Hi all,
has a stake holder vote been discussed yet concerning what to do with the unclaimed stakes?
It was discussed somewhere among all these threads. A vote would trivially win for redistribution or burning, though, as the majority will clearly vote themselves a raise.
Hi all,
has a stake holder vote been discussed yet concerning what to do with the unclaimed stakes?
It was discussed somewhere among all these threads. A vote would trivially win for redistribution or burning, though, as the majority will clearly vote themselves a raise.
Has there been any discussion about stakeholder involvement in NEM decision making?
We cannot even get past the decision to do something. Many people will have many more great ideas. They remain as ideas without the proper support. And that is what we are trying to establish here, a method of moving forward with the fund. Already with that we see people expressing distrust without it even being a development fund yet. How can we press forward if that is the case?
We cannot even get past the decision to do something. Many people will have many more great ideas. They remain as ideas without the proper support. And that is what we are trying to establish here, a method of moving forward with the fund. Already with that we see people expressing distrust without it even being a development fund yet. How can we press forward if that is the case?
Correct, then logically the first thing we MUST AGREE ON in this nem community is how to decide issues. Whether vote or what, if a vote then we must decide a strong method etc. All this indecisiveness is no good.
We cannot even get past the decision to do something. Many people will have many more great ideas. They remain as ideas without the proper support. And that is what we are trying to establish here, a method of moving forward with the fund. Already with that we see people expressing distrust without it even being a development fund yet. How can we press forward if that is the case?
Correct, then logically the first thing we MUST AGREE ON in this nem community is how to decide issues. Whether vote or what, if a vote then we must decide a strong method etc. All this indecisiveness is no good.
We can't vote on everything. Not to mention votes can be and were manipulated.
I think they way we're doing it right now isn't a bad way. The community speaks their mind and the core team makes the final decision.
We cannot even get past the decision to do something. Many people will have many more great ideas. They remain as ideas without the proper support. And that is what we are trying to establish here, a method of moving forward with the fund. Already with that we see people expressing distrust without it even being a development fund yet. How can we press forward if that is the case?
Correct, then logically the first thing we MUST AGREE ON in this nem community is how to decide issues. Whether vote or what, if a vote then we must decide a strong method etc. All this indecisiveness is no good.
We can't vote on everything. Not to mention votes can be and were manipulated.
I think they way we're doing it right now isn't a bad way. The community speaks their mind and the core team makes the final decision.
Why always the core team?
Can't we create a specific commitee for everything that needs to be managed?
We cannot even get past the decision to do something. Many people will have many more great ideas. They remain as ideas without the proper support. And that is what we are trying to establish here, a method of moving forward with the fund. Already with that we see people expressing distrust without it even being a development fund yet. How can we press forward if that is the case?
Correct, then logically the first thing we MUST AGREE ON in this nem community is how to decide issues. Whether vote or what, if a vote then we must decide a strong method etc. All this indecisiveness is no good.
We can't vote on everything. Not to mention votes can be and were manipulated.
I think they way we're doing it right now isn't a bad way. The community speaks their mind and the core team makes the final decision.
Why always the core team?
Can't we create a specific commitee for everything that needs to be managed?
sure we can. but it can't be only people who don't have any responsibility and no skin in the game (i.e. random people from the community).
Those who put in most of the work should be entitled to steer the project. Those people also have the highest interest in a good outcome since they don't want to see their work go to waste.
We cannot even get past the decision to do something. Many people will have many more great ideas. They remain as ideas without the proper support. And that is what we are trying to establish here, a method of moving forward with the fund. Already with that we see people expressing distrust without it even being a development fund yet. How can we press forward if that is the case?
Correct, then logically the first thing we MUST AGREE ON in this nem community is how to decide issues. Whether vote or what, if a vote then we must decide a strong method etc. All this indecisiveness is no good.
We can't vote on everything. Not to mention votes can be and were manipulated.
I think they way we're doing it right now isn't a bad way. The community speaks their mind and the core team makes the final decision.
Why always the core team?
Can't we create a specific commitee for everything that needs to be managed?
sure we can. but it can't be only people who don't have any responsibility and no skin in the game (i.e. random people from the community).
Those who put in most of the work should be entitled to steer the project. Those people also have the highest interest in a good outcome since they don't want to see their work go to waste.
Projects like this (especially non-inflationary currencies) are often very top-heavy during development. Post-V1, though, the dev team cannot be expected to lead the project forever and others will have to start to take over. By that time there needs to be a voting system in black on the blockchain so that people can vote in a manner that is resistant to spamming.
We cannot even get past the decision to do something. Many people will have many more great ideas. They remain as ideas without the proper support. And that is what we are trying to establish here, a method of moving forward with the fund. Already with that we see people expressing distrust without it even being a development fund yet. How can we press forward if that is the case?
Correct, then logically the first thing we MUST AGREE ON in this nem community is how to decide issues. Whether vote or what, if a vote then we must decide a strong method etc. All this indecisiveness is no good.
We can't vote on everything. Not to mention votes can be and were manipulated.
I think they way we're doing it right now isn't a bad way. The community speaks their mind and the core team makes the final decision.
Yes, it is not like your voice is not heard. Generally, rather than voting and majority wins, building consensus by listening to people is probably best at this stage.
