Bonus!



so if i understand it right: ther will be a fund owning a few hundred stakes and about 3000 fund-tokens for the stakeholders. if i dont trust the fund i can just sell my fund tokens via e.g nxt ae?


When NEM has its AE then it can be put on NEM AE. Technically, I don't think the fund can organize to trade this on the AE. It is not legal. But if the holders should decide that they want to trade this, they have to organize it themselves. Even then, I am not sure how this can be viewed by the authorities. This is jurisdiction dependent and will require the advice of legal experts.


I think the legality of it is far from settled.

That being said, no one can stop two people from entering an agreement I think.

and because of all these, i would prefer to manage my funds for myself. people who want do this can start a fund for themself, but dont force the ones who dont want the fund…




so if i understand it right: ther will be a fund owning a few hundred stakes and about 3000 fund-tokens for the stakeholders. if i dont trust the fund i can just sell my fund tokens via e.g nxt ae?


When NEM has its AE then it can be put on NEM AE. Technically, I don't think the fund can organize to trade this on the AE. It is not legal. But if the holders should decide that they want to trade this, they have to organize it themselves. Even then, I am not sure how this can be viewed by the authorities. This is jurisdiction dependent and will require the advice of legal experts.


I think the legality of it is far from settled.

That being said, no one can stop two people from entering an agreement I think.


No one can stop two or a few individuals from doing that. That's right. That's why I said, they can organize their own market place.




so if i understand it right: ther will be a fund owning a few hundred stakes and about 3000 fund-tokens for the stakeholders. if i dont trust the fund i can just sell my fund tokens via e.g nxt ae?


When NEM has its AE then it can be put on NEM AE. Technically, I don't think the fund can organize to trade this on the AE. It is not legal. But if the holders should decide that they want to trade this, they have to organize it themselves. Even then, I am not sure how this can be viewed by the authorities. This is jurisdiction dependent and will require the advice of legal experts.


I think the legality of it is far from settled.

That being said, no one can stop two people from entering an agreement I think.


No one can stop two or a few individuals from doing that. That's right. That's why I said, they can organize their own market place.


I think people not associated with the fund could create their own market place. The venture fund, as a legal company, would be subject to standard regulations and that might be difficult to do.

great, the we have a central instance (the fund) who controlls about 25% of the currency… happy new crypto world. you kill the currency by allowing such a bad distribution.

and if the fund is not a legal entity, you open the door for insidertrading. your manager will trade for himself via insidertrading. we have seen this many times…


and if the fund is not a legal entity, you open the door for insidertrading. your manager will trade for himself via insidertrading. we have seen this many times...


That is why no one is proposing that it should not be a legal entity. The fund would be a legal entity that is bound by laws.

great, the we have a central instance (the fund) who controlls about 25% of the currency... happy new crypto world. you kill the currency by allowing such a bad distribution.


The fund would be approximately 10%, not 25%. This is not about centralization. This is about providing venture funding to companies to build up the NEM ecosystem. As if that weren't enough, the companies will be dividends to the fund and those dividends will be given to all the stake holders. I can't think of a better way to promote decentralization than to implement a plan that benefits everyone directly.


I think people not associated with the fund could create their own market place. The venture fund, as a legal company, would be subject to standard regulations and that might be difficult to do (unless we just exclude Americans).


Why you want exclude Americans?!
If they want to trade and invest they should have the right to do that.
The fund should be set outside American soil therefore it won't be needed to register with any
American legal entity as they don't have any rights (jurisdiction) overseas.
So the people interested in the fund will send NEM to the fund in another jurisdictions and it should be
the sole responsibility of the investor to follow their own country law and not the responsibility of fund
that is outside US jurisdiction.

The exclusion of people goes against freedom and free market.
It seems that the US "the land of the free" is less free in that matter and many others than other
less free countries!




I think people not associated with the fund could create their own market place. The venture fund, as a legal company, would be subject to standard regulations and that might be difficult to do (unless we just exclude Americans).


Why you want exclude Americans?!
If they want to trade and invest they should have the right to do that.
The fund should be set outside American soil therefore it won't be needed to register with any
American legal entity as they don't have any rights (jurisdiction) overseas.
So the people interested in the fund will send NEM to the fund in another jurisdictions and it should be
the sole responsibility of the investor to follow their own country law and not the responsibility of fund
that is outside US jurisdiction.

The exclusion of people goes against freedom and free market.
It seems that the US "the land of the free" is less free in that matter and many others than other
less free countries!


I don't think we should exclude Americans. I put that in as a sarcastic comment and deleted it about half an hour ago, right after posting.

who exactly is controlling the fund managers? the nem stakeholder? so is it right, that manager and maybe some decisions are voted with the nem stakes? if i own 1% of nem do i have 1% voting power?

second question: how will the dividend technically get payed? same way as voting? so if i own 1% of nem i get automatically 1% of the dividend to my nem accounts?


who exactly is controlling the fund managers? the nem stakeholder? so is it right, that manager and maybe some decisions are voted with the nem stakes? if i own 1% of nem do i have 1% voting power?

second question: how will the dividend technically get payed? same way as voting? so if i own 1% of nem i get automatically 1% of the dividend to my nem accounts?


