I’ll address a couple of the comments in the thread in hopes of providing clarity.
We see our most positive contribution coming out of our business focus, which has been mining BTC or PPC for the past 2 years. Since we (megabigpower) are both a NSR and PPC holder, we seek to increase the value of those assets.
I became aware of NuNet before it was launched, probably through the Coindesk article. Once the idea was made public, Ben and I saw the value of NBT as a safe haven asset, a digital version of USD, a potential vehicle to promote arbitrage, etc. I think there are many exciting uses for this tech. The voting via-blockchain and shareholder via blockchain implementations alone are evolutionary.
I immediately contacted Jordan to ask how I could help and how I could become a shareholder.
We haven’t had a lot of time this past 18 months, being solely focused on bringing BTC mining technology to market and then building our operations. Despite mining PPC from day one, I didn’t engage the PPC community either.
NuNet brought enough innovation to get me to peel off some of mine and Ben’s time to focus on this project - it’s extremely interesting to us!
Personally, I don’t feel comfortable with this. To me, it actually exaggerates the criticisms we have heard over the last month. If this proposal goes through, then 11,250 NBT is generated. Over the course of the next week BTC/PPC will be mined and will be roughly 9,313 NBT (by estimations in the proposal). After some buy support and sell support, we should expect 9,313 NBT returned to the shareholders in the form of dividends in PPC. Doesn’t that mean that there is a total of 20,500 NBT out in the network with no direct backing? If so… not cool. We want large liquidity and with the current status of NuBits there is already 200,000 NBTs unbacked (since no dividends have been paid back and Jordan’s inital development custodian proposal). I understand that this won’t be problem once NuBits is accepted places but it currently is not.
I would suggest maybe forming a grant to rent the hardware and use that to create buy and sell support. Any profits off of rentals can then be used as dividends and custodian pay while keeping the original money there. In other words, we need to be looking for other forms of dividend generation.
I’ll let Ben speak to the specific numbers, but our perception is that the biggest need for NuNet is to secure the peg on the buy side. In order to do this correctly we need fresh capital input to the system. Do we have this correct?
I am no expert of cloud-mining, and not a particular big fun of large scale mining-operation. I want to learn more. I read more criticism on their operators than prise : cex, ghash and its near 51%, this today trending on r/Bitcoin… I would like to see clear through (sometimes) shady waters .
I am not particularly informed about megabigpower . If is not asking too much, I would love to hear more (maybe just links) about reputation of its operation.
In case of your NuBits mining op, do you need to buy more machines to support it? Are you going to use “otherwise wasted” mining equipment? Or are you already running at capacity and need to take down some client offers to reserve machine to NuBits?
We believe in the Nu project and want to support it using our company’s resources if we can.
Dave has been watching the project evolve since we learned about it and have been trying to figure out how we could get involved. I got interested more recently. This proposal seems like a good marriage of the core needs of the project right now and our core competency.
I love the idea of NuBits and I’m curious about what it will be used for in real life. I see it as a way to move fiat currency through crypto-currency channels and tech without volatility risk, which is awesome. The holdup is that once you get it where you want it, you still have to either find someone who will accept it in exchange for their goods and/or services, or you have to convert it to something they will accept. Both of these are still fairly painful exercises right now. So I think NuBits has a long way to go, and the first step is to establish a strong peg and then expand the trading reach to as many exchanges as possible while maintaining the peg.
I haven’t posted on the forum because I really haven’t had much to add since I started looking at the Nu project. Now that I’m getting a lot more familiar with it, I like it more and more and will likely have more to add as time goes on.
I totally agree that it’s important to establish trust with the shareholders. As a shareholder myself, I want to know as much as I can before I am willing to vote for a custodial proposal. That said, I think there is a certain amount of trust inherent in working with a company like ours which has been very public in its operations and always followed through on its commitments to its customers and partners.
Looking forward to getting to know you all a lot better!
How is your proposed grant better than the following example, where a fee is paid to bring a custodian’s own funds to the peg?
It’s really very similar. The difference is just that instead of supplying currency, we are supplying mining power which will produce currency. We could just as easily change the proposal to supplying raw currency. The net effect to the shareholders, the network, and the flow of currency outlined in the proposal would be identical. We prefer to offer mining power because a) that’s what we are good at, b) because we prefer to risk lost income from the mining than risk straight capital, and c) we think introducing the mining sector to the project could be of benefit to the project.
I would love to know why a fairly minor change to the structure of the proposal is causing such objection when the net effect is the same. I really want to understand the nuances of what you (the shareholders) feel makes a good proposal. In my mind, this proposal is not very different from others that have been approved other than the slightly higher premium, which as I said is negotiable.
I’m not sure I know what you mean by profits off of rentals. Mining hardware produces revenue at a very predictable rate. Are you suggesting renting the hardware for a cost below that rate? And what do you mean by original money? I’m a little confused about your question, but I want to address it. Any clarification you can give would be a great help. Thanks!
Definitions Cloud Mining - presold mining contracts against hosted mining machines. These can be fixed length contracts or arranged as a per-share ownership of a mine.
