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

[Raythma]

However, a stable cryptocurrency with an intrinsic value is better than a stable one with no unique use, the difference between $USD and US postage that the USD government enforces USD as a financial settling mean of exchange.

NuBits Could benefit a lot from such financial service if it was used instead of BKC!

[Sentinelrv]

NuBits Could benefit a lot from such financial service if it was used instead of BKC!

It is true that if B&C was built on top of Nu, we could use NuBits as the transaction fee. This would create new demand for NuBits in order to use them for the exchange. It would also allow NuBits to be destroyed regularly by using them as the fee, creating a natural way to shrink the supply besides variable transaction fees.

I have also suggested building in user created assets on the Nu blockchain (See my post above on that). This would allow NuBits to be destroyed as a fee for creating assets. NuBits could also be destroyed through asset transactions, dividends and motion voting. All great services that could be added to Nu to help naturally reduce the supply.

The problem though comes because of scalability issues, too many business models on top of one blockchain leading to lack of consensus and possible forks. This is why @JordanLee embraces the peershares philosophy of separate blockchains dedicated to separate services, rather than the one blockchain rules them all philosophy.

Still it would be great if we could find new services that actually aligned with Nu’s existing business model that allowed for NuBits to naturally be destroyed.

[Raythma]

I don’t disagree with the simplicity issue justification, but the decentralized exchange is a very unique service and have a huge benefits to Nu not only burning NuBits,For example If B&C was on the Nu BlockChain, we could use its trade pairs so the protocol can roughly guess the NuBits price out there without human interfere, to simplify @Benjamin suggestions about automated auctioning pegging scheme, right?

[dysconnect]

I agree with you to the extent that I don’t think structurally we are any worse than BTC, where a constant flow of money is needed to sustain the dilution due to mining. Or even something like Ripple, where a company was built around the business model of selling XRP that doesn’t inflate.

Overall I think it is reasonable to value Nu for its potential social capital, i.e. how strongly can people believe we can hold the peg and how much it’s used. If Nu can get a sizeable amount of revenue (profit) beyond selling Nubits and after paying for parking, that isn’t just a cherry on top, but is also a great boost of confidence in the peg.

[Sabreiib]

hardly set up.

@Sabreiib, we have actually been discussing this recently and @mably has been working on an idea that would help introduce scare resources into Peercoin. It would allow user created assets that would be secured by Peercoin’s proof-of-stake. This would allow businesses that want equity asset tracking to skip Peershares and go directly to Peercoin (Peershares is best for more advanced DAOs anyway). There would be no reason for businesses to have to worry about minting and how distribution would affect security, because Peercoin minters would take care of everything. If successful, it would be much harder to simply copy Peercoin, because clones wouldn’t be able to easily copy all the assets and businesses tied to the Peercoin blockchain. Sunny King has called a meeting to discuss the idea, so we’ll have to see what he thinks first.

I am very interested in it and stay tuned.

[BCExchange]

Total funds committed have reached $176,901 including seed funds. We are now over 88% of the way to our goal of $200,000.

[Sentinelrv]

Total funds committed have reached $176,901 including seed funds. We are now over 88% of the way to our goal of $200,000.

Wow, maybe I should hold off on the advertising in other communities? It looks like it might not be needed after all. Fundraising has been jumping a lot by itself over this last 20%.

[Sabreiib]

What’s the deadline of fundraising?

[BCExchange]

What’s the deadline of fundraising?

There is no end deadline for fundraising.

[Sabreiib]

So there is no undistributed BKS at all.

[cryptog]

But once the 200k are reached, the shareholders can set a consensus that stops the fund raising. Right?

[Sentinelrv]

But once the 200k are reached, the shareholders can set a consensus that stops the fund raising. Right?

How will they do this though if shares have not been distributed to investors yet? There is currently no way to vote on a motion to end sales without first receiving those shares.

[cryptog]

yes after receiving those shares so it is very likely that the funds received will go beyond 200k but no way beyond, in my understanding.

[tomjoad]

My understanding is that there are a number of features beyond the minimum viable product at $200,000 that could make B&C Exchange much more competitive. As a future BlockShareholder, my preference will be to complete the proposed fundraising and add as many useful features to B&C Exchange as possible in the early stages.

[Sentinelrv]

yes after receiving those shares so it is very likely that the funds received will go beyond 200k but no way beyond, in my understanding.

It could also increase sales once full funding has been reached with no way for us to end it. How long might it be before we can receive shares to vote with? Unless a poll is done with current investors through bitmessage and email. Here is what @BCExchange posted…

If we meet our $200,000 fundraising goal and the blockchain is launched, shareholders can dictate what occurs with any currently undistributed BlockShares by casting a voting motion through the network.

The default decision will be to continue selling BlockShares until all ~80,750 shares are sold, in order to generate a healthy development fund for B&C Exchange. However, BlockShareholders could also vote to burn all undistributed shares at any point in time. This would increase each BlockShareholder’s percentage of equity in the network, but decrease the amount of development funds available to improve the exchange beyond its minimum implementation. Should this occur, BlockShareholders could always vote for future custodial grants of new BlockShares to fund further development when they think it is needed.

BlockShares will provide its users with full control of B&C Exchange’s operations and equity structure. Each BlockShareholder will essentially act as a decentralized manager of B&C Exchange.

[Sentinelrv]

My understanding is that there are a number of features beyond the minimum viable product at $200,000 that could make B&C Exchange much more competitive. As a future BlockShareholder, my preference will be to complete the proposed fundraising and add as many useful features to B&C Exchange as possible in the early stages.

Tom, since we don’t know how much those additional features will cost to implement yet, don’t you think it would be a better idea to end it at $200k and then allow shareholders to pass motions to sell more BlockShares as needed in the future? This way current investors will have more control over how many more are sold and for what purpose.

I would personally prefer this instead. Once we get further into development (months from now) we should have a better idea of the costs and all BlockShare holders can make the decision to increase the BlockShare supply to raise more funding.

[Sabreiib]

If all second round 80750 BKS sold out, second round investors spend $330K , ie 80% fund and get 38% of BKS, that’s fine because Nushare holders will keep 40% equity for free.

If only $200K collected, and fundrasing ends & undistributed BKS destoyed, the second round investors spend 120K, contribute 60% and only get 18.5% equity, is this fair?

[tomjoad]

don’t you think it would be a better idea to end it at $200k and then allow shareholders to pass motions to sell more BlockShares as needed in the future?

Again, it’s only my preference, but I would prefer to get as much development completed up front as possible. I would much rather have an exchange with many new groundbreaking features and extensive QA as opposed to a minimum product that may or may not ever receive additional funding. Shareholders should take a long-term view to the success of B&C Exchange.

[cryptog]

By the way, the shares distribution (20%,38%,40%,2%) for respectively (seed, second round, nushareholder, bitcoiner) is a distribution topology that we have at which moment?
In other words, it corresponds to which snapshot?

I suppose it is valid at least when the b&c shares are distributed for the first time once we reached 200k.
But is that topology kept intact when in 6 months we decide to issue new shares, for example?

[cryptog]

In my understanding, it seems that second round investors risk dilution if we go beyond 200k.
Why?
Because they will have the same ownership whether second round investors raise 120k or 332k.
Therefore a second round investor has no interest in giving more funding than the min required 120k.
Comparatively, seed investors need only to contribute 80k (already done) to get 20%.

Is my understanding correct?