Quote from: sabreiib on June 26, 2016, 04:31:08 AM

Quote

Tether is using this model but instead of issuing a cryptocurrency, it issues a token tethered to the amount deposited. As Bitreview points out though:

Tether's central reserve model reintroduces an inherent weaknesses that bitcoin meant to replace. And this is not simply an ideological exercise. Tether's reserve account represents a single point of failure which, whether by accident, incompetence, evil design or force majeure, could undermine their entire currency.

http://bitreview.com/altcoin/tether

Fascinating discussion of Hayek money you have here. I'm intentionally not posting anything on discuss.nubits.com because it seems like there's too much emotional and financial investment in NuShares/Nubits/BCexchange to have any sort of clear discussion. (Not that bitcointalk is much better, but at least it's got more diversity of investments).

It also seems that NuBits 'distributed' reserve model is only as good as the liquidity providers and the consensus of the shareholders. If there becomes a financial incentive to break the liquidity scheme, it gets broken, and it appears to have little 'cost' to the attacker(s). Or maybe what we are seeing is an intentional attempt to create a crisis of faith in NuShares. There are lots of other projects that stand to gain if Nu fails, so any attempt to try to place blame is only feeding the crisis of faith which further erodes the project.

I see a comment at https://discuss.nubits.com/t/poll-for-nushareholders-what-is-your-current-sentiment-on-nus-future-updated-version-july-2016/4317/3 saying:

Quote

Making a client and setting a protocol is the easy part of a fiat-pegged cryptocurrency. All the infrastructure and operation execution slog is the hard part. All these can be run without JL/@Phoenix. You could use the same Nu protocol with a new genesis block, and have another pegged currency, as long as you have the operations team. (You may also want a new brand. "Nubits" is too odd a name for mass adoption anyway ). It goes to show the point I try to make: the whole Nu thing is much larger than what JL may have done under the cover.

So could the Nubits (and maybe B&C exchange code?) be re-purposed as Hayek money that is 'pegged' to the value of commodities instead of fiat currency? For a month or so the chicago board of trade price of soybeans depended on whether the president of Brazil was going to get impeached. There are lots of farmers whom I suspect would be quite happy to provide lots of liquidity in the form of both local fiat and the commodity they produce if the system is even slightly more transparent than the rather opaque and centralized exchanges all the prices are indexed from right now.

I'd much rather see soybean basis priced as a percentage above or below the 'hayek' median average price of the pegged token.