[Passed] Reduce the total displayed supply of NSR by 10,000

Motion RIPEMD160 hash: e0b3f80e5d9f58d3c3df27e346b61233b9cd5153

=##=##=##=##=##=## Motion hash starts with this line ##=##=##=##=##=##=

Each NuShare (1.0000 NSR) should be re-denominated from 10,000 satoshis to 100,000,000 satoshis. This adjustment will make 1 “new” NSR equivalent in size to 10,000 “original” NSR. This change will reduce the total supply of NSR in circulation by a factor of 10,000. The new 1.00000000 NSR unit will retain the term “NuShare” without any additional qualifiers such as “new”, “improved”, “kilo”, etc. The default NSR transaction fee and NSR mint reward should be adjusted proportionally by a factor of 10,000.

=##=##=##=##=##=## Motion hash ends with this line ##=##=##=##=##=##=

Verify. Use everything between and including the <motionhash></motionhash> tags.

Relevant/tangential previous discussion: Use units of kNSR in end-user messaging and user interfaces by @woodstockmerkle. This motion is slightly different but addresses many of the concerns raised there. I hope woodstockmerkle considers reactivating his motion if he or others prefer it to this motion.

I am proposing each NuShare (1.0000 NSR) should be re-denominated from 10,000 satoshis to 100,000,000 satoshis. This adjustment will make 1 “new” NSR equivalent in size to 10,000 “original” NSR. This change will reduce the total supply of NSR in circulation by a factor of 10,000. The new unit would retain the term “NuShare” without any additional qualifiers such as “new”, “improved”, “kilo”, etc. This switch would occur by increasing the number of decimals displayed in NSR from four to eight. This would not be a protocol switch requiring a hard fork; it would be a change in the commonly-accepted denomination of NSR. The total number of satoshis in circulation would remain the same, but the client wallet would switch from displaying ~835,000,000 NSR to ~83,500 NSR. @JordanLee has confirmed that the actual development costs involved with making this switch would be minimal, although perhaps he can offer a revised estimate.

After observing the benefits of a smaller BlockShares supply for B&C Exchange, I am convinced NuShares should also adjust to a lower supply. In my view it is the most important structural change we can make to the Nu network right now along with @Nagalim’s proposal to implement volume-dependent transaction fees. There are several benefits resulting from this proposal that would make Nu more competitive.


1) More intuitive NSR pricing. We would see NSR priced at 19.45 USD per share rather than 0.001945 USD per share. This whole-number price would make NSR easier to discuss and promote, especially among newcomers to cryptocurrency who casually browse coinmarketcap.com. It would also make each share feel more valuable and rare. Bitcoin has shown that perceived scarcity is very important in attracting speculators.

2) Minimum voting requirement would be 1 NSR, not 10,000 NSR. A user would require 1 NSR to mint a block (and possibly cast a vote) rather than 10,000 NSR. This simplifies our marketing considerably. I can’t think of a single reason why we should prefer 10,000 NSR over 1 NSR as a voting requirement.

3) NuShares would have the same number of decimals (eight) as Bitcoin. This would help reinforce the idea that using Nu is very similar to using Bitcoin and based on the same technology.

There are a number of potential drawbacks and concerns identified in woodstockmerkle’s motion thread. Here are a few of the raised concerns.

Perceived Drawbacks

  1. "The price of NSR will be too high in the future”. This argument suggests it would be a problem if the market cap of NSR hits one billion dollars in the future because the price per share would be above 10,000 USD. Supporters of Bitcoin are quite comfortable with the prospect of Bitcoin reaching 10,000 USD in the future, despite their belief BTC should be used as a day-to-day currency. The requirement for a low price-per-unit for a cryptoequity is even less important. I believe it is not a problem to have equity priced in the thousands or tens of thousands of dollars; at a NSR market cap of one billion dollars professional investors would be involved who only care about the fundamental value of an asset. The current price of a Berkshire Hathaway Class A share is 192,000 USD and investors still flock to it. A high NSR price would prove that the Nu network has achieved success – the best problem to have.

