I think you might be misunderstanding me. Let’s say somebody wanted to raise some money to start their own business. They would download a special client and use it to create their own PeerAssets. Once they determine how many assets they needed to create and other info, they would then sell shares to people who wanted to invest. Once all shares are sold, the person could then use the crowdfunded money to start their business. If the shareholders have a say in how the business runs, they can vote with their assets to make decisions. If the company makes profit, the owner would distribute dividends to all his asset holders. The asset holders themselves could trade their assets back and forth on exchanges or with other people, just like other cryptos.
The PeerAssets themselves would be hosted on a blockchain like Peercoin. You wouldn’t be able to mint with your assets, as there’s no need to. Security of the blockchain would be taken care of by people minting with their Peercoins. PeerAssets would all be riding on top of Peercoin’s blockchain and asset holders wouldn’t need to worry about security. As long as the host network is properly decentralized and people are minting, then the assets on top of Peercoin would be secure.
If you wanted to create a new Peershares network, you would need to make sure that your share distribution is decentralized enough, or else you could run into security problems. Fundraising with Peershares can be problematic because you might not be able to find enough people willing to buy shares so that the network is properly decentralized and secure.
For example, let’s say you wanted to raise $100k by selling Peershares, but you could only find enough buyers to raise $50k. Then one buyer contacts you wanting to purchase the remaining $50k worth of shares. You wouldn’t be able to sell those $50k worth of shares though because giving half of all shares to one individual would put the network’s security at risk. As long as you can find enough share buyers to make the Peershares network decentralized enough then you’re good, but if you can’t find enough people willing to buy then Peershares aren’t going to work for you when it comes to raising money.
That is where PeerAssets would come in. Because the security of the network is taken care of by Peercoin minters rather than PeerAsset holders, it doesn’t matter what the distribution of PeerAssets is. A person could distribute 75% of all assets to one individual willing to buy them and it wouldn’t impact security at all. It would impact the outcome of shareholder voting if one individual held that many shares, but not security.
That is why PeerAssets are better for raising money. However, they are only good at acting like simple assets. PeerAssets would not work in cases where advanced customization is required like Nu and B&C, but it’s perfect in a situation where somebody wants to start a business or simply raise money by distributing shares in that business. The only purpose of the shares in these cases would be to track ownership. Advanced customization like DAOs and DACs would require Peershares.
Now, if PeerAsset holders wanted to send assets to somebody else, they would need to pay a transaction fee in Peercoin, which would be destroyed. If asset holders needed to vote or distribute dividends, they would also need to pay a transaction fee. In each case, Peercoin would need to be burned as a fee. This would make Peercoin more scarce over time, helping to fight inflation.
What I was suggesting is that Nu take on the PeerAsset protocol as well. This means that “NuAssets” would be hosted on top of the Nu blockchain and all transaction fees would be paid in NuBits. Because transaction fees are burned, any NuBits paid in fees would be burned. Hosting NuAssets would create a natural way to erode the NuBit supply, thus generating profit for NuShareholders and making it easier to maintain our various pegs.
Businesses may want to create assets on Nu instead, because it means they could distribute all their company dividends using NuBits, which are price stable and better for dividend distribution. So it would not only destroy NuBits through asset transaction fees, it would increase NuBits demand because of companies wanting to buy NuBits in order to distribute price stable dividends to their shareholders.
And best of all, from the whitepaper it seems that no hard fork of the Nu protocol is required. If you wanted the advantages of long-term security and sustainability, you would create your PeerAssets on top of Peercoin. If you wanted the advantages of paying price stable dividends to your shareholders, you would choose Nu to host your assets. PeerAssets and NuAssets could also be traded on B&C Exchange as cryptosecurities and help BlockShareholders profit.
