Stability is not the hot button issue of crypto anymore. Governance is

Since launch in 2014 we have put a lot of emphasis on our networks core product NuBits. At launch it was an idea that went against the cryptocurrency zeitgeist. It was an idea that needed to be proven, and proven it has. We have gone from a project that was routinely overlooked in cryptocurrency discussions to being analysed by associates of one of the leading libertarians think-tanks. Nobody discusses stable digital currencies without mentioning NuBits now. It shows the great resolve of the developers, community, and the core idea behind the project itself.

Unfortunately stability is now old hat. It’s not a sexy topic anymore. There are various projects that have their own implementations. It’s still a battle, but we no longer have to struggle for the recognition that we once did and it’s no longer a taboo subject.

The new topic that will be the theme of 2016 is governance, and once again it’s because of the failures of bitcoin. Bitcoin is the clear example of struggling. Their foundation is a total disaster. It’s coming to light that core developers of bitcoin are potentially complicit in directing the development course of the project for their own personal gain.

While there aren’t many projects that have implemented governance mechanisms in their code (besides the basic protocol) this is an area where some projects are doing far better. BitShares has somewhat of a governance system with their delegates and DPoS. Where funds can be directed through certain individuals to perform functions for the network. DASH has implemented some very unique governance models through their masternode system and received a nice video about it from The Daily Decrypt. There are probably some more but these are the ones i’m most familiar with. I’m sure Ethereum will have various assets and smart-contracts which support a lot of what has been implemented in the former.

Another project has also been doing an excellent job on the governance front. Ours. Nu. Since launch NuShares holders have been able to vote directly on motions, custodial grants, and park rates. Fee voting has been recently added, by passing a motion vote. Protocol voting is a passive trigger in the client that lets users decide on protocol upgrades based on the client they use. Even the ability to distribute dividends directly to investors. All this giving users rather than developers an opportunity to decide on how the organization conducts business.

Even heavily contentious decisions among investors can and have been decided through a vote. Sometimes they take time. Up to four months in the case of the open source motion to pass. Some are less contentious, passing very quickly like adding currency burning.

Our network has the ability to reach a consensus on topics directly from investors, provide funding through grants,and vote on elements that would usually be hard governed by the protocol. It’s incredibly flexible as a whole, far more than anything that the projects I mentioned above are doing. Did I mention we’ve had all of this for over a year?

Far more flexible than other project implementations with over a years worth of history and examples of it solving problems and helping our network to evolve and pivot quickly as the landscape changes. I say all this because I feel NuShares has been a side discussion since launch. Pretty much all of our marketing has been focused on NuBits since launch, the stable coin. Rightfully so. Bitcoin made it the issue to discuss in recent years. Their failures drive much of the crypto narrative as their successes have. Our website is, Most of the information on the site is related to stability. NuShares has one small link with three sections on the front page. We have been pushing for exchanges to supports NuBits while only two (that are regularly used) support NuShares. Our social media channels have the name NuBits in them.

NuShares hasn’t really gotten much love in our marketing, which I think should change for 2016. I think this is the year where more people will not just be looking for something to invest in, but also desire a seat at the table in managing that investment. We should be using the current panic and anger of governance of bitcoin to advertise the virtues of NuShares the same way we did with stability and NuBits. The Bitcoin network is run by the miners, not the asset holders. As all these different forks of bitcoins (BitcoinXT, Bitcoin Classic, etc…) gain momentum the debate on consensus and governance will only heat up throughout the year. It will drive a lot of people away (especially if some unseen catastrophe occurs) looking for refuge where people have resolved those issues.

Right now we don’t have a lot of materials focused on explaining our system of governance. Random forum posts which require lots of digging will not make it easy for people to catch up and understand to get involved. @willy has proposed created a NuLaws page which explains the current constraints related to elements of the network which have been passed through motions. I think it’s a great idea. There’s a lot more we could be doing to make our governance model more transparent and easier to understand for outsiders in 2016, and I think NBT we spend putting more marketing focus on NuShares will be worthwhile by years end. I have some ideas that I will be implementing on my own personal time (when I find some free :stuck_out_tongue: ), but more organized solutions should take place as well.

Just my .02 NBT.

EDIT: Prime example of the bitcoin migration starting and people looking for more agile projects. He looked and found DASH and Ethereum. Why not Nu and NuShares?


Your post has about 5.522 Bytes (excluding links, formatting and emoticons.)
That would be ~0.0536 NBT, given our current network fee of 0.01 NBT per kB.
You owe us!

Err… I mean… great post!

1 Like



That was the first forum post that paid a fee.

Great eye opener. I agree on the fact that we should advertise more nushares. Although stability is still an important issue because it is mandatory for commerce.
But stability is a result of governance, involving people with a mind and a heart ( not so true in the FED’s case) rather than just pure code, because it requires monetary policies that are decisions taken by Humans.

