Hi Phonix, I am interested in the CN-NBT project. I can do it about 4 hours per day, so it will be better if I and the other dev work on different aspects of the release. Also I am happy to do that.
1 Like
Chinese yuan is softly pegged to the USD so I don’t see how fundamentally CN-NBT is more useful than US-NBT as a stable value cryptocurrency.
The peg is soft and people are widely expecting CNY to lose value against the USD so it doesn’t make sense to hold CN-NBT as a value store.
In China Alipay and Wechat and a whole lot of minor on-line payment methods make instant paying electronically a few taps away for everyone with a smart phone. The big players are centralised but too big to fail so no one worries about their going insolvent practically. So I don’t see any cryptos’ edge as a payment method for normal people.
These make CN-NBT mostly a speculation tool for traders in exchanges.
Using a shadow CNY in China is highly risky so exchanges maybe more reluctant to adopt CN-NBT than US-NBT. Without exchanges support pegging through liquidity ops is highly difficult for Nu.
There are two kinds of Yuan – CNY and CNH, which is CN-NBT going to peg to?
So I don’t see CN-NBT a good idea. Implementing and pegging of it will be a drag to Nu recovery.
4 Likes
First of all, I want to thank @mhps for this thoughtful, informative and helpful post.
There are plenty of reasons to have both US-NBT and CN-NBT and they differ in a number of important regards. BitShares released BitCNY quite a while after BitUSD, yet there are nearly 3 times as many BitCNY in circulation as BitUSD (by USD value). That is a compelling argument for potential demand for CN-NBT relative to US-NBT.
In practice at least initially, there will be many important differences between US-NBT and CN-NBT besides the peg price. CN-NBT will feature segregated 100% reserve, while US-NBT is supported by NSR sales. CN-NBT will have no appreciation potential, while currently a 16% profit can be had on US-NBT with a return of the peg.
Our target market will be crypto traders. It is a very niche market. I accept that the average Chinese consumer won’t find a use for CN-NBT any time soon. All we need is a small percentage of the Chinese crypto trading market to make our product an initial success.
NuLagoon Tube will probably be the first place CN-NBT is traded. We will have to work as a community to gain support elsewhere. It can be done. BitCNY is listed on Poloniex.
Let’s set up a poll and also get the advise of informed individuals.
While I found your post useful, I disagree with your conclusion. It won’t cost that much, will do much to inspire confidence, both in our ability to keep a peg and that we are in this for the long term. It is a useful experiment to gauge how consumers feel about the segregated 100% reserve we are using.
It will support the NSR price, which in turn will support the US-NBT price.
I don’t think now is the right timing for launching alt NuBits.
Lauching CN-NBT before restablishing the US-NBT’s peg will only fuel FUD and help trolls harm (even more) this community’s work.
IMHO regaining trust and making Nu reliable again must be the priority before launching CN-NBT.
As they say in the markets: “A credit issue is a serious trust problem”…
I understand what you are saying and that it might bring some skepticism. With a segregated 100% reserve, a fully functional liquidity engine and me as Chief of Liquidity Operations, the CN-NBT peg will be very secure.
It will demonstrate the blended reserve and liquidity engine model works well, just as it always has in the past, except when those in control of funds utterly refused to employ any part of the reserve or liquidity engine model. The results we saw in June have nothing to do with our model. With those rogue actors no longer in control, we can be confident nothing like that will ever happen again in our network.
Part of the reason we ought to do this now is that I am confident it will help us regain the US-NBT peg. It will show we are growing and expanding as opposed to shutting down. As CN-NBT is supported successfully, it will increase the value of NSR. This increased NSR price can in turn be used to support the US-NBT price. While CN-NBT won’t help US-NBT on the level of tier 4 reserves, because they are to be segregated for CN-NBT, the tier 6 reserves (NSR sales) are necessarily blended. Strength in CN-NBT will give strength to US-NBT through the shared NSR price.
I have proceeded with this endeavor because shareholders already passed a motion to support CN-NBT long ago. Some might argue today’s circumstances are different and that shareholders no longer support the release of CN-NBT. I doubt that is true, but perhaps additional community support and unity could be had by passing a new motion that mandates these new currencies.
