[Withdrawn] Think big, act small and establish revenue stream

It is controversial for cryptos, not for fiat. NBT mimics fiat. When you want to hold/store it for a longer term you park your money. Better than a bank as still secured by the blockchain. So NBT is the crypto fiat, it has always been that, but someone forgot to think about who would pay the bills long term.

The initial high burning fee for holding should be seen as a way to get us out of the liquidation and have the ability to start over. Once the peg is established the park rates can be increased making it more attractive to hold NBT and increase the percentage of reserves of the circulating NBT.

The NBT holder will pay for the price of keeping the reserves. Ideally I like to see the burn rate to be voted on in the blockchain similar as we vote for fees and park rates. This would provide the Shareholders with all the monetary controls required to run a stable coin properly.

True, especially fiat :slight_smile: Most would only hold because they think something else will go down, called hedging. We have seen this clearly in the last few weeks. When people think BTC is bullish they will sell quickly. My proposal adds a price to hedging, user pays.


I suggest to put this up for voting soon, so shareholders have an alternative to JLs grant which already has 45 votes in the last 100 blocks.


I thought the same.
Phoenix motions and custodial grant votes all enjoy at least 40 votes in the last 100 blocks, which implies that he has a lot of power as a single individual (bad for Nu) because I do not see much support from other shareholders.

EDIT: As mentioned here, I think it will be wise to ask for a second chunk of 100m NSR to FLOT just in case.


I think it’s also important to try and reach users of this forum and encourage them to withdraw shares from exchanges and resume voting.

1 Like

He has no competition – his is the only one that is being in voting.

How can you avoid to sell to phoenix and jordanlee?

1 Like

Are they mutually exclusive?
That would be even better

No they are not exclusive. I just can imagine that there might be some shareholders who urgently want to do “something” and while several good proposals were made, JLs is the only option they have right now in this moment. So my hope is that some people will remove JLs grant when they see other possible paths. I could be wrong about that.


It’s almost certain that anyone who has been in teh community for a while must be able to propose SOMETHING right. So it’s certain that competing proposals are similar at some level. There should be multiple proposals which shareholders understand which proposals is different in what, and what they are in common.


OK - but what s the use for a late alternative motion against another one that passed earlier and that has the benefit of time priority, if you dont define how it unvalidate the first one?

1 Like

You have to ask why the 2nd one passed? It must be understood as that shareholders see the difference and depite that the 1st one has passed, the 2nd one gets approved. The 2nd one must override the 1st one where there is conflict. So putting out a motion for voting early may not necesssarily have an advantage because a delta motion could be more preferrable.

Right – how do we regulate conflict and priority? there is nothing about it in nulaw, right?

Common sense?

1 Like

@Cybnate, what holds you back from hashing this draft?


I really wish this was up for voting already (

The last thing I heard was that @Cybnate wanted to get a statement by @sigmike regarding feasibility and development effort. I personally don’t see why it should not be feasible and also consider the development effort as small (depending on the details like shareholder set parameters etc), but of course a statement from the lead dev would be invaluable.

@Cybnate, even if we need to give sigmike some more time to think it through, don’t you think that you can put it up for voting already? If sigmike says that this is a terrible or unachievable idea then you can still withdraw it. In the end this motion only serves as indicator that shareholders want it, the actual decision will be made by the hard fork consensus.


Seeing that like … what’s actually your statement about feasibility and quality of the plan, @CoinGame ? You are at least as deep into the codebase as sigmike I guess, if not even more familiar with Nu in particular.

Well since i’m telling everyone how I really feel lately I guess there’s no reason to stop now. I think of all the plans out there this is probably the most sensible. Though it has too many moving parts and requires too many things to go right wherein I think ultimately it won’t be completed. I think the network should focus less on recovering the existing operations at this point and focus more on pivoting. Why we would try to go back to a system which had excessive overhead, provided little value to consumers compared to competing services (and I’m not just talking about crypto-competitiors), and provided very little incentive to investors is a real odd thing to focus on. I think there are unique properties to NuNet that it could make a successful/profitable pivot but people are a little too wrapped up in the old way of things. Nu needs to do something new.

My like was more targeted to just voting on the idea now as a way of gauging investors sentiments and if needed another motion with details can be worked out.


Could you give a small example (doesn’t need to be perfect) of what you mean with pivoting? Do you mean that the stable currency product itself is not ideal, or that we are not exploring the possibilities of it as we should?

The stable currency product has a lot of overhead. It requires people to be responsive, trustworthy, ongoing development for the client and NuBot among other layers. Nor does it generate any significant profit. Mind you I believe a 100% reserve system is the only trustworthy model. Anything else is dangerous at best. That’s a debate in itself but the only successful competitors are 100% reserve (Tether). Even BitShares is playing a dangerous game that I don’t think is entirely honest to the users. Therefor in the sense of the network in which i’m talking about I would define profit as network asset value (of assets we pair to NBT) > liabilities (Every NBT in existance). All of those layers of people and development need money to lubricate the process. If the network had a means of earning some profit then the stable currency concept would be extremely viable and scale.

