I don’t think you quite understand what I am saying. B&C will initially be 100% owned by NuShare holders. Overtime, some Nushare holders will sell their blockshares, and some non-Nushare holders will buy blockshares. This means it is possible NuShare holders might eventually be a minority vote for B&C and therefore B&C can pass votes not in the interest of Nu. This is because Nu does not own B&C because they operate on different blockchains. Additionally, profits from B&C go to B&C shareholders not NuShare holders. While I agree B&C should be built, I am still not convinced it should be on a new blockchain yet.
2 Likes
Yes, Joe just said the same thing as me. This is my main concern. I’m all for the exchange being built, but I struggle to see the benefits of splitting the blockchains when there is the possibility that we could eventually lose majority control of B&C.
This summarizes it in one simple sentence, thanks. I’d even say its more than likely.
1 Like
If people sell their blockshares, that will be a choice they made. Much like some of the early business partners for Nu that sold their shares on the open market made the choice to sell them to others instead of hold them and influence the network with them. All Blockshare holders have the opportunity to make the same choice. One shouldn’t feel entitled to anything if the individual shareholder sells their stake in the network.
1 Like
It is not clear to me whether you are proposing that NSR reside on a third chain or with the NBT chain, but in either case a multitude of significant technical and security challenges are posed. For instance, how are share days recorded and calculated? How is an NSR block reward given for minting on a foreign chain? How are different block heights handled? There are plenty of other issues as well, far too many to be addressed effectively in my opinion.
Edit: Sorry, I guess this post wasn’t necessary:
NBT and NSR transactions are placed in the same merkle tree.
It cuts both ways. It’s possible, I hate to think about it, that Nu fails due to competition or lack of revenue source or high exposure to BTC prices, whatever, while B&C with its intrinsic profit model would survive and prosper. If people are jumping boats from Nu to B&C, you’d ask why.
Due to double direction burning between NBT and NSR ties both together, NSR is critically exposed to the health of the peg. So separate Nu and B&C is good in risk containment point of view. However I am sure shareholders will recognize the synergy between a fiat-pegged coin and an distributed exchange so even Nu and B&C have two blockchains, the shareowners will try to maximize the synergy between the two.
2 Likes
You cannot gaurantee that mutual cooperation will always occur.
Additionally, arguing that having the two seperate is beneficial becuase one might fail is false as well. In theory, tying b&c to nushares will cause the price of Nushares to go up because the network has more/better services to offer compared to any conpetitors and the promise of dividends. If b&c fails as a service the price of nushares will fall to reflect that. The same is true of nubits.
Because high overlap between shareholders of NSR and Blockshares mutual cooperation in the beginnig is guaranteed. What happens later is difficult to tell. Nu has a longer history, B&C has a natural revenue model.
I am still observing what others are stating, but already several individuals ( @GreatScott, @Joe, @NubitGuy, @Nagalim, @cryptog) have expressed their concerns over the protocol through which this project intends to be funded or the outcomes it can have for nushareholders.
I believe at this time that the missing link here and a proper way to fund NuFork projects like BCexchange with
nushares would be first to pass a motion to enable the funding of NuForks by NSR custodial grant.
I mean, we have to set constraints and agree on a conceptual framework here.
Some ideas for such a motion.
Basically, it puts constraints consensually agreed upon, on each of the following articles and others.
*Initial distribution:
- Ratio NSR:NFSR for current Nushareholders
- Ratio NFSR:NSR for new NuForkshareholders
*Funding method: - Auction: put constraints on the minimal price
- Fixed price: set conditioning
*Special NFSR allocation
*Grant of NFSR:
NuFork blockchain already created or not?
In the latter case, the risk is higher and investors should be rewarded accordingly.
1 Like
Currently Nu has no revenue models. None. We are now talking about
- Diluting NuShares by 12.5% to fund development of an exchange with a good revenue model.
- Spitting the NuShare market cap to create the exchange
- Giving away the revenue model to the owners of the exchange
My suggestion, regardless of difficulty, is skip steps 2 and 3 and go straight to Nu keeping the revenue of the exchange it is funding.
1 Like
Serious question:
Where do you propose the funds come from to support the development of the exchange while returning future revenues to Nu shareholders?
See step 1. above 
Which (as I understand it) is the proposal that Jordan presented, so I’m confused. Are you arguing in favor of or against the proposed structure?
Just to be clear, I think that by coming to shareholders with a motion such as has been laid out, everything is being done properly. If shareholders were to pass a motion like this draft or a NSR custodial grant, it would accomplish the same ends. It would mostly just be ceremonial to go the NSR grant route, though, as Jordan already has the NSR to cover it.
2 Likes
I want to see the exchange built into the existing Nushares blockchain. This way, Nu keeps the revenue from the exchange and it can be directly distributed to Nu shareholders or used to strengthen the peg.
I’m proposing that nushareholders first take the time to think about the parameters and agree upon the correct quantitative coefficients.
3 Likes
Perhaps we can split this discussion into 2 threads?
1 Like
I like that you are thinking ahead to conceptual frameworks for future funding of new blockchains @crypto_coiner. Rather than setting hard-values though (such as equity must be given 1-1, or reserve price must be 75% of market price, etc.), what do you think about simply specifying the aspects that a project like B&C needs to address? This way shareholders will retain the flexibility to choose new values in your ratios for different Peershare platforms that might have very different profit models, as long as they are quantified in a user’s proposal.
In this case, I think Jordan has made a compelling case and put protections on the offer, like a reserve price and a guaranteed BKS distribution to all NuShareholders. I would enjoy seeing your idea codified into a motion to ensure that all future proposals are required to go into the same level of detail as Jordan has.
2 Likes
I agree with Joe here. As said before, separating into two different blockchains will leave Nu shareholders in control of B&C initially, but that may not remain the case forever. Let’s say that Nu shareholders also own a majority of B&C shares. If that is the case (which it will be in the beginning), then we can pass motions to reinvest the profit revenue from B&C into further developing Nu, B&C and paying its contractors. If at some point in the future Nu shareholders lose that majority control over B&C shares, then that means B&C shareholders could pass a motion to disassociate itself from Nu. This means that Nu shareholders would no longer be able to rely on B&C as a source of revenue (or its piggy bank), because they no longer own a controlling interest in the exchange. This could happen later in the future, not in the beginning.
This risk is no longer an issue if the exchange is built directly on top of the Nu blockchain. Rather than using blockshares, we would use NuShares to control the functions of the exchange. All profits made by the exchange would be directly distributed to Nu shareholders via Peercoin dividends. Nu shareholders could also pass motions to reinvest this profit revenue into paying its contractors to build other services for Nu, which would further increase revenue. Building it on top of the Nu blockchain would ensure that this exchange is always owned by Nu shareholders, forever.
If Nu is a business, then it needs to find ways to earn profit. This exchange is a great source of income for Nu, but it would be a huge mistake to design it with the possibility of eventually losing full ownership of it later in the future. In the same way that a subsidiary does not stop being owned by its parent company just because some of its top executives resign, there should not be a possibility for the Nu network (parent company) to lose full ownership of one of its services, the B&C exchange (Nu’s subsidiary) just because too many Nu shareholders in the future sell their B&C shares and NuNet loses majority control. Tying B&C to the Nu blockchain will make it impossible for Nu shareholders to lose ownership of B&C, thus the Nu network will always and forever have a source of income. Any other services that make money for Nu should also be tied to NuShares, so that there’s no risk of losing full ownership of that revenue in the future.
1 Like