Quote from: noerc on January 16, 2015, 08:24:32 PM

OK in the beginning I thought this here is an interesting subject, but now I understand that its yet another thread where one community member of a coin bashes on the community of another coin. Really sad, because the general topic is really worth debating. So thanks for not having a good discussion here, I'll consider other sources to get my info.

The thread is a bit loud for my liking & is also using the NuBits flaw to pump BitUSD which I don't like.

The facts are true though.

Many BitShares supporters are quite familiar with pegged assets and the systems behind them, because we've had to study them to confidently invest in BitShares. So we could say nothing and watch alt-coiners most likelt lose their money or we can prsent the facts and try to warn them.

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

http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/15/Is-Fractional-Reserve-Banking-a-Ponzi-Scheme/

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=13355.0

Quote from: Sentinelrv on January 16, 2015, 09:02:20 PM

I'm not completely up to date on the NuBits forum, but from what I understand Jordan Lee designed NuNet to have zero counterparty risk and zero reserves. They're trying to create a market for liquidity providers, lots of people that will end up providing their own money for liquidity operations. Again, I'm not completely up to date, so try checking out the forum and make up your own mind. Check Jordan's post here about reserves...

https://discuss.nubits.com/t/regarding-reserves-and-fractional-reserve/1126

It baffles me people don't understand the risk of zero reserves.

His argument for not having reserves is false...

Quote

Some seem to think that 100% reserves are desirable and equate to solvency, while others (including myself) wish to avoid the use of reserves altogether to avoid counterparty risk

BitShares is able to provide an average of circa 300% collateral for BitUSD without counterparty risk.