The first one is such a poor argument I'm surprised you even dare use it. This has been proven wrong time and time again in the real world, Karpeles being a great example. Any time people have access to large amounts of money there is a risk of them running away with it, period.
If that's so poor argument then why the whole world essentially relies on trust? Stop trying so hard to undermine what I have said because you're reducing the quality of your post and you are bloating the topic with crap. Karpeles didn't even have cryptographic shares for his company. The fact that you even dare to use mtgox as a comparison shows your low degree of willingness to be constructive in this discussion. Not cool, man, you're wasting my time. Bad karma.
...And yes, as with anything,
there is risk (should really be obvious).
Second argument: Unless I'm mistaken the user "Kiara Tamm" has access to at least 1.8 million NuBits. How much of her own money did she put up in order to do so? Zero as far as I can tell.. Why do you feel comfortable trusting her with that amount of money? From what I can tell looking through her posts she's already made huge losses on the price slide of PPC from 1.4$ do ~0.3$ today.
I don't know about that. NuBits is just in the beginning phase and much of the power is currently distributed unevenly. I expect this to change as the network matures.
The third argument: that's a big statement that you cannot back up with anything. It might be, it might not be.. While Bitshares also has human intervention for now in the form price feeds, a major difference from NuBits is that no humans have the ability to run away with money as is the case for Nubits.
If you're background has anything to do with computer science then it should be fairly obvious to you that a mathematical protocol such as the block chain cannot stabilize the price on its own. For example, how should the computer know how much humans value gold at the current time? Unless we start building conscious computers, my original argument remains valid. Simple logic, but again I sense someone trying too hard to "win the debate".
Fourth: Looking at CMC i see 0 volume for NBT/USD, the major volume is for NBT/BTC, meaning the custodians must have taken huge losses from the fall in BTC price.
I don't care to verify that because it's obviously possible for a custodian to screw something up and take huge losses. So far NBT has never lost the peg. The fact that NuBits actually survived the drop of BTC even when some custodians took losses further proves the trustworthiness of NuNet.
At the end of the day what matters is: if there is a "run on the Nubits bank", can the custodians make everyone whole?
You can refer to the whitepaper to find an answer to that question. No one guarantees you that at any point of time you will get 1 USD for your 1 NBT. The mere essence of NuBits is to do its best to maintain the peg. If you don't trust it, don't use it. Same goes to dollars. I understand that right now there is much doubt in the air since Nu is just a couple of months old. When the time comes and NuBits has successfully maintained its peg for several years then all doubts should fade. Just let Nu prove itself and don't be hasty calling it a scam.
