Someone in bitcointalk says NuNet is insolvent

During the great crash, the “trusted” nubot custodians had millions
worth of BTC dumped on them. They did not hedge these BTC as evidenced
here: Possible solution to custodian loss of value due to BTC exposure


a desperate attempt to make back the huge amounts of money lost due to
BTC exposure, the “trusted” custodians have now resorted to widening
their nubot spread to 5%, hoping they can make the lost funds back
before there is a run on the bank. THIS IS AKIN TO MARK KARPELES
HACK, hoping to make back the lost funds on the trading fees.

RUN DRY! Get your money out of NuBits NOW, and if you still want to
hedge against BTC volatility then get into BitUSD. The market on is now active and the spread is around 5%, the same as nubits
(this is real volume, not fake bot volume btw).

If you want to know why BitUSD is safe and Nubits aren’t, check this out:
Notice the COLLATERAL, the single most important thing when you want to
guarantee a peg. BTS took a beating in the crash too, but notice that
BitUSD, BitCNY, BitGOLD is still collateralized with more than 200% of
their market value. This is the primary market for their collateral: NOTICE THE HUGE ORDERS OF NON-BOT NON-FAKE BUY AND SELL WALLS.

had noble intentions when they started their coin. The idea of a
stable, pegged cryptocurrency is the holy grail to enable wider crypto
adoption. They never meant to run the system as a fractional reserve
ponzi, but that is unfortunately what has happened as they apparently
hadn’t prepared for a crash in BTC value. It doesn’t matter how you try
to rationalize it, the following statement cannot be refuted with
anything less than a cryptographic proof of solvency:


be the guy stuck with nubits when they start offering interest rates to
"park" the nubits, because they know real nubits demand isn’t high
enough so they have to artificially stimulate it. That’s when you know
they are getting really desperate and the peg will soon break. GET. OUT.
NOW. This is NOT going to be pretty.

Any comments about the above criticism? Seems like some heavy attacking against Nu.

It’s by the same member of the BitShares community that has been calling us “retarded” in this thread:

It would be nice if we didn’t link to these threads on this forum. They’re nothing more than inefficient, negative marketing for BitUSD. The author displays a basic misunderstanding of the goals of our design, which Jordan has already clarified.

1 Like

whats with the talk of increasing the spread to 5%?

I don’t seem to recall that either. Also… when did we start operating on fractional reserve exactly?

You can be sure such attacks come from people whose economic interests are harmed by Nu’s success because they are invested in a competitor. It’s also clear the author is not at all concerned with making accurate statements. It is full of false statements that would take a lot of time to address individually. I’d rather spend my time building our network.

I’m pleased by the professional tone of our forum, and that we spend so much of our focus building and improving our network. It is a welcome contrast to many of the other crypto communities which focus on speculation, attacks on competitors and unfocused fluff.

So, I’m going to return to building the infrastructure of our network now.


Spreads are still 0.2% as far as I know. Who knows where the 5% claim comes from.

NuNet appears to be on fractional reserve, according to Jordan Lee. He recently wrote in the Bitshares forum:

While I don’t have access to real time figures, there are almost certainly between 500,000 and 1,000,000 NuBits out in the wild right now.

My client is currently showing about $150000 of buy support, so that’s 15 to 30 cents of buy support per NBT in circulation. However, this estimate doesn’t include backing from funds collected from centralized sales of NSR. See also this thread outlining the various tiers of support.

The funds displayed in the client only include funds presently placed on order books via NuBot. There are other tiers of liquidity. However, the most important point to be made is that NuBits are designed to have zero counterparty risk and zero reserves. In fact, much of the liquidity displayed in the client can’t be considered reserves in any sense. The concept of fractional reserve doesn’t compute in system that completely excludes reserves as a core design principle. The network design focuses on bringing liquidity to markets, not reserves. Reserves are just not a part of our system.

1 Like

So you don’t think we should at least try to post factual information in these threads so that people unfamiliar with Nu don’t get swayed by these claims? I don’t think we should attack the original poster or talk bad about Bitshares, but I do think we should at least provide a counterbalance of info so that people can make up their own minds.