I didn’t intend to imply that stability is not an issue. But we should bring awareness where our network solves the current concerns of people. When they are looking for other communities and projects that are doing things right. Check the edit at the bottom of my original post as an example.

I’m excited about the new stable coins we plan to create. We need to be resilient in maintaining the high quality of the products we offer.At the same time one of the most compelling parts of our network which is relevant to the interests of people using crypto today has been neglected since launch. Now is the time to change that.


I agree 100%.

Another relevant link about the governance issue of bitcoin -->

I dont agree here – Nubits is only working for a tiny microscopic scale relatively speaking. How can we make it work for several dozen of billion of NBTs worth of tx a day? and respond elastically to the demand

Because that’s the project presenting the best experimental results and hope

Public awareness towards NuBits and having a practical tested working stable crypto fiat out there (tokenizing sovereign currencies) used by the mass are two different things

The promised biz value proposition of Nu the DAC is not decentralized governance, but drastically reduced cost of financial tx over the web due to the stability (there are more) – this is the vaue that we have to deliver and demonstrate to our customers.
However I agree we must elaborate and evangelize NuShares so that many more ppl are on board, nodes multiply and the network gets much more secure in term of minting and assets wise

NuBits is nothing short of the most successful (peg, trade volume) stable coin. It can be scaled almost unlimited. It has just not happened so far and I think the BTC volatility risk need to be mitigated by NuSafe and similar approaches, before it’s wise to hope for an immense increase in demand.

helps to create/increase adoption. The governance of Nu is what makes it so sustainable - the shareholders can decide how to evolve Nu.

Still that is an intergral ability of Nu, which made so much radical changes possible like open sourcing the code, introducing the creation of NSR by protocol, new pegged tokens, etc.
It’s time to advertize what the success of NuBits has been built upon!
I think we don’t need to discuss the attribute “decentralized”.

1 Like

[quote=“crypto_coiner, post:9, topic:3428”]
I dont agree here – Nubits is only working for a tiny microscopic scale relatively speaking. How can we make it work for several dozen of billion of NBTs worth of tx a day? and respond elastically to the demand
[/quote]Well I would disagree with your disagreement! haha. If you’re going to add arbitrary qualifiers we can say that it is unproven all day. The original design to my memory doesn’t make any assumptions on the scale that it will be able to handle. The original design sets forth a methodology on using a combination of blockchain voting, trusted custodians, and an exchange bot to manage NuBits at $1. That is what it needed to prove, and it has done so for over a year in the face of people who did not believe it would last a month.

That was exactly my point. We don’t have to fight for that position anymore. It is well regarded all around that NuBits is currently leading the way. It’s a shame more don’t understand it was all because of the mechanisms offered to shareholders via NuShares.

I’m not sure what you mean here. My point was that we have done a really great job in putting NuBits at the forefront of the stable crypto discussion. As you noted in the second quote above. I say all that to lead into the fact that not many people understand how it was done. No crypto project is used by the masses, and I think it’s a waste to think in those terms at this point.

Of course there’s value in decentralized governance. Look at the link I posted at the bottom of my original post. Someone has left the bitcoin community to join DASH because “I love that Dash has the ability to make quick decisions.”. Is this not an element that Nu offers? As the grind of the bitcoin debates and forks continue we’ll only see more of these sentiments. When these people start looking elsewhere will the resources be there for them to look at Nu and join in? to understand how our governance platform works?

We have not put effort into that area. NuShares has always been a second class citizen. Maybe we just lost a customer because of it.

1 Like


I agree

My point is: do we want to be recognized and focus on public awareness or do we want to make business.
I am definitely for the latter side, primarily

what is the business value proposition?

Awareness drives business. That is the point of marketing. The more people invested into the system the more interest they have in conducting business, building services, and expanding it. NuBits is not an investment into the Nu network. NuShares is, and we don’t give it the light it deserves. Especially in the current times where people are looking for the advantages it offers to holders. I’ve been content with sitting back and watching NuBits take the light because it was really digging into concerns people had for crypto. The whole point of my post is that people are beginning to find more value in projects that are agile in decision making. Instead of splintering into forks like bitcoin development. That’s the value proposition. They’re more willing to invest into projects that offer those types of services. Governance where investors have a seat at the table.

I’ll point to the quote at the bottom of my OP once again. Someone decided to leave bitcoin and join DASH because they feel the platform provides more value in arriving to development decisions. That person has put money into their system. This is going to be a growing trend over the course of the year. I’m comfortable putting my neck on the chopping block to say that.

We’ll see by years end if i’m right. It would be a shame if more people joined other projects like DASH because they’ve done a better job at building awareness for the flexible governance platform of their system. Especially considering I think ours is the most flexible and resilient one to date with over a years worth of history to show for it.


Possible publicity stunt: NuShareholders pass a motion saying that Bitcoin should raise its block size to 2 MB. We can advertise that we could come to a consensus on the issue within a week or two, while the Bitcoin community continues to fight with no dispute resolution mechanism possible aside from a dangerous hard fork.