputation, or cast votes for BKC grants to be returned to shareholders as dividends.
The B&C exchange will have no concept of parking, so park rates won’t be voted for.
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.
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.
I think this is really a short sighted look at the proposal.
If successful B&C would be a huge asset in showcasing the utility of the Nu network. It would show how flexible the Peershares platform is. NuShares holders would have an immediate stake in the success of B&C giving them voting power to maintain NuBits as a core source of liquidity for the exchanges operations.
There is a lot of value to be derived from the success of this platform, and it would draw many people from many different crypto-communities to become familiar with our operations.
The arrival of a decentralized exchange has been eagerly anticipated within the cryptoasset community.
I’m trying to get a better idea of the current state of decentralized exchange development. What has stopped the other projects ( I thought there were a few) from wide success?
I understand your excitment for such proposal -
Different individuals will have different perspectives based on their expectation and incentives.
For instance, contractors that are paid by JordanLee and were probably offered Nushares for free to get on board ( correct me if I am wrong) will have no problem pushing for such motion, without looking the particular details of the pricing terms.
Others, that are not contracting for Nu and are ordinary guys (that have a normal professional life to make a living) that have purchased shares from JL are likely to care for the price much more closely.
Now, questions:
Is this motion intended to create value for current Nushareholders?
if so, how much financial value? ( articulate plan needed here)
OR just pay current current contractors?
In any case, and at any rate, it’s time now for Nu to provide financial statements to be legit as a public decentralized autonomous organization. I believe it’s asking too much without any comprehensive report on P/L and B/S.
Nobody has ever been given free NuShares to my knowledge. There are no free rides here. Even the seed investor took a large risk in taking on the task of funding Nu development. This is a risk being asked of shareholders, yes. I don’t mean to make the notion that there is no risk. That is a consideration every shareholder will have to weigh if they decide to vote.
I read most of the 20 page paper and all of the bitcointalk thread. Couple questions/issues…
Unsurprisingly, I’m not a fan of the 1k minimum bid for the auction. I expressed my opinions on this during the Teehe discussion.
Edit: I’m silly!
The 0.002 usd/nsr price point seems low. I’d like a little more explanation how this figure was reached.
How will the matching algorithm work? For instance, if someone places a sell order of 1 btc for 250 and then someone places a buy order for at 260 what is the outcome? Edit: I ask because in this example the exchange could pocket the 10 nbt as profit but some may see this as unethical.
This is an auction for 100 million NSR, to bring us to about 900 million NSR in circulation. When B&C Exchange is ready to launch, the Nu blockchain will be forked to create a duplicate network with proportional ownership. So, there will be 900 million NuShares, and 900 million BlockShares. If you own 1.5 million NSR at that time, you will be given 1.5 million BKS for free.
NSR was trading for about 0.0025 USD the past week. I think the reserve price was set below the market price to encourage active bidding, but high enough to protect existing shareholders’ financial interests. It is a bare minimum (reserve) price, not necessarily the price that all winning bids will be set at.
