I think Nu is still far below the radar of too many.
But articles like www.alt-m.org/2015/12/28/theoretical-fedcoin-meet-operational-nubits/ help changing that over time.
If a project that claims about itself being
there’s hope that this will change over time.
This:
I don’t understand the point of pegging anything to a fiat currency when you can create a currency that has better characteristics and can outcompete even a 100% gold and silver back currency. Makes no sense…
or
I really don’t like the idea of a manipulated currency. It is already ugly enough to see China devaluing Yuan to play with US, Brazilian government indebting Petrobrás(state company) to control inflation. I really want to stay away from this.
I keep an eye on my digital balances all the time, if I realize some coin I hold is devaluing in an abnormal way, I just switch to another one, no need to peg… Since I know a little about technical analysis and I always keep an eye on the news and the fundamentals, I don’t think I will be taken by surprise on a huge drop.
from the comments in How an Open-Source ‘Federal Reserve’ is Run: Nubits’ Pascal Hideki Hamonic
I definitely agree with this. Visibility is extremely important in my opinion. Just a quick example: I bet that still 90% of the people that invested into Ethereum have no clue what it is about. I read the documentation available and still was hesitant to invest back then. Once I found out that they are globally represented at pretty much any conference and put tremendous efforts into publicity, I decided to invest. I know that sounds amateurish as hell from an investor’s perspective, but I felt very confident that the reach they produced will pay off for early investors.
And at the time before the release they certainly sold nothing more but an insane vision, at least from the perspective of most of those considering to put money into it. And selling a vision is fine if there is a product behind it that provides at least some substance for the vision to potentially become reality. They reinforced their vision and good intentions over and over and over again.
Maybe we should get a really convincing and straight to the point presentation, stating our vision and having a map where we could go in the future. I think such a presentation is important to demonstrate consistency in the content making sure that the message comes across that we as a network want to come across. And also, shouldn’t we consider rewarding highly motivated individuals from our community that represent us at conferences or other venues in their country? I really liked @crypto_coiner taking the initiative here, thumbs up again because that can’t be taken for granted. True, @JordanLee, isn’t it? Most, if not all of the genius architects here want to stay anonymous. Of course, we can’t expect a sudden increase in interest from one single presentation. But we should put more focus on that from time to time I believe.
All those cryptos ranking high on CMC definitely undertook wayyyyy more visibility efforts than we did.
I am totally fine with the way Nu thinks and works and hopes 
but people often don’t take time in our crypto sector to find out what really potentially is a great long term product or investment. It took me quite a long time to join you guys and also quite a lot of thoughts and creativity in the sense that I wanted to understand how far Nu could go in the future. And being a creative thinker or believer is exciting while putting your money into a project. Ethereum did exactly that. They provided enough information for those who have no clue about the code or the implications to get excited by consistently presenting their idea in public.
I also read that stuff on reddit about why is Nushares a good/bad investment. I actually didn’t want to comment on it, especially on the stuff that “coinaday” wrote - not worth the effort. I have high demands when it comes to integrity, and for that reason I have two considerable investments in crypto projects that I really care for: Nushares and Blockshares. The other stuff I do in crypto is gambling and (more or less successfully 
) exploiting herd behavior. I am 10000000% certainly not part of the Nu network to make a quick buck because Nu doesn’t stand for quick bucks, and that is something we as a community have achieved over quite some time now. And we shouldn’t be afraid of harming our position by stating the positive things about our project. I am saying this because we will meet even more "coinaday"s in the future. But to be honest, the way he presented his opinion, which was full of contradictions from many perspectives, just made me grin on the one hand, and a little bit sad on the other hand. How on earth can I attack a project like Nushares in such a harsh tone in the crypto environment that consists of 95% scams? Seriously, I don’t care about that guy. We might not succeed, he is absolutely right. But Nu went far beyond many other crypto projects. That is merely going beyond the plain idea itself (many projects consist of an idea only because coming up with ideas to rip people off is easy) and put working code into action step by step.
As a bottom line, we are dependent on a growing community and I feel that we must undertake efforts to increase our visibility and the comprehensibility of our project/products.
I know that rewarding people for representing us will mean a dilution to the current network. But as @Nagalim and @masterOfDisaster have stated very often: doing business does not first come with a profit. It first comes with cost. And we must decide what efforts we want to undertake apart from coding only to make Nu a (faster) success.
I am all for investing into well-considered initiatives. And to be honest, I would even support a motion that dilutes the network by 10% if there is a thoroughly considered business development or marketing plan behind it.
As of today, it might be the right thing to wait for BCExchange to be completed. But maybe we should even go on marketing beast mode slightly before that. And from my side, we can definitely stick to presenting the positive aspects of Nu. Someone calling for a 10 K for a DAO, Jesus Christ…
The timing for marketing is incredibly important. What are your thoughts on that? Do you think we have enough substance to offer to reasonably present our project and our vision? I believe so.
Checkout DAOhub.org. I don’t know what they are going to do and I didn’t have time to read through it. I just read something about “new era of governance” or so. It reminded me of us So far they raised 12 million dollars in a few days and the IPO is going on for several more weeks.
Oh and by the way: the 12 million dollars do not represent a share in the network itself. They are only for use, comparable to ether I think. Without having read everything, doing an IPO with the title “new era of governance” or whatever and not giving people a share in the company sounds like totally missing the point. My statement might be ill-considered because I am not well informed. But at a first glance it sounds weird to me. Better stick to Nu.
I think Nu collaborates with the FEDs.
FEDs did a relatively good job over the last decades to keep FIAT money stable at least year after year.
Nu uses their know how to offer a stable crypto for the crypto world.