Fund manager should be a professional manager, not random people on the internet. We are talking with an investment firm in Malaysia and hope to get them to run the fund.

Dividends would be sent to the registered NEM account automagically.

since this is such an important decision, why dont we make a poll an let the stakeholder decide? im not talking about a forum poll which can be manipulated very easy.

option1: burn/pay to stakeholders
option2: fund


since this is such an important decision, why dont we make a poll an let the stakeholder decide? im not talking about a forum poll which can be manipulated very easy.

option1: burn/pay to stakeholders
option2: fund


there are more options and a vote is imho not the right method of decision for this.

i agree, that a vote is not perfect. but it has a slightly bad taste if the people who made a centralised decision for a fund will controll them later (even if they officially say that the community control the fund - but how?)

so a vote is the better of two bad ways to decide what should happen…



since this is such an important decision, why dont we make a poll an let the stakeholder decide? im not talking about a forum poll which can be manipulated very easy.

option1: burn/pay to stakeholders
option2: fund


there are more options and a vote is imho not the right method of decision for this.


There are no options here. Technically this should be centrally decided. Once this fund is recognised as belonging to the people, then it is illegal to set up the fund. Period. End of discussion. Dividend is seen as a matter of goodwill rather than an expectation. Again, nobody should have a claim on this.

Knowing there are so many types of fuds in this forum, I am dead against a fund set up in the manner as discussed above. Don't heed my warning if you guys want to go ahead. My experience tells me that you will hit a wall one fine day.

Edit: I am also dead against giving the money back to the community. Might as well burn it if that is the case. Makes no difference. NEM will struggle as a consequence and will take a longer route to success. I guess fuds will love this to happen.

As I said, even a single vote like the 8B/4B can create so much problems and get affected by a few fuds, how can we ever move ahead and grow big? Mind you, this is not the first. Logo took 4 freaking months to decide. NEM is made up of a weak bunch of morons. If I have my way, I will make all the decisions and don't give a fuck about everyone, so long deep in my conscience I am doing good for NEM. Alas, that is not going to be. Suit yourselves guys. Burn, distribute, dump, pump, don't change, stick to this, stick to that. Free for all! Egalitarian and solidarity? Don't kid yourselves. Those are ideals. In reality, there is no place for these words.

Humans are DNAed to be led. The entire civilisation of mankind and the rest of animal kingdom are designed with that defective genes.

I can conclude that scammers are there because of how the crypto morons think and work. I think at the end of the day these morons deserve it. And I take my hats off these scammers for being what they are as we need more scammers to take all the shit out of this place.

As an egalitarian initiative and in solidarity, if ever there is a distribution, I and many of the stakeholders who bought their stakes at the AE demand that we be given at least 40 times that of those who have bought their stakes for a song. We have each paid more than 2 BTC per stake. I am more than confident I can get at least a hundred stakeholders to petition for this. We also demand that those who did not pay anything for it be not given anything at all.

If we are all for selfish gains then let's cross the Rubicon and play by the belief that we want to hold ourselves to. Let's not change any darn thing!

i bought over 30 stakes at AE at prices between 1 and 2 btc. so believe me, im really interested in this beeing a success.

the fund will be a never ending fud spreading "thing" and because of that im against it!


i bought over 30 stakes at AE at prices between 1 and 2 btc. so believe me, im really interested in this beeing a success.

the fund will be a never ending fud spreading "thing" and because of that im against it!

I am equally interested in making this a success. But nobody gives a f**k care. All they are interested in is to question the integrity of the initiatives proposed without giving a solution to the problem. They only want to profit. And if they want to profit then let's focus on profit and play the same game.

If you own 30, I can assure you that you can get almost another 30 from the very principles of egalitarian and  solidarity being applied to the hilt l. You can then invest in whatever you want to invest in. Suit yourself too.

I haven't got all the time to talk to morons. Life is too short for that.

Maybe this case is such that here can be found a compromise … ?

For the logo it was not possible (unless we would have had 100 alternatives and 100 variations from all the best of some hundreds votes :slight_smile: )

When money is distributed, it can be shared almost to infinite parts (yea… NEM has only 6 digits after the decimal point).

How about this (haven't read all the posts of 17 pages :frowning: ) :

- unclaimed stakes will be taken into re-distribution step by step
  (25 % when X months is passed after the launch, 25 % when X + y months, etc)

- the re-distributed coins could be given

  a) to nodes / to them, who actively maintain the network and its resources
      and teams doing marketing and such work

  and

  b) to stakeholders

  Ofc here is 2 problems: 
      - how much to a) and how much to b) ?  30 %  - 70 % ?
      - Are all the stakeholders eligible to get same amount (X coins), or
        is the X calculated so that it is relative to stakeholder's initial NEM amount
                X = initialAmount / 100 * z ; 
        or is the X also a function of the price, which the stakeholder used for his stakes?
                X = initialAmount / 100 * z * y ;  //      y = ln( paid price + 2 )



The above numbers and formulas are just suggestions. If the compromise is acceptable, then it is only a question about adjusting those numbers and constants.


(…and forget the "inflation" :)  … isn't the attempt to simulate an inflation in conflict with the talk about "burning coins"? )