As of now the network doesn’t generate any profit and so every layer required for operations to run smooth in maintaining the peg experiences enormous friction. People want to be paid for running bots, managing reserves, developing the client, developing NuBot, voting and staying active (Some may argue that people shouldn’t be paid for voting and staying active. I say this is a very narrow and idealistic point of view. It is a very time consuming process to participate in a DAO and time is money. We say people should participate to increase the value of their investment but to realize the value of that investment you have to cash out which reduces the incentive for participating. Without dividends simply holding the asset is not an attractive position to encourage the time requirements for the DAO investors to participate effectively or stay incentivized.) All that is required just to maintain the peg.

We think we can rely on NuShares value as a backing for failed NuBits policy but this has proven unreliable as well. What gives NuShares value? The utility of NuBits peg (being that it’s the only current product of the network) as @Phoenix has pointed out. Though if the peg fails what does that say about the value of NuShares? The only thing keeping NuShares afloat is hope. That’s literally what the network is running off of at this point. Hope. Which doesn’t pay the bills, and I’ve seen no initiatives that I believe will resuscitate the network from it’s current hope addiction into earning an income to pay for all those layers that’s its hoping to get back into supporting. Also not having an effective tier to combat peg maintenance prior to NuShares selling will destroy any confidence in NuShares investment because of its ever increasing supply. It’s a dangerously unattractive solution. As we already know peg maintenance is a costly enterprise, so having a profits as a buffer tier to supporting the maintenance assures a much higher level of investor confidence.

So… what the network knows now is that it’s entirely possible to produce this stable coin, but that it requires significant lubrication. I don’t believe any of the nonsense @Phoenix is peddling right now and at very best there’s significant manipulation associated with anything near that camp. We have @Cybnate’s proposal here, while closer based to reality requires a lot of the existing layers that the network cannot afford at this point. It’s a Bush era stimulus check rather than a long term solution.

I have been talking about the proof-of-park and proof-of-burn concepts as part of a cost API ad nauseam for almost a year now. and @woolly_sammoth has actually taken the first steps of cracking open the realization of it. The NuNetwork is unique in that we can create blockchain assets at will, and provably destroy them just as easily. By figuring out areas where that could be utlizied as a service every NuBits created, sold, and destroyed ends up as 100% profit for the network. Is it perfect? No, but I think it’s the best bet in generating a service more valuable than what Nu has offered thus far and what all the current propositions are trying to get back to.

It would be a unique blockchain based service, and potentially offer real value in being a programmable value gateway by proving value has been expended to access a resource. The biggest advantage would be to services who want to require a paywall for a resource but don’t want to deal with value transmission themselves. The stability of NuBits is ideal for such a crypto paywall. Use cases would need to be heavily explored and this has been the biggest criticism of the idea, but the the advantages of finding out how to make this work are a better use of the networks energy for the following reasons.

  • It doesn’t require any further development of the client or NuBot. Only sell walls would be required in the early stages to assure NuBits are purchased as $1. The software that manages the API needs to be developed and since it’s open source anyone could start using burning in whatever capacity suits them, or utilize a network supported API.
  • The funds generated selling NBT (and subsequently destroyed to utilize the API service) can be used to buy existing NBT off the open market until a healthy reserve to liability ratio has been attained (ideally being 100%). If a flow of NBT is being burned at some point the network will generate assets in excess of its liabilities (profit, in my model).
  • Once the network has a continuous stream of NBT being sold and destroyed utilizing the API service at some point the excess profit can be regularly distributed as dividends. Excess profit being any value leftover after paying for network costs, whatever those may be. At this point we’re still not worried about 100% reserve because the focus isn’t on offering a pegged asset in the sense that you can buy/sell at 1$. Only assuring that they’re sold at $1. I’m guessing once a significant portion of the excess supply of NBT has been bought back we’ll start to build towards a reserve. Now NuShares will have real value outside of hope and the existence of a tight peg. It’s an asset that you can hold which lets you vote and earn a passive income without having to sell that asset. That is extremely attractive to investors, and so we’ll surely see an increase in NSR value. Real investor interest. I’ve rarely seen anyone ask about NuShares because they wanted to vote, but many people have asked about when dividends will payout.
  • NuShares now having a very healthy value outside of the NBT peg means it can be reliable used to back a pegged asset. We can start to diversify the services the network offers to once again return to providing a 100% reserve pegged asset. The new NBT burning profits also acts as a new tier before NuShares dilution to replenish the reserve.

Continued growth of the burn API would provide profit to pay for all of the layers of overhead in offering that asset. The network would be offering a unique blockchain based service that isn’t trying to compete with existing financial platforms (which still far outperform blockchain based solutions). At least I don’t think VISA offers credit burning.

Taking the network focus to realizing this path would be a true pivot for the network. Instead of trying to fix a flat tire by pumping more air into it. It would also allow us to expand backward to pegged assets in a healthier, sustainable model. I think one issue with this is that people would probably buy the currently cheap supply of NuBits to utilize whatever services would enforce using the burning API. So the API for a while would need to use some pricing oracle to get an accurate stable burn value until the liabilities have been cleaned up.

This is kinda rambly but i’m just jotting this stuff down as I go. I’m sure i’m missing some stuff here. It’s not a perfect solution but I think it offers a path that is less risky in regards to the investment required to build out a working concept. If it works it would require less maintenance than @Cybnate’s proposal and less hand waving than @Phoenix’s proposal. it offers a better long term solution than both as well if people find value in using it. I haven’t followed many other proposals in depth so apologies if there’s anything better out there. I know this is kind of hijacking the thread as well so I can move it if need be, that’s those are my current feelings on what the network should do.