The FEDs haters use their currencies every day…
Short answer: the terminology used in the video will be very confusing for users as we transition to US NuBits, Chinese NuBits, and beyond.
Of course everyone supports the new products: US-bits; EU-bits; CN-bits; etc. But maybe we removed those videos too fast didn’t we?
1 comment:
Why do we care? They will print money and artificially inflate their “coin” value. Banks shouldnt be taught how to blockchain
It occurred to me today that our “The World’s Best Stable Digital Currencies” brand tagline is compatible with creating fixed-supply assets. All that would be required is a re-branding to two streams (or “Series”) of products:
Series A: Stable-Value Digital Currencies
US-NBT
CN-NBT
EU-NBT
X-NBT
Series B: Stable-Supply Digital Currencies
BTC-NBT (21,000,000 supply)
LTC-NBT (84,000,000 supply)
CUSTOM-NBT (1,000,000 supply)
Issuing Series B would be profitable for the network and require no liquidity or price stability maintenance. Using the naming convention I propose, it wouldn’t dilute our brand either. We could offer a Proof-of-Stake Bitcoin on our network, where users finally control the asset, not miners.
Hm, interesting idea. I’m not sure I’m comfortable with the naming convention, when I said NuBTC i meant a price-peg to BTC/usd or whatever. We could fix the supply to the current btc supply though, we can thereby sell more on the open market as new miner rewards come out (and as they’re burnt in fees on the nu blockchain). The question is why would someone buy it? Then again, the only cost is the dev cost to put it in the client, so as long as we recoup that why not sell it?
This product would depend on the governance and PoS security of Nu, but would be disconnected from the complex finances.
You’re right, following our existing convention it would be BTC-NBT, LTC-NBT, etc. I updated my previous post.
I think many hardcore crypto enthusiasts would prefer using a Proof-of-Stake cryptocurrency that has a fixed supply, and a group controlling it (shareholders) whose interests are aligned with their own. Fixed supply + enhanced governance capabilities.
I fully agree with Jordan’s motivation and appreciate his effort on building such Nu/B&C projects.
But I have different opinion on the strict pegging. Although we want to acheive three targets at the same time.
1)A stable foreign exchange rate
2)Free capital movement (absence of capital controls)
3)An independent monetary policy
Infact we cannot, just like we cannot make a “perpetual motion machine”. The Impossible trinity tells us that our dream is theoritically or empirically impossible.
We have to give up one of these three target to keep the other two.
The combination of the three policies, Fixed Exchange Rate and Free Capital Flow and Independent Monetary Policy, is known to cause financial crisis. The Mexican peso crisis (1994–95), the 1997 Asian financial crisis (1997–98), and the Argentinean financial collapse (2001–02)are often cited as examples.
Is Nu powerful than Mexican, Asian, and Argentina governments?
Break the strict pegging, let NBT as anti-inflation curerrency, central banks haters will love us, otherwise even myself dislike NBT.
Very interesting.
I can see a huge potential demand personaly for such currencies because there must be a lot of traders that want to speculate on btc price while being able to go from one exchange to another rapidly…
It reminds me of the side chain thing but in case of Nu we have already a lot of experience and expertise in liquidity operations.
I guess none of us are economists and even economists quarrel with each other for 200 years on what’s the best currency, this is a very, very heavy topic that even the smartest people on this planet cannot convince all, however, if we hope our financail experiments successful. please just reference to a decent theory at all.
Bitcoin’s theory is gold standard theory(deflation), including many alt coins. BTC has ZERO invention for economics theory, just a new IT blockchain tech.
Central banks’ theory is from Keynes etc(inflation), currency controlled by government, blabla
These theory above are all from the master, nobel prize winner level experts.
What’s the Nu’s theory? FIAT’s accessary? That’s why central bank haters hate us too. We even disobey the impossible trinity theory!
Who, anyone of this forum can invent a new theory and apply nobel prize? Please stand out!
IMO, the only way is Hayek’s theory, which is the 3rd competing theory, anti-inflation & anti-deflation.Othewise, for me Nu is immature experiment originating from IT programmers, neglectable in human’s finance history.
Series A, inflated, in fact not stable value at all.
Series B, deflated
I love Series C: Stable buy power Digital currencies. Is Nu enough bold to try the 3rd way? Don’t imitate others, it’s boring and hopeless.
how to create that?
I think we should acknowledge the fact that central bankers have been doing a not so bad job at creating more or less stable currencies.
Even the central bankers haters use FIAT money everyday.
That is pure contradiction.
I really do not care so much about whether or not I hate or like central bankers.
I am interested mostly in business.
Let s forget a bit about the ideologies and work on generating revenues.
The rest is secondary, to me.
I think Nu should be first of all business-driven.
that
Difficult to distinguish ideologies from business especially in cryptoworld. Many central bank haters spend their hard earned money to buy BTC, without the liberalism belief, they probably cannot withstand the volatility. For myself, I can buy more NSR by selling other cryptos, but I won’t, because I hate central banks.
According to Hayek, “It was not ‘captitalism’ but government intervention which has been responsible for the recurrent crises of the past”. They are tragedy maker, unforgivable.
Even the central bankers haters use FIAT money everyday.
They have no chioce, you cannot say a woman enjoy being raped because she cannot resist.
Creating an anti-inflation currency is simple if the DAO has renenue, just lifting the price of sell/buy wall.
These fixed-supply currencies would have nothing to do with the actual asset price. BTC-NBT would probably have a marketcap like $100k, therefore its price would likely be something like $0.006/BTC-NBT. This is a shift on @Sabreiib’s triangle from flexing 3 to flexing 1 (sacrificing the stable exchange rate).
Ok. I thought we were talking about a NBT pegged to the BTC price.
What is the point of BTC-NBT then?