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 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
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”.
[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.
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.
Why not making a bit more than just that?
Bitcoin is torn apart by just the discussion about whether, how, when an how much to increase the block size.
Nu’s governance allows even more.
I mean, doubling the block size could be non-controversial. Still a marketing stunt. But I sense even more potential.
Let’s include a discussion regarding dynamic fees to it
Wouldn’t that be even more impressive?