  2. “It will be viewed as a pricing gimmick”. I don’t agree with this argument either. There are three clearly defined benefits above that, if included in a brand new cryptoequity, everyone would understand the rationale behind. A gimmick is an attempt to obfuscate the true value of an asset through empty tricks. In contrast, this denomination change will make it easier for shareholders to discuss and evaluate their own network. It is not a gimmick to improve the business design of our network.

  3. “There is a significant risk to exchanges”. This risk is the one I agree is significant. For example, hypothetical User A who has 30,000 NSR on deposit with Exchange ABC should have 3 NSR after the switch. Should an exchange not update its internal accounting system, its NSR reserves could be depleted if User A withdrew 30,000 “new” NSR (which were formerly 300,000,000 NSR).

To mitigate this risk, I would like to suggest a 60-day implementation schedule that is very similar to what would be done for a hard-fork protocol change.

Proposed 60-Day implementation schedule

Day 0 - passage of motion: A master thread will be created for all exchange compliance activities. It should be announced that at 14:00 UTC on Day 60 all exchanges should halt NSR trading and wipe their order books. They will be told not to reactivate their NSR markets until they are confident their internal accounting systems have been updated and appropriate messaging provided on each section of the site NSR is mentioned. Coinmarketcap.com will be warned that the supply of NSR will switch at 14:00 UTC Day 60.

Day 1-7: Shareholders will identify all exchanges and services that use NSR. 99% of all NSR volume is consolidated on a handful of exchanges, but there is a chance that an obscure service we are unaware of processes a small amount of NSR. Active shareholder research will be able to identify all these services. Detailed instructions will be provided to exchanges to help them. A tracking list will be used by all shareholders in the master forum thread to confirm exchange intentions for compliance.

Day 8-60: Daily emails, contacts, and shareholder messages will be sent to all identified exchanges and services. The tracking list will continue to be updated. If an exchange/service cannot make the upgrade in this 52-day long window despite a flood of warnings, messages, and notifications, it is unlikely they will survive long anyways. Shareholders will conduct a secondary check of exchanges and services on Day 50-55 for any new exchanges/services that need to be warned. Any exchange who has not explicitly confirmed with us that they have a plan in place will be removed from nubits.com on Day 59 until we confirm they have upgraded, and active warnings will be distributed through all Nu social media channels.

Day 60: At 14:00 UTC new NuBits clients will be posted on nubits.com and a message sent to coinmarketcap.com requesting a new updated NSR supply.

I’m certain that some shareholders will still be against this proposal even after considering the above analysis, and so I’m expecting this to be a contentious debate just like the open-source motion was. It is important to remember that we recently saw a successful hard fork on the Nu network with 90% of nodes upgrading on schedule. This successful transition suggests that our network is small and active enough to make this denomination change with proper planning and execution. We may not have that luxury one year from now if our growth continues. I urge all shareholders to vote for this motion to improve the design of NuShares.

Comments, proposed edits, and complaints are all welcomed.


My first impression:
makes things easier and is similar to the shares in the Blocks & Chains Exchange DAC.

You already explained it, but I want to confirm:
as 10,000 NSR are needed now for minting and voting and 1 NSR will be needed after the change, it doesn’t change the minting mechanic, just the perception - to the better I think.

At the moment NSR are a penny stock - even less than that.
20 USD per share sounds much better :smile:
As NSR can be traded in fractions of 1 NSR I can’t see why they should be too expensive.

I very much like this draft.
Don’t see any necessary change…


quite very convincing

Having seen the B&C forking going well and with that the decrease in number of shares, I don’t see a technical risk with this.

The exchange risk is the largest, but if mitigated properly as suggested in the OP and with the experience we have in this context I think it is safe enough to take the remaining risks and reap the marketing and perception benefits as described above.

I estimate this will cost $2000 to code, test and deploy. If it were passed quickly, it could be included in the Nu 2.1 release.

This is mostly about how NuShares are presented to users, so others are just as qualified to decide if this is a good idea as I am.

