Even if NBT liquidity providing were in any way sponsored, the fee from other people trading thanks to NBT liquidity on the exchange were available in full height.
Would you rather have (knowing that it canât be calculated like this) 0.2% fee from each side of the trade with little volume âthanksâ to low liquidity or 0.2% fee from one side of the trade and maybe less than 0.2% fee from the other side with way bigger volume?
If BCE can only double the volume (Iâm still aware that it canât be calculated like this) with 100% sponsored liquidity providing (not saying that 100% is necessary), BCE is at break even. With more than doubling volume, itâs for the benefit of BCE.
I know which way Iâd like to go 
Because BCE can make even more money by âinvestingâ some money!
Reasoning see above.
I tend to disagree with a lot of this post.
The lead architect is the same, the dev team is the same and although the initial funding that would have made BCE a 100% subsidiary of Nu wasnât successful, 85,000 BKS were paid to NSR as dividends.
That makes 85,000/184,811 = 0.459 or 45.9% potentially in the hands of NSR holders.
I wonât find out, but I wouldnât wonder if some more percent have been sold to NSR holders.
At the very start Nu and BCE are tied to each other.
That might change over time.
But liquidity providing to get the ball rolling is an important task for the early phase of BCE, a phase where Nu and BCE interests are economically tied to each other.
BCE needs to care about liquidity, because thatâs the key to volume!
Itâs as convenient for BCE to have good connections to a provider of a pegged currency as it is for Nu to have good connections to a decentralized exchange 
If bitUSD, USDT or others approach BCE to provide liquidity for better conditions than Nu does, fine. I havenât seen the queue of stable currency providers in front of BCEâs doors so farâŚ
