NuBits is structured like a Ponzi Scheme [BLOG POST]

[btswildpig]

Nubits have a good trade volume and hit 18870 BTC yesterday. I don't see BitUSD trade volumes reach 200 BTC so far. As a matter of fact, NBT liquidity is better than BitUSD currently, LOL. Let's see what will happen in future.

We can't say the real truth currently.

Customer will say which one is better, right?

This volume is not generate by real demand of customers , rather than those custodian who holds big funds to conduct high risk operations to earn profit  while exposing the Nubits holders the risk of a bankruptcy .

How is that organic growth ?
How is any of that more stable than any other investment bank out there ?

Bragging about this kind of volume is like a bank manager brag about how he take the depositors's money to gamble at Vagas and earn a big reward to give the bank's shareholders .

Great. Customers are happy to get profit from gambling. 

The customer in this equation is the poor guys who bought NBT an get no profit buy only risks .
The only profiting party here is NSR holder .
And the NSR holder is selling the "stable money" slogan to trick the poor customers to buy NBT in order to provide money for them to gamble .

[520Bit]

Nubits have a good trade volume and hit 18870 BTC yesterday. I don't see BitUSD trade volumes reach 200 BTC so far. As a matter of fact, NBT liquidity is better than BitUSD currently, LOL. Let's see what will happen in future.

We can't say the real truth currently.

Customer will say which one is better, right?

This volume is not generate by real demand of customers , rather than those custodian who holds big funds to conduct high risk operations to earn profit  while exposing the Nubits holders the risk of a bankruptcy .

How is that organic growth ?
How is any of that more stable than any other investment bank out there ?

Bragging about this kind of volume is like a bank manager brag about how he take the depositors's money to gamble at Vagas and earn a big reward to give the bank's shareholders .

Great. Customers are happy to get profit from gambling. 

[donkeypong]

Nubits have a good trade volume and hit 18870 BTC today (http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/volume/24-hour/#BTC). I don't see BitUSD trade volumes reach 200 BTC so far. As a matter of fact, NBT liquidity is better than BitUSD currently, LOL. Let's see what will happen in future.

We can't say the real truth currently.

Customer will say which one is better, right?

You mean "NuBots", right? Sure they have volume. So does my vacuum cleaner.

[btswildpig]

Nubits have a good trade volume and hit 18870 BTC yesterday. I don't see BitUSD trade volumes reach 200 BTC so far. As a matter of fact, NBT liquidity is better than BitUSD currently, LOL. Let's see what will happen in future.

We can't say the real truth currently.

Customer will say which one is better, right?

This volume is not generate by real demand of customers , rather than those custodian who holds big funds to conduct high risk operations to earn profit  while exposing the Nubits holders the risk of a bankruptcy .

How is that organic growth ?
How is any of that more stable than any other investment bank out there ?

Bragging about this kind of volume is like a bank manager brag about how he take the depositors's money to gamble at Vagas and earn a big reward to give the bank's shareholders .

[520Bit]

Nubits have a good trade volume and hit 18870 BTC today (http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/volume/24-hour/#BTC). I don't see BitUSD trade volumes reach 200 BTC so far. As a matter of fact, NBT liquidity is better than BitUSD currently, LOL. Let's see what will happen in future.

We can't say the real truth currently.

Customer will say which one is better, right?

[fuzzy]

Are we intentionally looking for reasons to push people away from us? I just don't understand the approach.  Whether true or not, we look desperate and causes people like Toast to apologize in the NuBits forum.  Mixed messages cause investors to look for the door.

Calling a spade a spade is not necessarily a bad thing. 

We do this all the time with the current Federal Reserve system so why shouldn't we warn newbies and interested individuals of potentially dangerous investments?  Admittedly this is not a great strategy for short term adoption, but in the long term when these points are proven true the bitshares community will be able to say "guess what we said on this day--if you would have listened, you would not be hurt."

I actually posted this in the cryptocurrency collector's club and got into a debate over it.  There were 3 people who asked how they could buy bitshares...

We should NEVER be afraid to tell the truth--especially in times when it is not popular.  Once we start walking the path of "political correctness" we start walking away from the philosophy of truly changing the current paradigm.  I think the trick is having an appropriate mix of Positive and Negative reviews/posts...

[5000bitcoins]

Agreed, the best marketing practises is looking at competitors, learning where they go wrong but still never comment on it. it's only bad to comment on others faults makes you look weak. (not saying this is the case of nubits)

that being said if you are legitimately worried about the intent then the post is a welcome warning to this community and others.

these days all too much legitimate concerns get discarded as fud so I am all for taking a stand here and there, more pressure on developers are a step in the right direction for raising the standard of the industry. also usually if the developers are legit they will step up to the plate and prove that, most people screaming fud over legitimate concerns are deep down worried the developers arent able

[hpenvy2]

Are we intentionally looking for reasons to push people away from us? I just don't understand the approach.  Whether true or not, we look desperate and causes people like Toast to apologize in the NuBits forum.  Mixed messages cause investors to look for the door.

[James212]

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, I don't think it is wise or very classy to call out our competitors in that manner.   First rule... never call your competitors by name....or sling mud directly.  Its not good for PR.   I would pull this post and rewrite.

http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/14/A-New-Perspective-on-NuBits/

Not going to pull a post... but will give them a fair shake.

Thats a start BM, but the real point is to always stay above the fray.  Not naming your competitors (EVER).  Using a opening like "Crypo exchanges are begining to received recognition, but not all of the projects in the space are economically sound.."   <--- you know this stuff better than I , but you get my idea.  .....    Then as you detail your points in your post the finger will begin to point to  the guilty party, your target!  Do this WITHOUT MENTIONING THERE NAME ; )

I still maintain that I would delete both posts and re-write.  Just MHO.   

[hpenvy2]

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, I don't think it is wise or very classy to call out our competitors in that manner.   First rule... never call your competitors by name....or sling mud directly.  Its not good for PR.   I would pull this post and rewrite.

  

[bytemaster]

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, I don't think it is wise or very classy to call out our competitors in that manner.   First rule... never call your competitors by name....or sling mud directly.  Its not good for PR.   I would pull this post and rewrite.

http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/14/A-New-Perspective-on-NuBits/

Not going to pull a post... but will give them a fair shake. 

[James212]

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, I don't think it is wise or very classy to call out our competitors in that manner.   First rule... never call your competitors by name....or sling mud directly.  Its not good for PR.   I would pull this post and rewrite. 

[davidpbrown]

The amazing thing is that Nubits has become a "flight to safety" and thus this 20% plunge that makes them less solvent is ignored as people jump out of the frying pan and into the fire.

People go to what they know.. or what is visible. Need to raise the profile of BitShares, in Bitcointalk; reddit; and other places I don't know. /r/peercoin has x4 subscribers that /r/bitshares does.

[donkeypong]

http://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/2sf3vp/introduction_to_nubits_video_from_wwwnubitscom/

[bytemaster]

The amazing thing is that Nubits has become a "flight to safety" and thus this 20% plunge that makes them less solvent is ignored as people jump out of the frying pan and into the fire.