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 Nuâs existing business model that allowed for NuBits to naturally be destroyed.
I donât 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?
I agree with you to the extent that I donât 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 doesnât 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 itâs used. If Nu can get a sizeable amount of revenue (profit) beyond selling Nubits and after paying for parking, that isnât just a cherry on top, but is also a great boost of confidence in the peg.
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%.
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.
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.
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 postedâŚ
Tom, since we donât know how much those additional features will cost to implement yet, donât 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.
If all second round 80750 BKS sold out, second round investors spend $330K , ie 80% fund and get 38% of BKS, thatâs 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?
Again, itâs 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.
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?
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%.
I donât support that view - B&Cex is a venture and should iterate step by step on what is working, after validating hypothesis - Not shipping a brand new product that nobody happens to NOT need or desire.