NuBits is structured like a Ponzi Scheme [BLOG POST]

[Stan]

I would like to do an interview with Dan about this.   I can edit him   

[bitmarket]

I am thinking some people are waiting for me to start screaming bloody murder, given I am the most outspoken about BM's mud slinging.

But to be honest I think it is a pretty important public service announcement.

Of course things can always be positioned better. This is certainly no exception. And Given BM's history of missing the mark on positioning it is a shame he didn't reach out to some of the marketers before posting.  this could have been seen as a valuable contribution to the crypto world spun correctly.

Hopefully we can still make it that way.

The fact of the matter is that Nubits is a disaster waiting to happen.  A lot of people are going to lose a lot of money.  It is going to suck for crypto, it is going to suck for bitcoin and it is going to suck bitshares.  Everyone is gong to be a loser.

Allowed to go on, it is exactly the type of disaster that could be big enough to make regulators fuck up the entire crypto eco-system.

I am curios that Nubits have plans to rectify Nubits shortcomings and allow the supply to reduce.  If they manage to pull it off then great and I am happy to listen to that, but contained in the statement is a confession that they launched a product, accepted millions of dollars of investments with a flawed product they hoped to fix one day.

This kind of cowboy bullshit is the kind of stuff that the community needs to end quickly before investors lose too much and regulators hurt everyone.

I would like to do an interview with Dan about this.   I can edit him   

[zerosum]

From reddit, "Because bytemaster ignored all the recent stuff nubits has been working on. It sucks because it makes it clear he's attacking them without being aware of what's going on."

I agree.  It felt to me like an attack on a straw man version of NuBits which existed back in september, but which has since been improved upon.  For example, the addition of being able to burn NuBits supply in order to prevent the hyperinflationary collapse which is why Bytemaster called it a ponzi back in september.

It really makes it look like we are stuck in the past, bashing the previous version of a competitor which has been doing better than us.

2 disclosures/statements first:

- I have never liked the idea of calling NuBits and have never called NuBits Ponzi myself. Not now, not when they first appeared. That being said I have said it then I will repeat it now - NuBits is a ton of bullshit nonsense! Everybody should be warned of that fact and proceed with extreme caution! Pretty much what BM is saying, but  I'm  considering the authors of the scheme stupid and not intentionally malicious...until we have actual proof.

- BM taking the time to address their project right now is a 'waist'  of time, imo, even without the 'ponzi' part.

With this out of the way...
Ander you are posting for a second time, claiming they will implement some form of ' Newbits burning' in the future...
While I do not believe it is possible to magically add some real market based feature(s) to their system and fix a system that screams 'non-market, air filled balloons, mixed with a tone on other nonsense and paid peg supporters'.  What is their 'burning Newbits' proposal? Link/summary?

[cass]

This reddit post is exactly what I am talking about when I said this would hurt us:

http://www.reddit.com/r/BitShares/comments/2sbewk/im_done_with_bitshares/

(I didnt write it).

The number of people who own NuBits who will be convinced to sell them by bytemaster's attack on it is exactly zero. 

The number of people who are interested in or own Bitshares, who will be convinced to sell them and walk away from Bitshares because of this post is an unknown number greater than zero. 


Lets not be the troll who tells other people the thing they bought is going to go down.  Lets instead tell them about the features of our product, why they need it, and why it is valuable.


This is yet another episode in the PR disaster that has been Bitshares existence.  If Bitshares fails, these are the reasons why it will fail. 

Stop bashing other crypto projects.  Just stop.  It does nothing but hurt their opinion of us.

Just be positive about Bitshares.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=13237.msg173466#msg173466

[Ander]

This reddit post is exactly what I am talking about when I said this would hurt us:

http://www.reddit.com/r/BitShares/comments/2sbewk/im_done_with_bitshares/

(I didnt write it).

The number of people who own NuBits who will be convinced to sell them by bytemaster's attack on it is exactly zero. 

The number of people who are interested in or own Bitshares, who will be convinced to sell them and walk away from Bitshares because of this post is an unknown number greater than zero. 