Edit: I posted something here:

1 Like

Someone asked in that topic about the NBT/USD peg and where exactly is it maintained? Since NBT/BTC liquidity is a bad idea due to bitcoin’s volatility I’d suggest the NBT/USD traiding pair should always have liquidity. Unfortunately is currently out of ammo and is also rather weak on the buy side. any comments why we don’t have proper NBT/USD liquidity? or if we have, then where it is?

@CoinGame and I posted simple factual information in the /r/Cryptocurrency thread that was received well. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that approach if absolutely all personal attacks and loaded language are removed. It’s a tricky tone to get correct though.

We need to realize that some authors are posting simply for attention for their own projects, and that by continually engaging with them you actually draw more attention to their nonsense. So, I’m not sure what we stand to gain from posting on bitcointalk. Those users who are truly interested in understanding our design (and its initial learning curve) will be coming to our forum.


There have been many posts on this forum addressing this issue. A primary barrier right now is that the exchanges we trade on do not have substantial USD operations in place, meaning it is difficult for users to get funds on and off the exchange (or they primarily choose to trade in cryptocurrencies). NBT/Crypto trading pairs are a temporary solution while our network grows.

In that case as a temporary solution I would advise developing the custodian Bitstamp bot that would allow buying and selling directly from/to custodian rather than on an exchange. I have discussed the idea more in detail in another topic:

Balancing liquidity among markets is an issue that shareholders have not reliably resolved yet. It requires someone who is willing to move the liquidity from one trading pair to another, manually for now (though this is a candidate for automation). Theoretically the entity doing this could maintain all their capital in NuBits, except for brief periods when exchanges are taking place. In practice, illiquid pairs may prevent that. Take the NBT/USD market at CCEDK for example. To place some buy side liquidity there requires that you purchase NuBits with USD. In theory someone wishing to do this can take their NuBits, sell them on a pair that has buy side liquidity such as CCEDK’s NBT/BTC pair. Now they have BTC, which they use to buy USD on CCEDK (if that pair has liquidity), which in turn can be used to buy NuBits on the NBT/USD pair. The end result is that buy side liquidity is transferred from the BTC pair to the USD pair. Transaction fees may be incurred. In some scenarios this can be avoided by dealing directly with an LPC off exchange. Another way to minimize fees is to craft an arrangement with exchanges to allow specific entities dedicated to balancing liquidity to have accounts with no transaction fees. Balancing brings liquidity, which brings trades and exchange fees, so it is in the interest of exchange operators to help us balance liquidity.

We need one or more people to take the initiative to work out the details and bring shareholders a proposal, in exchange for compensation.

Edit: @CCEDK, @Excoin and Bter, would you be willing to allow transaction fee free accounts to one or two people who use the account solely to balance liquidity on NBT pairs?


As Jordan says, Nu shouldn’t answer each attack because it would be very time consuming same thing over and over again.
Bitcoin is quite easy to understand, there will be 21 million coins and they are valued by the market. Nu is much harder to understand than Bitcoin and to get people interested Nu must be able to very briefly explain how we maintain the peg and that it’ll remain stable. If Nu fails to explain this to the crypto people then Nu will be considered a scam even tho it’s not.
I believe that education about the peg and non-existent fractional reserve targeted on Bitcoin investors is crucial because if Nu cannot explain why they should trust us then they simply won’t. An enjoyable video on Khan Academy would probably be a very efficient way to get people involved in Nubits. Get inspiration from these videos


Just in case people don’t realize it, Jordan made a post in that thread on BitcoinTalk here…

By the way, using this forum software, how do I easily make a quote within a quote? I had trouble figuring out how to put toast’s reply in a separate quote box.

1 Like

If you add a “>” in front of “JordanLee” in the example below by hand

[quote="Sentinelrv, post:15, topic:1142"]


you will get

Note that the example text above is what you get when you use the mouse to highlight the text that has a quote in it, and click on the “quote reply” floating button.


It depends what people you are talking about. For the average user, I believe NBT is much easier that BTC to understand. Always a dollar. :smile:

1 Like

@JordanLee: We would absolutely be willing to do that. Notify us which accounts are responsible for this position and when that position ends.

1 Like