What differentiates Privatized BitAssets from Nubits?

[cass]

Nooo! The difference is, they announced to the  public they are accepting private bids for their own 'feds' chairs. The Fed on the other hand starts the process by sending private invitation for the corresponding private auction.
BIG difference there

Good to have you back on board

this 

[cass]

maybe we can someone from nubits team on here to join this discussion..

wasn't meant as an invitation after all?

sure it was .. i will try to reach out to tomJoad

Thank you for your reply.
I was not sure whether I should rather spend my time somewhere else if everybody here already knows everything.
But I should stick to my own assessment:

I wouldn't hold single individuals responsible for a whole community!
[...]

Sending a message to Tom on the nubits forum should require registration. That is no big barrier, but if you'd like I can shoot him a message regarding your invitation.

thx i'm in contact with!

edit: i've invited TomJoad from NuBits team to join this discussion

[tonyk]

Oh my, this speaks volumes...
...although I'm completely new here, I'm going to make use of a forum feature, I've never used at any forum before: the ignore list.

But as tonyk doesn't seem to be interested in discussion and rather wants to cause a disturbance, I might very well save myself from reading his/her posts.

I might have found the link to this thread

[...]As for distributing it  "in a 'close-auction' so it can be given to people who will care about it", is the same fake premise I am fighting with Stan in the other thread. [...]

with a forum search, but answering this question

[...]Which other thread do you mean in which you are fighting with Stan?
Maybe I find your problem with the distribution in that thread[...]

would have been polite and helpful.

I don't want to get the rest of the discussion spoiled by this single user (and sooner or later I'd feel the urge to get down to his/her level), so
Bye, tony!

unfortunately for each and all of us there is no "ignore button"...
but Bye anyway!

[Randomaniac]

Oh my, this speaks volumes...
...although I'm completely new here, I'm going to make use of a forum feature, I've never used at any forum before: the ignore list.

But as tonyk doesn't seem to be interested in discussion and rather wants to cause a disturbance, I might very well save myself from reading his/her posts.

I might have found the link to this thread

[...]As for distributing it  "in a 'close-auction' so it can be given to people who will care about it", is the same fake premise I am fighting with Stan in the other thread. [...]

with a forum search, but answering this question

[...]Which other thread do you mean in which you are fighting with Stan?
Maybe I find your problem with the distribution in that thread[...]

would have been polite and helpful.

I don't want to get the rest of the discussion spoiled by this single user (and sooner or later I'd feel the urge to get down to his/her level), so
Bye, tony!

[edit]
And to all others, especially to @cass and @betax: thank you for the welcome!
[/edit]

[tonyk]

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.

Actually I lake MKR more - they have our (BTS) ways, your(Nubies) ways and collateral by other assets (BTC, real gold etc).

[Sentinelrv]

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.

[CoinGame]

Ehhhhh I'm not sure I would go that far given the posts I read about NuBits on here over the past year, but it's nice to see ponzi scheme isn't being thrown around so loosely anymore.

Aren't you doing almost exactly what FED is doing?

Our project has various approaches to manage the available supply. That is the vaguest comparison to the FED that could be made, and it could probably envelop BitShares as well in how vague it is. Even so, "Aren't you doing almost exactly what the FED is doing?", to me, is like asking if we practice dark magic. Next comes baseless uneducated murmurs that we're performing witchcraft (see the post above by tonyk), and without any investigation people are trying to burn us at the stake. Does that make sense? It's like me asking "Doesn't xeroc do exactly what a hacker does?" because you use a computer, the internet, and type on a keyboard. The only point of the question from the get go is to play off peoples negative view of what i'm comparing you with.

It's unfair, but that's nothing new on this forum.

What we do is give people who own NuShares the ability to vote on actions of the network.They've included who is in charge of representing Nu in an official capacity, protocol changes of the client, and how to represent information on official properties (and a lot more). All through the motion system. Those same shareholders can vote on decisions that can adjust the supply. Their job is to maintain the peg, and they're given as many tools as possible to do that. There's transaction fee voting, park rate voting, NuBits and NuShares grants (each with their own roles and implementations that is constantly evolving). People have even invented ways outside of the protocol to help perform that duty. https://docs.nubits.com/liquidity-pools/

There's a lot of really cool stuff happening, an even more coming down the pipeline. It's an open direct democracy in action, and that's what people love so much about it. That and the fact our project maintains a consistent direction, and we meet our goals. Our successes and failures are well known, but we have managed to persevere through all of them. We're about to hit our one year anniversary of our launch later this month and it's been one hell of a ride. https://docs.nubits.com/history/

[mhps]

As for distributing it  "in a 'close-auction' so it can be given to people who will care about it", is the same fake premise I am fighting with Stan in the other thread.

The market price of NSR has been close to -- even at times dipping below -- the IPO price for a while now. Anyone who wants to get in at the IPO price ($18 - $24 / 10k NSR) is having the opportunity.

[betax]

[...]but it's nice to see ponzi scheme isn't being thrown around so loosely anymore.

I wouldn't hold single individuals responsible for a whole community!