On a technical level, there are no significant problems with doing this within the client. As noted in the original post, the main potential for problems regard changing external systems that use NuShares. Changes will need to be made to other wallets such as Coinomi. Any system that uses NSR in automated fashion will need to be changed as well. This primarily consists of exchanges, which will need to synchronize their update of the Nu client, their internal database update and possibly an update other internal code. The main danger is exchanges updating their client but not updating their internal NSR ledger. If someone has 30,000 NSR on deposit at an exchange and only the client is updated, then they would be able to withdraw up to 30,000 new NSR, which would permit them to withdraw 10,000 times too much value. So it is very important that exchanges divide the number of NSR in their internal databases by 10,000 as part of this upgrade. If this did go wrong at a particular exchange, it is possible for shareholders to cover the exchange loss if they chose to.

Because of the complications this creates for external systems, we cannot make this change later, once there is wider use of NuShares. This is our last chance to do this. Similarly, once it is done, it can never be undone. There will never be a stock split for NuShares due to the complications created for external systems that use NuShares.

This also makes B&C and Nu easier to maintain because they will have more similar code bases.

I believe the benefits of this change outweigh the risks.


We might recommend a protocol order to mitigate risks, e.g. first the db then the clients?

I was actually tempted to bump the original thread, so I’m glad to see @tomjoad post this motion. I believe the positives gained with perception from this change will highly outweigh the risks. As @masterOfDisaster said, NuShares are currently perceived as a penny stock. Shrinking down the number of shares in this way will have the effect of making the price per share more normal looking, thus easier to read for people. The requirement of 1 share to participate in voting is also much more preferable when it comes to marketing, rather than trying to explain to people that you need to purchase 10,000 shares just to vote. The latter can be perceived as unfair, while the former is a completely reasonable number. I believe this will be a very important step for the perception of NuShares as a cryptoequity, so I will support this motion!


I agree. As those among us who own both Blockshares and NuShares can attest, it feels visually cleaner having a smaller number. It’s as if the value is muscular and compact, like corned beef.

1 Like

I would vote in favour of such motion

I see good points in changing but I don’t see it necessary. Unit price of coins are all over the chart and I am used to this fact. (1 NSR isn’t far from 1 cent USD on the upside, given how much crypto prices fluctuate. So current NSR price does’t have a bad measure)
I think there will be a tendency to support increase of mint reward and transaction fee if the motion passes, which don’t seem to be big deals but should be thought about.

It’s not necessary, but as Jordan posted above he believes this cannot be done later. I think that warrants serious consideration. It’s a relatively inexpensive and quick change, and I think it will make NSR more attractive to people who discover Nu when B&C launches.

Plz hash so we can try to get it in with Nu 2.1

1 Like

I believe the pros outweighs the coins. Therefore I would vote for such a motion.

The motion is up for voting: e0b3f80e5d9f58d3c3df27e346b61233b9cd5153

I added one additional line specifying that the default NSR transaction fees and NSR mint reward should be adjusted proportionally as well. Thanks to @mhps and @cryptog for raising that issue in various ways.


I see this as a very important problem for exchanges, and everything coded around.
Do we have any input about exchange operators? I know it is cheap for Nu, but is it for the exchanges?

In short: Are we risking delisting NSR from any exchange?
The benefits of this are psychological. The costs are real.

1 Like

That’s a valid theory, although I think the chances of it happening are small. When we contact exchanges to notify them we should point out the benefits that will come from more intuitive pricing. It should make speculating on NSR easier, which (in theory) should increase transaction volume on exchanges.

The actual changes required of exchanges are minimal but important. They will need to upgrade to our latest client, and divide the number of NSR in their internal databases by 10,000. I see this proposal as a win-win solution for both the Nu network and our partner exchanges in the long run.

Seeing how slow some exchanges reacted to recent protocol upgrade they will probably will pay little attention even the consequence is serious.

1 Like

Does anyone know where I can find information as to what features will be in Nu 2.1?