Lets not be the troll who tells other people the thing they bought is going to go down.  Lets instead tell them about the features of our product, why they need it, and why it is valuable.


This is yet another episode in the PR disaster that has been Bitshares existence.  If Bitshares fails, these are the reasons why it will fail. 

Stop bashing other crypto projects.  Just stop.  It does nothing but hurt their opinion of us.

Just be positive about Bitshares. 

[oco101]

From reddit, "Because bytemaster ignored all the recent stuff nubits has been working on. It sucks because it makes it clear he's attacking them without being aware of what's going on."

This.  It makes the critique come off as disingenuous.  Same with the NXT post that didn't mention that some of the addresses were special (leased forging, et cetera).

Both posts would've been fine if they actually were up to date with what the communities are doing to respond to the problems mentioned (hint: their responses are probably still inadequate) but attacking these strawman versions of our competitors just looks really bad and desperate.

I thing he addressed this here : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=913075.msg10141909#msg10141909

[speedy]

Does it really matter if they attempt to burn Nubits? How ever many they burn, you still dont know if they have enough collateral to cover all Nubits that have been issued, because the custodians are not transparent.

Its just like when MtGox was hacked. People hoped that they could keep running the exchange on a fractional reserve basis long enough to earn enough transaction fees to earn back the collateral. Or you can move on and find a better way to exchange.

[oco101]

From reddit, "Because bytemaster ignored all the recent stuff nubits has been working on. It sucks because it makes it clear he's attacking them without being aware of what's going on."

I agree.  It felt to me like an attack on a straw man version of NuBits which existed back in september, but which has since been improved upon. For example, the addition of being able to burn NuBits supply in order to prevent the hyperinflationary collapse which is why Bytemaster called it a ponzi back in september.

It really makes it look like we are stuck in the past, bashing the previous version of a competitor which has been doing better than us.

Hmm are this implemented or in the pipeline ?

[Ander]

From reddit, "Because bytemaster ignored all the recent stuff nubits has been working on. It sucks because it makes it clear he's attacking them without being aware of what's going on."

I agree.  It felt to me like an attack on a straw man version of NuBits which existed back in september, but which has since been improved upon.  For example, the addition of being able to burn NuBits supply in order to prevent the hyperinflationary collapse which is why Bytemaster called it a ponzi back in september.

It really makes it look like we are stuck in the past, bashing the previous version of a competitor which has been doing better than us.

[thisisausername]

From reddit, "Because bytemaster ignored all the recent stuff nubits has been working on. It sucks because it makes it clear he's attacking them without being aware of what's going on."

This.  It makes the critique come off as disingenuous.  Same with the NXT post that didn't mention that some of the addresses were special (leased forging, et cetera).

Both posts would've been fine if they actually were up to date with what the communities are doing to respond to the problems mentioned (hint: their responses are probably still inadequate) but attacking these strawman versions of our competitors just looks really bad and desperate.

[lzr1900]

sb

[donkeypong]

Controversy and drawing contrasts can be good for marketing. This can also dig holes that require extra work to climb out of before one reaches the original starting point. Time will tell, but we'd be wise to think about how to market BitShares beyond the crypto community. I really don't know how many open-minded people are left who don't already have strong opinions about BitShares.

http://www.reddit.com/r/BitShares/comments/2sbewk/im_done_with_bitshares/

[starspirit]

From least risky to most risky -

USD - high exchangeability, no counter-party risk, but inflation
bitUSD - limited liquidity, limited exchangeability, collateral risk, underlying inflation
NuBits - high liquidity (while alive), limited exchangeability, fractional reserving, counter-party risk, underlying inflation

[sumantso]

With all the edits it will turn into a novel

Last thing, the url still mentions the old title.

[bytemaster]

PLEASE stop attacking NuBits like this.

 

What is an "ATTACK" vs what is calling a spade a spade?     

Anyway, this is my one and only post about NuBits and it says nothing new.  *IF* something I said was factually wrong I will correct it.

The definition of ponzi as you quoted mentions 'fradulent'.

I updated the post to address that part of the definition:
 
http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/13/NuBits-is-a-Ponzi-Scheme/