We cannot even get past the decision to do something. Many people will have many more great ideas. They remain as ideas without the proper support. And that is what we are trying to establish here, a method of moving forward with the fund. Already with that we see people expressing distrust without it even being a development fund yet. How can we press forward if that is the case?
Correct, then logically the first thing we MUST AGREE ON in this nem community is how to decide issues. Whether vote or what, if a vote then we must decide a strong method etc. All this indecisiveness is no good.
We can't vote on everything. Not to mention votes can be and were manipulated.
I think they way we're doing it right now isn't a bad way. The community speaks their mind and the core team makes the final decision.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=561294.0
I was just checking up on SIM coin and trying to figure out what they did with their funds outside of IPO.
The IPO holders get the most. The devs also get a good share
The rest is divided up between block rewards, World Community Grid, and bounties.
I have been a proponent of block rewards and bounties in this thread, but I am also interested in the idea of the World Community Grid.
This of course was famously used by Ripple until some people gamed it. I would like to think about the World Community Grid remaining an option for NEM. It is a very, very clean way of distributing funds. It is essentially using one's computer to mine for NEM, but the mining takes place by donating one's computer power to a cause. For instance while the Ripple offer was going, I left a computer going 24/7 working on an an AIDS related project, a cause dear to me because I've had friends pass away from it.
I do kind of like the idea of some people earning NEM by giving their computer power away to a charity. One great thing about NEM is that we can look where other coins have failed and correct their mistakes. One problem for Ripple that was caused by WCG is it caused a lot of dumping. Some people starting mining via Amazon and then when they dumped the price went down. I'm not sure how that could be avoided in NEM, except to make it unprofitable I guess.
Again, the thing I really like about WCG is it is such a beautiful narrative. Bitcoin is distributed to greedy block miners. It would be nice to say that NEM was given to people as a bonus for their charity work. Years down the line, it makes for a really good story. Bitcoin wasted energy and computing power and NEM helped find a cure for serious diseases.
We cannot even get past the decision to do something. Many people will have many more great ideas. They remain as ideas without the proper support. And that is what we are trying to establish here, a method of moving forward with the fund. Already with that we see people expressing distrust without it even being a development fund yet. How can we press forward if that is the case?
Correct, then logically the first thing we MUST AGREE ON in this nem community is how to decide issues. Whether vote or what, if a vote then we must decide a strong method etc. All this indecisiveness is no good.
We can't vote on everything. Not to mention votes can be and were manipulated.
I think they way we're doing it right now isn't a bad way. The community speaks their mind and the core team makes the final decision.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=561294.0
Again, the thing I really like about WCG is it is such a beautiful narrative. Bitcoin is distributed to greedy block miners. It would be nice to say that NEM was given to people as a bonus for their charity work. Years down the line, it makes for a really good story. Bitcoin wasted energy and computing power and NEM helped find a cure for serious diseases.
And anyway, where is the community, here or btctalk? because if some decisions are made there, then the people here dont even know...etc
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=561294.0
Again, the thing I really like about WCG is it is such a beautiful narrative. Bitcoin is distributed to greedy block miners. It would be nice to say that NEM was given to people as a bonus for their charity work. Years down the line, it makes for a really good story. Bitcoin wasted energy and computing power and NEM helped find a cure for serious diseases.
It's not a great idea because with ripple people weren't only gaming the ripple side, they found a way to hack into WCG accounts and transfer power to their own account from other teams who were doing good work, this led to much complaints about cryptocurrency from long time WCG teams and accusations of 'taking away from charity'. Basically ripple labs were forced to give up due to the bad press of screwing up a charity project and pressure from WCG itself.
And anyway, where is the community, here or btctalk? because if some decisions are made there, then the people here dont even know...etc
This is a bit off-topic, so lets try to keep this short. But I do want to know if you have one example for this?
And anyway, where is the community, here or btctalk? because if some decisions are made there, then the people here dont even know...etc
This is a bit off-topic, so lets try to keep this short. But I do want to know if you have one example for this?
Re: Sockpuppet complaints
We cannot even get past the decision to do something. Many people will have many more great ideas. They remain as ideas without the proper support. And that is what we are trying to establish here, a method of moving forward with the fund. Already with that we see people expressing distrust without it even being a development fund yet. How can we press forward if that is the case?
Correct, then logically the first thing we MUST AGREE ON in this nem community is how to decide issues. Whether vote or what, if a vote then we must decide a strong method etc. All this indecisiveness is no good.
We can't vote on everything. Not to mention votes can be and were manipulated.
I think they way we're doing it right now isn't a bad way. The community speaks their mind and the core team makes the final decision.
Well that's why i say a method needs to be designed so votes can't be manipulated, maybe through colored coins..? The way doing it now isn't a bad way, but it is a slow way, it took months even to decide a logo...Rocket head was complaining about speed and indecisiveness.
But even saying 'the community speaks their mind and core team makes decision'...well that isn't egalitarian, that is an elite doing a survey and making a decision that may or may not be based upon it. That may be OK when we are talking about a logo or something, but when we are talking about what is going to be done with millions of NEM people will say oh so in the end they choose what to do with all this extra NEM, so they control it.
And anyway, where is the community, here or btctalk? because if some decisions are made there, then the people here dont even know...etc
In a way, it is as if the community is part of the dev team. We are discussing things and the people who actually do the work respond and do it. Compared to an elitist hierarchy, NEM is very flat.