By project do you mean Nu as a whole or are you talking about this specific project that you withdrew from? If it’s the former, I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion, but I disagree with it. There is obviously high risk in terms of possibly losing the peg somewhere down the line, but the potential reward if we succeed is staggering. We have met and surpassed many obstacles since launch and will continue to do so. B&C Exchange will be a huge boon to the Nu Network once it releases as well. I really hope you reconsider. If not though, thanks for checking us out.
So are we essentially about to pay this person to research and study our design (in doing documentation work) so that at some point they can create competing services to our network based off our network? Because that’s what it looks like
No one can copy us. Im convinced of it. Everyone who touches a successful peg eventually realizes the achilles heel: you can’t keep the ecosystem small and still hold the peg. It’s go big or go home cause if it works the supply grows and you have to put the money somewhere.
If you read the post, Nyanshares in no way compete with Nushares. They are a concept for straw-polling NYAN hodlers and perhaps basically a marketing organization for NYAN. Do you also think that B&C Exchange is a competing service just because it’s a fork? I also pointed out that I would look at doing it years in the future. A clone of Nu two years from now doesn’t really seem like an imminent concern.
Either my work updating the whitepaper would be acceptable and worthwhile now or not. I don’t see why the fact I find the codebase potentially useful for other applications makes me a bad choice.
As far as the Nythereum portion of it, I found it an interesting thought experiment and still do. And you guys are free to use the idea if you think so as well. I’d love to see a pegged computational token. I think it would be great for the marketplace! Obviously with the size of the network and existing liquidity, there would be a lot of inherent advantage. And it could even accept NBT directly.
Anyhow, look, I’m probably just being too sensitive here, but I feel like I’ve done everything I could possibly do to try to demonstrate good faith and make it an easy choice to try out my services, and while there have been a couple encouraging comments, it’s mostly a couple quick snarky lines pretty much implying I’m trying to rip you guys off. If you guys all really just mean this in good humor, and I’m over-reacting, my apologies, but I’m tired of this. My offer for services is withdrawn.
Best of luck to you all in the future.
Im sorry you got hurt. I guarentee it was in jest. Still, your experience is your own and clearly a line was crossed. Please remember that tone is hard to pinpoint when all we have is text and emojiis. I hope you reconsider, but if you dont ill remember you as part of our community.
I think you misunderstood the post of @CoinGame, because you don’t know his/her style.
Have a look here if you want to get an understanding of it:
I don’t know where you got tired of this, but I’m damn sure it wasn’t here.
You seriously shouldn’t overvalue a misunderstood comment.
I hope you reconsider your decision, because I can ensure you that this community cares a lot for its members.
If you can’t for whatever reason I wish you the best.
I was really looking forward to your services, and I’m pretty sure this was just a misunderstanding. Can @CoinGame please clarify.
CoinGame might or might not be viewed more favorably by CoinaDay and be able to mend some severed ties if he does clarify. But I have yet to see another post that expresses disapproval of CoinaDay’s proposal, let alone “mostly snarky lines…”. If CoinaDay does not come back I would not see it as a consequence of a bad joke, because I would not hold very high expectations for a person who cannot handle just a single possibly dissenting view out of a sea of praise, encouragement and advice coming from a diverse community.
This can be done. If you hold a weaker peg, like bitUSD, and use the business of NYAN (I don’t know much about it, sorry) then you could sell your bits for $1 and make some money. The question comes down to what you use that money for and how the bits get used; are you buying back bits for $0.9?
It is correct to compare this to B&C, as @coinaday did. However, in B&C credits are consumed and proceeds are distributed to shareholders and not held. In Nu, money is held tightly so that it can be used to meet falls in demand, this requires a complicated network. How would Nyanshareholders handle large amounts of money? That’s all I meant by my comment.
I agree with you that it’s not a matter of a single comment. I disagree with your characterization but I can understand why you would feel that way.
I’ve had a really long day. I wasn’t expecting to return here and find that I caused a bunch of drama. So, that’s a bit surprising and it certainly wasn’t my intent. I thought it was a bit cheeky and would just be glossed over. It was probably the least critical thing I’ve said about anyone or anything on this forum and was really intended as conspiratorial jest.
Though I have to admit… I’m really happy with the outcome. As was already mentioned if that’s all it takes to cause someone to take their ball and go home then I suppose we dodged a bullet. I’ve already said I don’t think we should pay grants for documentation, and I wasn’t really thrilled about the proposal. I’ve had to work really hard in the past to torpedo motions I wasn’t fond of.
So, i’m sorry if I hurt your feelings @CoinaDay. I like to have a little fun around here. It would be great for you to stick around the community. Though I think this type of response to a rather innocuous remark will make it difficult to build support for future proposals. At least from me anyway.
There was no bullet to be dodged.
Any update of the design document or other documentation would have been good.
It would have created no serious problem, if @CoinaDay had dropped off at any time.
Nu spends $10,000 for liquidity each month and an unknown amount of money for development (because there’s no reporting for it) and doesn’t have some thousand USD for documentation?
I understand it’s welcome, if people like @Sentinelrv spend their time (for free) on documentation like the history of Nu.
Paying for documentation is beyond imagination?
I’m kind of frustrated.
I think NSR should be confronted with fees for services more often.
This way they can learn that valuable services might have a price - or won’t be provided.
I need to consider that in the future.
No wonder Nu hasn’t made much money – it basically makes a perfect peg and gives it to traders for free.
If Nu really wants to act like a business (what it does when it comes ro paying for documentation), it needs monetize its products.