Mining Pool - aggregated mining power, usually from retail and hobbyist miners. Some larger industrial operations still contribute to pools.
Industrial Mining - privately held operations that build and operate mines. These operations use mining rewards and transaction fees to pay operational costs. The most successful are also manufacturers of their own hardware.
Megabigpower is an industrial miner (and manufacturer). We do not sell cloud mining contracts. We do not contribute to, or operate a public pool. In my opinion, public pools (ghash for example) are the biggest threat to security due to their ability to amass large percentages of global hashpower. Even though they make very little from their public pool, the sheer size of it gives ghash the ability to threaten the network.
Megabigpower currently operates only about 2% of global hashrate. Growing towards 50% would require $100M, so its very unlikely that we would ever find ourselves in that position.
We are proposing to take some of our mining output and use it to support NuNet. This will tie up a portion of our normal revenues that would otherwise go towards paying the bills. I hope that the rate of recovery will be fast enough that I won’t have to dip into our savings, but this is why we want to test the idea on a smaller basis before proposing something larger.
I haven’t had time to reply. Really busy with next release of the client and some promotional stuff. I like the information being presented and I think there’s a lot of value to this proposal. Working with a well known company and individuals who have an open internet presence is something I hope we can see more of in regards to custodian proposals. Hopefully I can offer more thoughts on the proposal itself shortly, but I do like the direction that has been taken here.
I hope I’m not coming across as “such objection.” (Where’s my doge emoticon?) Just trying to understand the details. Thanks for explaining.
Well, for the record, I may or may not be a shareholder. I just like posting here.
Personally, I think good proposal is easy to verify that it is being fulfilled. For example, it’s easy to verify, “9000 NBT of liquidity was provided on this day.” It’s harder to verify, “the result of some mining was about 9000 NBT of liquidity.” So, I think this proposal could be improved by committing to hard numbers instead of leaving the mining variability exposure with shareholders.
That’s a good point. The question is: would shareholders like to generate unbacked NBT in exchange for a commitment to temporary buy support on the peg? That’s the typical question, I think, when it comes to custodial grants.
Ah… I apologize. I was under the assumption that megabigpower was a cloud mining company.
I think we should find another way of generating dividends. I don’t mean to bring it to this thread but this proposal has brought the dangers of custodians to my attention (I’m not saying that your proposal is malicious in any way). Buy support is important but we need to have a much stronger demand mechanism if it looks like we will need to continue buy support custodians.
Now… is it possible for NuNet to invest in your venture with NuBits to help further your company while also generating outside profits for you and NuShareholders?
This is also an option. Capital investments into revenue producing mines happens all the time. Perhaps this is a way to do dividend production without all the custodial stuff (though we are willing to do this work if it is needed.)
First off, thank you for submitting a proposal. I think the Nu community will only be strengthened by having public faces and businesses involved with the network.
I need to take some time to read through your proposal more in-depth before I respond.
One question that immediately jumps out at me from a marketing viewpoint is that this type of custodial support would be indirectly supporting PoW mining, which many in our community find extremely wasteful. Nu now runs solely on Proof-of-Stake and so I worry about the branding perceptions that might occur if we are seen to be supporting an environmentally-unfriendly business.
Have you given this any thought? Again, I’m supportive of anyone who takes the time to write a proposal and I will be reading it more in-depth tonight and tomorrow.
This looks like heading to a direction, which I’ve already tried to sketch :
While I share the concerns of (directly) supporting PoW (because of the “waste” of energy) I tend to rely on the voting mechanism of Nu
I might dislike supporting PoW, but I’m aware that any money and any business that might be attracted by Nu will have some drawbacks of one kind or another.
…even if one simply invests money in Nu, you need to ask where that money comes from and how it has gotten into the hands of the investor, to be fair…
Stating the obvious I could say that I think people tend to stop asking questions after some degree. So the more obvious something is, the more it will be recognized and regarded.
PoW is an obvious aspect of this business.
Having a business with public faces that is interested to work together with Nu in some way is yet another aspect.
Whether or not the Nu shareholders want to make business based on these terms will ultimately be decided by a vote once this proposal is beyond draft status.
Thanks for your proposal and I think I’m still digesting it but here is my first reaction:
It is bold to ask for a lot of trust without any track record in this community. I know that is a wider issue and transferring reputations is not easy, but I envisage people building more trust first before they propose shareholders to take risks.
I’m a bit of a greenie, so I’m not entirely convinced about the sustainability of the whole mining model. It seems to be profitable on a large scale at the moment, but the high volatility of Bitcoin (downwards), the lack of innovation and risks are a very unattractive mix to be involved in for me. So anything related to this industry inherits these risks. I suspect that this proposal actually tries to spread that risk for you, driving this effort.
I’m on the fence and as said still digesting and following this thread, but not overly enthusiastic.
I’ve decided to withdraw this proposal due to a lack of support from shareholders. I plan to create a more straightforward proposal that hopefully will be better received.