Aren't you doing almost exactly what FED is doing?

Nooo! The difference is, they announced to the  public they are accepting private bids for their own 'feds' chairs. The Fed on the other hand starts the process by sending private invitation for the corresponding private auction. 

If you translate the 'feds' chairs to NuShares, then yes, I agree.
Everybody can have such a chair. They can be bought at exchanges.

Initially they haven't been distributed freely to everyone, but more like the fed approach: invitations to people.
It was argued that this was necessary to bootstrap the whole thing and I agree that giving the chairs to people who might be in for the long-run rather than a quick buck was helpful to get the ball rolling.
While one can find that segregating, a wide distribution was ensured to make sure the chairs are sufficiently decentralized.

Nu is not just a regular coin, but a corporation. While I might find it unfair how it started and that not everybody could be in from the start, I did not make the rules; rules which helped Nu get where it is today: having issued a stable crypto currency that has kept the peg closely for almost one year.

Regarding the mechanisms with that Nu controls NBT supply to keep the peg stable I might need to expand the scope.
Nu is run by the 'fed chairs', the NSR holders. Nu is using a PoS process.
NSR holders that mint can cast votes each time they successfully mint a block.
One type of vote is a custodial vote.
With such a custodial vote NBT can be granted. They appear from thin air by protocol on the custodial grant address as soon as 5,001 blocks in the last 10,000 consecutive blocks carried such a vote.
They are sold by the custodian and the revenue is meant to be distributed to the NSR holders, spent for development, spent for paying liquidity providers, etc. (whatever the intention of the custodial grant was).
This way new NBT get into circulation.

To reduce the number of circulating NBT there are basically two ways.
One is reducing the number of NBT only temporarily and in the end creates even more NBT: parking.
Parking removes NBT (as far as I understand they are destroyed and created again (including the parking rate interest) after the parking period has ended), but only temporarily. Parked NBT will come back to haunt the network with even more NBT, because they generate a parking interest (which is voted for by, guess whom: the NSR holders). Parking was the reason why Nu was accused of being a ponzi scheme.
Without mechanisms to reduce supply permanently this accusation would have been fair.

Which leads us to permanent removal of NBT: burning.
NBT burning has been available right from the start of Nu. A convenient, reliable, decentralized mechanism to fuel the burning was missing, though.
The NSR holders understood that and made the developers create another type of grant: NSR grants. NSR holders can vote for NSR grants like they can vote for NBT grants.
The same rules that apply to NBT grants are in place: 5,001 of 10,000 blocks are required, issued NSR are created by protocol at the NSR grant address.
The NSR custodian sells the NSR, buys NBT and burns them. An example has been given by @CoinGame
Tada!

Any more questions?

Thanks for the explanation

[Randomaniac]

maybe we can someone from nubits team on here to join this discussion..

wasn't meant as an invitation after all?

sure it was .. i will try to reach out to tomJoad

Thank you for your reply.
I was not sure whether I should rather spend my time somewhere else if everybody here already knows everything.
But I should stick to my own assessment:

I wouldn't hold single individuals responsible for a whole community!
[...]

Sending a message to Tom on the nubits forum should require registration. That is no big barrier, but if you'd like I can shoot him a message regarding your invitation.

[cass]

maybe we can someone from nubits team on here to join this discussion..

wasn't meant as an invitation after all?

sure it was .. i will try to reach out to tomJoad

[Randomaniac]

maybe we can someone from nubits team on here to join this discussion..

wasn't meant as an invitation after all?

Unfortunately for me... but yes, I was fully aware of all this ...and so are countless others here, I am sure.

As for distributing it  "in a 'close-auction' so it can be given to people who will care about it", is the same fake premise I am fighting with Stan in the other thread.

BS... and I do not mean Bit Shares!

Sorry for wasting your time if you and countless others here already know all this.

Which other thread do you mean in which you are fighting with Stan?
Maybe I find your problem with the distribution in that thread given that I'm still interested in spending my time here.

[tonyk]

[...]but it's nice to see ponzi scheme isn't being thrown around so loosely anymore.

I wouldn't hold single individuals responsible for a whole community!

Aren't you doing almost exactly what FED is doing?

Nooo! The difference is, they announced to the  public they are accepting private bids for their own 'feds' chairs. The Fed on the other hand starts the process by sending private invitation for the corresponding private auction. 

If you translate the 'feds' chairs to NuShares, then yes, I agree.
Everybody can have such a chair. They can be bought at exchanges.

Initially they haven't been distributed freely to everyone, but more like the fed approach: invitations to people.
It was argued that this was necessary to bootstrap the whole thing and I agree that giving the chairs to people who might be in for the long-run rather than a quick buck was helpful to get the ball rolling.
While one can find that segregating, a wide distribution was ensured to make sure the chairs are sufficiently decentralized.

Nu is not just a regular coin, but a corporation. While I might find it unfair how it started and that not everybody could be in from the start, I did not make the rules; rules which helped Nu get where it is today: having issued a stable crypto currency that has kept the peg closely for almost one year.