Making money from the tx fee is currently out of reach.
I doubt Nu can get there (without going bancrupt before) if it continues to pay so much money for liquidity provision without making money from that as well.
If the peg were kept less closely, Nu could make money from the offset.
The “NuBot approach” seems to be on the right way (with 1% offset or more).
When everyone agrees that the ‘advertising’ time is over…
The parametric order book is instrumental in order to maintain low friction for end-users (low amounts) and higher frictions for hedging traders.
With the high offsets from the traders we could possibly fund services like those from Shaun. Too high offsets will shy away traders, so there will need to be a supply and demand factor added. Not sure how that exactly looks like yet, but something like an automatically adjusted parametric orderbook based on NBT demand.
There are some tough and non-popular choices to be made here as I’m aware many Shareholders are also traders and making some good money out of hedging.
From my observation when there are major price movements, volume happens in a few major trades (several to tens thousands USD per trade). That suggests Nu is mostly making a few sharp traders rich. If this is true, Nu can still attract these traders with wider spreads because these traders are making profit above 20% per trade. I might be overlooking the smaller traders who are sensitive to spread but serve to provide liquidity in the system when Nu LPs are providing liquidity with a wide spread.
From where we are, I think our strategy should be
provide parametric order book in NBTBTC market so that the small traders get smaller spread and the whales get bigger spread which they can live with.
provide tight spreads in NBT/FIAT markets to allow users to buy NBT with fiat at very close to $1. In order to reduce exchange risk distributed NBT-Fiat exchanges should get support.
I support your strategy as good as I can, because I came to a similar assessment regarding NBTBTC.
The NBT/fiat markets with a tighter spread are very important, but are harder to supply with funds due to KYC and AML requirements.
Distributed NBT/fiat exchanges could help big time here.
I disagree. While I don’t think we should be paying for documentation work (yet) I wouldn’t fight tooth and nail to derail such a venture. In fact, I offered some advice earlier in this thread that would have made me personally feel better about the process. My disagreement here (as in, the bullet that was dodged) relates to the person at the center of the motion. I don’t think it was worth putting them in charge of documentation. Their quick reversal is the end cap on that decision. I’m not going to spend much more time on this subject but I’ll add some bits of context for my reasoning.
They are very, very new. Most of the time they would have spent on documentation would have probably been billing for simply learning basic stuff about the project. Even the whitepaper is very technical in nature. I doubt they would have been able to produce much compared to the amount of time it would have taken to get up to speed with the developments. Why not encourage people who have been here for a long time that have all the background knowledge to start writing down documentation instead of charging us for them to learn? Contrast this to how other custodial grants have been delivered. @Cybnate has been managing projects for Peercoin for a long time. She had a history of results in project management and was a member of the community from the start. It was a no brainer to give her a grant for NuDroid. Consider how @willy put together ALIX and Coinerella prior to asking for money on continued developments. Not to mention the other services he has provided. Even @jgeewax showed up recently and spent a lot of time asking questions to learn more about the network (and even contributing some code and ideas. If he requested a grant to actually write down the things he learned that would be a totally different situation.
@CoinaDay showed up looking for a paycheck to learn about the network without any history of interest in the network. Now normally that’s not a big problem. If someone wants to provide a service to the network and just shows up for a grant in request of that service in a lot of cases that would be acceptable. For documentation though? Documentation is hard. That’s why you rarely see good documentation. Writing good documentation is the process of having a deep and wide scope of understanding for a subject and expressing it in a way so that people who have no experience can understand it. We were about to put someone who just walked through the door in charge of creating documentation for us and billing us? If we’re going to make documentation a big deal lets pay people who have been here to write down what they know instead of paying someone to learn about the network. Or maybe expect that this person go through a documentation trial. Produce some samples of what you’ll do for us.
So outside questioning their resilience to criticism and following through on their own words I think the situation as a whole would have not ended with whatever happy ending you were expecting. It’s better that this relationship suffered a quick execution than slowly rotting away in the sun. If I have to take blame for pulling the trigger i’m okay with that. We ended up on the right side of the bullet, In my opinion anyway.
I tend to agree that it’s better (for Nu and CoinaDay!) this relationship was ended, but have a hard time to find the way acceptable.
I could have lived with
"Hey CoinaDay, this documentation task is nothing I/we expect to produce good results. Why not focus on the NBT/fiat gateway instead?"
That would have been honest, fair and helpful - for Nu and CoinaDay.
In the last version of the motion regarding documentation CoinaDay would have provided service upfront. Not paying him afterwards would have been horrible for him and for Nu.
I have a bigger problem with the tone than the result.
You are aware that the design, the code, the forum is open and available to anybody.
If somebody wants to create competing services, a few bucks for documentation work wouldn’t make the difference.
Nu shied away a person who
- would have liked to provide services like programming and documentation
- was not concerned about anonymity
- already has some experience with cryptocurrencies
because of being afraid of fostering competing services?
This is ridiculous and I fear you might not understand that you can’t limit the effect of such a behaviour to the target you aimed at; I fear for collateral damage…
As I said before it was never my intention for things to happen this way. Other than this specific motion not passing i’m not happy with it either.
I already said it was a joke. Nu did not run anyone off. I made one comment in jest and that person decided to hit the abort button on everything. At face value I would say the response is as ridiculous as the joke I made. I think there’s more to it than that but we’ll never know for sure.
I’m not going to worry or focus on “what could have been”. Time is better spent in other areas, so i’m going to move onto those things.