Author Topic: NuBits is structured like a Ponzi Scheme [BLOG POST]  (Read 29379 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline davidpbrown

>:(  my worry is that Nubits will refine their design base on BM's article .....
 8)

You worry BitShares won't double down and beat them at their own game again?

Another more positive bitcointalk thread notes the uptick in Bitshares assets.. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=923698.msg10140714 to which I've suggested it is a good place for sheltering in a storm. btw what's happening with Bitcoin!?.. I've lost track not having so many now.
฿://1CBxm54Ah5hiYxiUtD7JGYRXykT5Z6ZuMc

Offline btswildpig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
    • View Profile
This is terrible, terrible PR. We don't need any more haters - I urge you to remove the word ponzi from the article.

In addition, I would suggest that you run all future blog posts via some kind of PR intermediary before you publish them to avoid mistakes like this in the future.

 >:(  my worry is that Nubits will refine their design base on BM's article .....
 8)
这个是私人账号,表达的一切言论均不代表任何团队和任何人。This is my personal account , anything I said with this account will be my opinion alone and has nothing to do with any group.

Offline suwoder

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 206
    • View Profile
This is terrible, terrible PR. We don't need any more haters - I urge you to remove the word ponzi from the article.

In addition, I would suggest that you run all future blog posts via some kind of PR intermediary before you publish them to avoid mistakes like this in the future.

 :P :P

Offline svk

@bytemaster: response from "tomjoad" on nubits forum, post titled "Dan Larimer has once again resorted to name-calling as a substitute for effective marketing":

Quote
Title: NuBits is a Ponzi Scheme https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=13246.05

Dan - We're not going to tarnish our communications by posting an aggressive rebuttal. Whatever shortcomings we privately think are ingrained as flaws in the BitShares design have remained silent out of respect for a fellow competitor in the cryptosphere. One of our core team members, Ben Rossi, expressed diplomatic admiration for BitShares in a recent podcast.

There are several mechanisms planned to reduce the supply of NuBits one day, including variable transaction fees and NBT-for-NSR burning. Many of your own community members in particular have changed their view on NuBits with that last option. We'd love to read about it in your blog sometime, preferably without the "ponzi" label that was clearly included to increase your page views.

We know it must be tempting to take drastic action when your share price is down heavily on the day, after making so many promises to your community. Let's try and build up an ecosystem together rather than creating sensationalist headlines that don't contribute in the slightest to our shared goal of digital currency development.

https://discuss.nubits.com/t/dan-larimer-has-once-again-resorted-to-name-calling-as-a-substitute-for-effective-marketing/1081
Worker: dev.bitsharesblocks

Offline monsterer

This is terrible, terrible PR. We don't need any more haters - I urge you to remove the word ponzi from the article.

In addition, I would suggest that you run all future blog posts via some kind of PR intermediary before you publish them to avoid mistakes like this in the future.
My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline davidpbrown

I disagree with this quote from the blog post:

Quote from: bytemaster
    The US government has no realistic means of ever paying off [its] debt...

That might be technically correct but you can bet that creditors consider the reality that what is owed is real wealth..a little flex in the number that is money is something, trying to get off with not paying is another and the reality of the US economy should give everyone pause for thought.. the only issue that might keep the creditors at bay, is they have the inverse problem of overproduction relative to a world that cannot afford it. Both ends of the problem could come crashing down but it's more likely there will be a hard uncomfortable squeeze.
฿://1CBxm54Ah5hiYxiUtD7JGYRXykT5Z6ZuMc

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
 +5% Great Article

I would say the timing is bad as we haven't made many friends at NXT and the last article was Bitcoin negative imo.

From the description though, NuBits is a classic ponzi and BM is probably one of the few that can clearly articulate that. So while the title sounds sensationalist, it is justified & we'd be doing a disservice to crypto not to warn people about this.

Also when it fails, it will look bad on all BitCurrencies unless we both warn people about it and in the midst of the controversy this creates now, take the opportunity to explain how BitUSD works differently to a wider audience.

Offline svk

Very good article despite the sensationalist headline, the part about the solvency of the system in the current bear-market is interesting, and the comparison at the end really hammers home how brilliant collateralized market-pegged assets are! I just wish everyone else would wake up to it..

 +5%
Worker: dev.bitsharesblocks

Offline lil_jay890

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1197
    • View Profile
Great article... its not FUD. It's a warning to nubits and shines light on bitshares

Offline theoretical

I disagree with this quote from the blog post:

Quote from: bytemaster
    The US government has no realistic means of ever paying off [its] debt...

A country can always inflate its way out of debt.

In other words, the national debt is in nominal terms.  I.e. it is a certain number of dollars.  Bondholders have no guarantee about the real value of the goods and services represented by this nominal debt.
BTS- theoretical / PTS- PZxpdC8RqWsdU3pVJeobZY7JFKVPfNpy5z / BTC- 1NfGejohzoVGffAD1CnCRgo9vApjCU2viY / the delegate formerly known as drltc / Nothing said on these forums is intended to be legally binding / All opinions are my own unless otherwise noted / Take action due to my posts at your own risk

sumantso

  • Guest
BTCtalk is back up! Take cover!!!

Offline mint chocolate chip

When/if Nubits does crash, the bagholders cannot say they were not warned.

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
I think you could have explained it fairly (as you do) without using the Ponzi label (which is unnecessarily sensationalist). To me, that implies fraud beyond the design of NuBots. It imputes some dishonest intentions. I'd prefer to believe that the NuBots people are honest, even if it's a flawed design that relies on IOUs. Aside from that criticism, the article is well-written.

I agree.


Also...
Quote
Unlike the NuBits custodian, the BitUSD short seller is forced to cover their position while they still have 200% reserves.

You keep repeating the 200% margin call limit statement. This is not what is in the current code! I repeat, this is not what is in the current code. Please correct it to 150% in all future writing.

And, if you intended the margin call limit to be at 200% (which I hope you do because I think that makes more sense), then please correct the code.

Offline Gentso1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 931
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: gentso
I think you could have explained it fairly (as you do) without using the Ponzi label (which is unnecessarily sensationalist). To me, that implies fraud beyond the design of NuBots. It imputes some dishonest intentions. I'd prefer to believe that the NuBots people are honest, even if it's a flawed design that relies on IOUs. Aside from that criticism, the article is well-written.

Agreed.

Also agree.


Offline davidpbrown

Sometimes it's important to take a stand.. you just have to pick your fights. I don't see anything wrong with challenging them on the facts but ponzi is fraud so, need to be especially careful. So long as the principal representation from both sides stick to the facts, it could even be useful to hammer out what is good practice and dismiss other random offering that might try the same. In the event it does become a slanging match, then we need to resist moving away from the fact. It's also important not to humiliate the opponent and when in error it's important to be gracious in defeat. I think it's a good post.
฿://1CBxm54Ah5hiYxiUtD7JGYRXykT5Z6ZuMc