That's because BitShares is a platform where anyone can do whatever they want.

This seems to be the main difference. Our communities seem to have completely opposite development philosophies. It seems that NXT, Ethereum, BitShares, etc... are all trying to do too many things in an effort to be everything to everyone. The Peercoin/Nu/B&C communities have a more modular based development philosophy. I'm reminded of 2 quotes by Nu's founder Jordan Lee...

"Ethereum is based on the notion that one blockchain can rule them all, or that a cleverly built blockchain can serve a wide variety of business models simultaneously. My guess is that it will not optimally serve any business model. The Peershare philosophy is quite different. It employs separate blockchains with diverse protocols for diverse business models. Each Peershare doesn't do everything, but each one does something very well. As a group, they can serve a wide variety of business models."

"Consensus is difficult to maintain in blockchain implementations. Accidental forks happen and can be devastating in terms of double spends. Combining multiple business models into a single blockchain makes accidental forks more likely. Having a dev who supports one business model among several and is ignorant of the inner workings of the other business models is dangerous. Blockchain solutions also have scalability issues and combining multiple use cases into a single blockchain accentuates this weakness."

We see this in the form of Nu acting as a decentralized corporation for stable pegs and B&C acting as a decentralized exchange. Each Peershares implementation is a separate blockchain with a different purpose and business model. This allows the owners of each network to solely focus on the things that are important to their business without having to worry about other business models on the network that may not be important to them. NuShareholders can focus on keeping the peg and increasing adoption. BlockShareholders can focus on increasing trading and building exchange specific features. The two won't get in each others way by building both on the same blockchain and complicating matters. In the future I foresee an entire ecosystem of different Peershares implementations with various business models all working together in unison. Peercoin, Nu and B&C are only the beginning.

To reduce the number of circulating NBT there are basically two ways.

Actually, now that Nu v2.0 has released we have 3 ways to reduce the supply. In addition to parking and burning, we also now have variable transaction fees. Shareholders have the ability to vote on the transaction fee to set it higher or lower. As the number of transactions on the Nu Network rises, we can use the fee as a tool to slowly erode the supply over time. I'm also sure that more methods of reducing the supply will be discovered in the future.

Jordan answered the question posted on our forum...

Quote from: friendsofbitshares on July 04, 2014, 04:39:51 pm

How related are the crypto-assets of nubits to Bitshares and their "Market Peg" mechanism?   We've been wondering over at the Bitshares forum if it will be the same mechanism or something different.

The design of the NuBits project bears no relation to the Bitshares design in any way.

Hey everyone, here is the transcript of the chat between Sunny and Dan...

http://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=2794.0

I also posted it on BitcoinTalk if you want to help keep it bumped...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=602507.0