Regarding the mechanisms with that Nu controls NBT supply to keep the peg stable I might need to expand the scope.
Nu is run by the 'fed chairs', the NSR holders. Nu is using a PoS process.
NSR holders that mint can cast votes each time they successfully mint a block.
One type of vote is a custodial vote.
With such a custodial vote NBT can be granted. They appear from thin air by protocol on the custodial grant address as soon as 5,001 blocks in the last 10,000 consecutive blocks carried such a vote.
They are sold by the custodian and the revenue is meant to be distributed to the NSR holders, spent for development, spent for paying liquidity providers, etc. (whatever the intention of the custodial grant was).
This way new NBT get into circulation.

To reduce the number of circulating NBT there are basically two ways.
One is reducing the number of NBT only temporarily and in the end creates even more NBT: parking.
Parking removes NBT (as far as I understand they are destroyed and created again (including the parking rate interest) after the parking period has ended), but only temporarily. Parked NBT will come back to haunt the network with even more NBT, because they generate a parking interest (which is voted for by, guess whom: the NSR holders). Parking was the reason why Nu was accused of being a ponzi scheme.
Without mechanisms to reduce supply permanently this accusation would have been fair.

Which leads us to permanent removal of NBT: burning.
NBT burning has been available right from the start of Nu. A convenient, reliable, decentralized mechanism to fuel the burning was missing, though.
The NSR holders understood that and made the developers create another type of grant: NSR grants. NSR holders can vote for NSR grants like they can vote for NBT grants.
The same rules that apply to NBT grants are in place: 5,001 of 10,000 blocks are required, issued NSR are created by protocol at the NSR grant address.
The NSR custodian sells the NSR, buys NBT and burns them. An example has been given by @CoinGame
Tada!

Any more questions?

Unfortunately for me... but yes, I was fully aware of all this ...and so are countless others here, I am sure.

As for distributing it  "in a 'close-auction' so it can be given to people who will care about it", is the same fake premise I am fighting with Stan in the other thread.

BS... and I do not mean Bit Shares!

[Randomaniac]

[...]but it's nice to see ponzi scheme isn't being thrown around so loosely anymore.

I wouldn't hold single individuals responsible for a whole community!

Aren't you doing almost exactly what FED is doing?

Nooo! The difference is, they announced to the  public they are accepting private bids for their own 'feds' chairs. The Fed on the other hand starts the process by sending private invitation for the corresponding private auction. 

If you translate the 'feds' chairs to NuShares, then yes, I agree.
Everybody can have such a chair. They can be bought at exchanges.

Initially they haven't been distributed freely to everyone, but more like the fed approach: invitations to people.
It was argued that this was necessary to bootstrap the whole thing and I agree that giving the chairs to people who might be in for the long-run rather than a quick buck was helpful to get the ball rolling.
While one can find that segregating, a wide distribution was ensured to make sure the chairs are sufficiently decentralized.

Nu is not just a regular coin, but a corporation. While I might find it unfair how it started and that not everybody could be in from the start, I did not make the rules; rules which helped Nu get where it is today: having issued a stable crypto currency that has kept the peg closely for almost one year.

Regarding the mechanisms with that Nu controls NBT supply to keep the peg stable I might need to expand the scope.
Nu is run by the 'fed chairs', the NSR holders. Nu is using a PoS process.
NSR holders that mint can cast votes each time they successfully mint a block.
One type of vote is a custodial vote.
With such a custodial vote NBT can be granted. They appear from thin air by protocol on the custodial grant address as soon as 5,001 blocks in the last 10,000 consecutive blocks carried such a vote.
They are sold by the custodian and the revenue is meant to be distributed to the NSR holders, spent for development, spent for paying liquidity providers, etc. (whatever the intention of the custodial grant was).
This way new NBT get into circulation.

To reduce the number of circulating NBT there are basically two ways.
One is reducing the number of NBT only temporarily and in the end creates even more NBT: parking.
Parking removes NBT (as far as I understand they are destroyed and created again (including the parking rate interest) after the parking period has ended), but only temporarily. Parked NBT will come back to haunt the network with even more NBT, because they generate a parking interest (which is voted for by, guess whom: the NSR holders). Parking was the reason why Nu was accused of being a ponzi scheme.
Without mechanisms to reduce supply permanently this accusation would have been fair.

Which leads us to permanent removal of NBT: burning.
NBT burning has been available right from the start of Nu. A convenient, reliable, decentralized mechanism to fuel the burning was missing, though.
The NSR holders understood that and made the developers create another type of grant: NSR grants. NSR holders can vote for NSR grants like they can vote for NBT grants.
The same rules that apply to NBT grants are in place: 5,001 of 10,000 blocks are required, issued NSR are created by protocol at the NSR grant address.
The NSR custodian sells the NSR, buys NBT and burns them. An example has been given by @CoinGame
Tada!

Any more questions?

[xeroc]

Nooo! The difference is, they announced to the  public they are accepting private bids for their own 'feds' chairs. The Fed on the other hand starts the process by sending private invitation for the corresponding private auction.
BIG difference there

You got me ..

Good to have you back on board