Should I advance a new motion for releasing CN-NBT?
1 Like
NuLagoon Tube probably won’t cut it as one only need to have BTC to buy CN-NBT. The Chinese have no advantage in it.
A CN-NBT/CNY market in China is recommended to let local traders inject/extract CNY fund at dead 1:1, enabling instant crypoi’ization of their Yuan with no volatility risk and spread. Although there is no volatility issue in this market, but exchange risk cannot be ignored. The hyper active Chinese crypto trading scene does have transparency issues. A local custodian who can manage a tier 3 of ~$10kUDS worth of Yuan is perhaps called for to keet a large amount of fund off-exchange.
If CN-NBT/BTC market is again to become the dominant market, a gateway with a built-in reserve is highly recommended or “100% reserve” will come at a high cost or low fund-utilization-ratio.
1 Like
Now I see your point: one helps the other via NSR sales.
Would this supply of fiat be easy to manage against a (possible) voracious demand for CN-NBT?
I don’t know. A custodian uses own fund, which could make such custodian difficult or expensive to find. Nu could have a gateway on one of the exchanges in China. Gateway operator manages shareholders fund so it’s easier to recruit one. The operator would need to take excess CNY off exchange to mitigate exchange risk.
Anyway that is one part of effort I was referring to which Nu has to commit to have CN-NBT. I don’t know how exactly a trader-oriented CN-NBT benefits Nu. With 100% reserve Nu can’t even do buyback or dividends. Maintaining peg in CN-NBT/BTC is money-losing. We have seen that movie before and we know how it ends.
2 Likes
It reminds me the (symbiotic) way that Tether + Poloniex work…
poloniex is going to delist BITUSD on Sept. 5. Daily volume is 0.x btc.
yes , but still list bitCNY…
BitUSD is gonna get an epic fail apparently…
Hi there – long time, no see
NuYuan is interesting in the times we are living right now –
I am interested in recruiting the developers –
@Phoenix Please PM me to discuss the terms of the fees
i tried to discuss this directly with @Phoenix, but he prefers that I do it here, I’m able to spend few hours per week on cpp code, implementing necessary changes to source code. easiest thing would be to have a separate blockchain completely, it would also be more suitable for people who are starting with new token, they won’t have to sync 2+gb of transactions that don’t concern them.
what do you think?
1 Like
it would certainly reduce the size of blockchain. but so would a pruned blockchain with reset coin-age.
If cn-nbt does not use nsr minting to run its network, you’d have to issue cn-nsr. if all cn-nsr are airdropped to nsr owners the issuing part may not be a lot of work. the community will still have to run twice as many minting clients.
A separate blockchain does contain the damage if the chinese government sabotages the blockchain.
1 Like
It is a difficult one as the above is teasing. My main concern is the security of the new chain, as you will have to mint on 2 chains. For a non-minting client like NuDroid it would be easier to just copy the App instead of integrating both currencies into own App. As they would likely have two different audiences it won’t be a problem. Maintenance is higher though as any generic changes needs to be applied twice.
If you had separate blockchains for each currency instead of one, wouldn’t you be effectively splitting Nu into 4 separate businesses? While the shareholders would be the same in the beginning, ownership between them would grow apart over time. This means you would need to pass the same motion on 4 separate blockchains, which may not be possible due to differences of opinion between shareholders.
With 4 groups of NuShares supporting one currency each, Nu would inevitably fracture into separate businesses as voting for each currency would no longer be tied together through the ownership of a singular group of NuShares. NuShare value would now also be split 4 ways and you’d run into issues, for example with shareholders of EU-NBT or others not wanting to work together to help back the value of US-NBT if it got into trouble again.
You’d also need separate branding and logos such as US-NSR and EU-NSR as you could no longer keep calling them simply NSR if there were 4 different types.
4 Likes
@backpacker, I guess you need to show your coding skills to the shareholders, and in future you may demand reward after finishing some work.
I think this is the way out of current situation, to split into new businesses and new blockchains for each new product.
surely necessary infrastructure motions would pass on all chains albeit at different times.
I would suggest using peerassets technology for this
1 Like