13:16 ~ 13:50
NuBits is mentioned at the past tense, curiously : "very cool experience, but because of the psychology of the target market (financial market, financial settlement), it did not appeal to them in spite of the obvious utility.
I believe they did not identity the real cause of our current volume –
Changing the peg on the basis of smart contract and financial settlement, like the DAI, would not change the appeal of any real peg that has utility.
NuBits mentiooned around 44:00
I don’t think it’s volatility that is the reason why Microsoft pulled Bitcoin from the Windows store. It’s most likely due to low use like somebody said in the comments. It seems that the overwhelming majority of crypto holders are just in it to get rich. They aren’t holding crypto so they can actually use it for something. They just want it to go up in value, so they can sell it for more than they bought it for. That’s a damaging mindset for the crypto community to have and it’s probably why NuBits have been slow to take off. We need to find a way to change this prevailing attitude. People need to instead be focused on providing a useful service to people, ultimately in exchange for profit like Peershares based DAOs/DACs are setup to do.
Thinking again about the lack of people who currently use crypto to buy things, I guess that’s why it’s a smart idea for us to first target traders with B&C Exchange. Jordan’s vision of first working to replace Bitcoin as the intermediary currency for crypto trading is spot on. If trading is what the majority of people use crypto for at the moment, then we first have to tackle that.
Maybe if we supplant Bitcoin as the intermediary trading currency, people will then begin to change their mindset about what they can use crypto like NuBits for. By then we will have proved our system works even under heavy use, leading to trust and acceptance by more people outside of crypto trading.
Complaints about Tether…
I’ve been watching The Daily Decrypt less and less over the past weeks, as I simply can not stand those hidden DASH advertisements anymore.
Not sure what you are referring to, but re blockchain governance and developers they have a point. Maybe with the B&C chain we can vote and pay the developers in the future too besides just the signers.
The developers of B&C Exchange and NuBits are paid in accordance with their individual contributions. They get paid whatever shareholders desire, or whatever a representative of shareholders chooses (such as myself). Some developers, such as desrever, have been paid directly by shareholders without the slightest use of authority or trust. Because developer compensation must be carefully and constantly adjusted to match actual development contributions, it makes sense in many contexts to have a project manager or team lead manage the details of that compensation. The point is that our network has the flexibility to allow shareholders to choose either approach: direct or managed compensation of developers.
Our governance model is superb. Without a doubt, it is the most effective blockchain governance model developed to date. Motions and grants controlled directly and solely by individual shareholders keeps power decentralised and funds secure while providing incredible flexibility. We had this mature, supple and powerful governance model before Dash even began to develop their own governance model. It is likely they have learned quite a bit from us, doing what they can within their flawed framework to emulate what we have done so successfully. Proof of work systems are unable to emulate the powerful and effective governance we have.
…because only with PoS, the ones who have something at stake (pun intended!) are in the position to decide.
Gladly Nu had this superior governance with motions and grants right from the start (which B&C Exchange could inherit).
Without it hard forks could form consensus (the form with the majority of minters would prevail), but in a very disruptive way that is not suitable for a business and its business partners.
Well done, JordanLee!
Which is why it’s so disappointing that Daily Decrypt left Nu off of their lists when speaking about the subjects of decentralized governance and paying developers. I don’t think Nu should have to pay for every mention it gets on the show, especially when she’s speaking about a subject in which Nu is superior in.
I don’t want us to look like complainers, but should we say something to them about it and ask why our network was left off their lists when a mention was most likely called for given the subject matter?
They have 5000 youtube subscribers. There’s no way they get a return on their time investment from youtube money, so for their platform to survive (and themselves to eat) they need to get paid somehow. Their content is obvious advertisements mixed with not so obvious advertisements mixed with crowd sourced crypto info and investigative content. We shouldn’t be relying on third parties in general to spread our message when we have our own platforms and properties to express the virtues of our system. We ourselves are failing horribly in that regard.
If we want to point fingers at who isn’t doing a good job of representing the benefits of our network I suggest we start with a mirror. Hopefully open sourcing the website will make it easier for the community to contribute in generating that content on our biggest property. At least that’s my hope. I’m still trying to clarify some things before I post up a grant address.
From there I hope we can get more organized in how we conduct business. More effort in generating reporting from liquidity activities, implementing NuLaws so that new and existing users have a framework from which to reference operating conditions within the DAO, and continued investments in development to offer shareholders more tools in peg management.