The launch of NEM is near and the community is having a lot of activities.
Still we have one important issue without a solution.
It is
- to whom belong the stakes of sock puppets,
who claimed their stakes against the rules and
to whom belong the unclaimed stakes ?
If we want to launch NEM from the clean table, that issue should be solved.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=422129.0
utopianfuture January 19, 2014:
"After we reach a critical mass, we will launch the NEM genesis block, (we plan not to have more than 4000 accounts in total, see FAQ below). A total of 4 billion NEM will be distributed equally to all adopters. That means every stakeholder will have an equal and fair share of NEM when NEM blockchain officially starts. Then you can sell- buy NEM freely and let the market forces determine the price.
One Bitcointalk account is entitled one stake spot. If you send more than the required amount at one time or multiple times, we will consider it a donation to NEM.
…
How many shares of NEM would I get ?
There is no specific number yet. Our current formula is number of NEM per
stake spot = 4 billion/ (total account stake + development stake). "
In January was written:
1. If someone sends more money than required in the reservation process,
then the extra money is a donation to NEM (a fund).
2. Every stakeholder will have an equal and fair share of NEM.
3. The share = 4 billion / (total account stake + development stake).
In January was not written:
4. The unclaimed stakes are donated to a fund.
5. The sock puppets' stakes are donated to a fund.
When the above statements are summarized, we get new statements:
A. Accounts, who have not claimed their stake, have no right to a stake and their reservation money is
saved to a fund.
B. Accounts, who are sock puppets, have no right to a stake and their reservation money is saved to a fund.
C. After it is known, who are in A. and in B., can be calculated the 'total account stake':
'total account stake' = all the stake reservations - sock puppets' stakes - unclaimed stakes
D. When 'total account stake' is known, can be calculated the equal and fair 'share'of each stakeholder (3.).
After the above statements A. - D. we can see, to whom the sock puppets' stakes and unclaimed stakes belong.
They do not belong to anybody, because they do not exist.
Their stake reservations are ignored.
For the item A. was not defined, when the stake must be claimed.
In October has been set dates, when it is possible to claim 100% of the stake, 75%, 50% or only 25%.
Currently there are also for sock puppets some "reliefs"… but that does not deal with the NEM funds.
1 Like
No comments ?
I thought this was a very important issue … many decisions are based on the fact, how this is solved.
Yesterday this post had +2, now it has -1.
So, there are 3 people who disagree or just "I don't like this sh**".
But they do not dare to comment their disagreements. Why? Maybe because these facts cannot be disagreed.
No comments ?
I thought this was a very important issue ... many decisions are based on the fact, how this is solved.
Yesterday this post had +2, now it has -1.
So, there are 3 people who disagree or just "I don't like this sh**".
But they do not dare to comment their disagreements. Why? Maybe because these facts cannot be disagreed.
for me it all depends on the number of stakes.. i understand a certain portion will go towards nodes for 3 years (i think). then there are the silver coins which has its pros and cons.. im on the fence with the coins.. as for the fund i do think there should be an upper limit to how many stakes go in it. then if the number of left over stakes after funding the node pay outs and the silver coins (if that happens) et al exceeds the upper limit of the fund, the remainder should be distributed to stake holders.. ie, split between addresses instead of upping the amount per stake.. i agree with having a community fund preferably controlled via business rules/multisig but only as long as the amount in it is not excessive.
thats my thoughts on the matter.
..
for me it all depends on the number of stakes.. i understand a certain portion will go towards nodes for 3 years (i think).
...
In the silver coin discussion I wrote that this issue is the "ultimate" problem. There can not be any decision that "certain portion will go towards nodes". Who has decided so? In the 1st post is defined the statements, which say that [u]there are no sock/unclaimed stakes[/u]. Therefore it cannot be decided to invest those to anywhere.
You have a point in that "number of stakes".
Of course this case is not so important, if there are only few of such stakes. Now there has been mentioned a number like 150...
What is the value of one stake?
In principle, the number of stakes should not matter.
How the NEM stakes would have been shared in the examples below?
Example 1. The NEM announcement is very well followed and there will be 4000 BTT users, who want to participate to NEM. All of their reservations are checked and all of them are accepted to be stakeholders.
Then happens as it was planned in the original idea:
everyone of those [u]4000 stakeholders[/u] will get an equal amount of NEMs (if the total amount was 4000000000, then each got that [u]1 million[/u]).
Example 2. The NEM announcement is very well followed and there will be 4000 BTT users, who want to participate to NEM. All of their reservations are checked, but
there is detected so called sock puppets, and after few audit processes it has revealed that there exist only 2000 accepted stakeholders.
Then happens as it was planned in the original idea:
everyone of those [u]2000 stakeholders[/u] will get an equal amount of NEMs (if the total amount was 4000000000, then each got that [u]2 millions[/u]).
Example 3. The NEM announcement is ... followed and there will be 4000 BTT users, who want to participate to NEM. All of their reservations are checked, but
there is detected so called sock puppets, and after few audit processes it has revealed that there exist only 100 accepted stakeholders.
Then happens as it was planned in the original idea:
everyone of those [u]100 stakeholders[/u] will get an equal amount of NEMs (if the total amount was 4000000000, then each got that [u]40 millions[/u]).
If there in the Example 3 would be used the same proposal, which is now going on (sock puppets's stakes to silver project and to nodes and to funds ...) , what would be the distribution?
- each stakeholder would get 1 million,
- stakeholders' total share would be 100 millions
- community would get a sum of 3 900 000 000 NEMs and will decide with votes
how to share it to different projects
In principle that would not be the same, what has been written in January.
..
for me it all depends on the number of stakes.. i understand a certain portion will go towards nodes for 3 years (i think).
...
In the silver coin discussion I wrote that this issue is the "ultimate" problem. There can not be any decision that "certain portion will go towards nodes". Who has decided so? In the 1st post is defined the statements, which say that [u]there are no sock/unclaimed stakes[/u]. Therefore it cannot be decided to invest those to anywhere.
It was also stated in Jan that the team reserves the right to make changes if it makes sense. Changes were made. Don't get hung up on what was written almost a year ago. NEM has evolved and therefore changes are necessary.
..
for me it all depends on the number of stakes.. i understand a certain portion will go towards nodes for 3 years (i think).
...
In the silver coin discussion I wrote that this issue is the "ultimate" problem. There can not be any decision that "certain portion will go towards nodes". Who has decided so? In the 1st post is defined the statements, which say that [u]there are no sock/unclaimed stakes[/u]. Therefore it cannot be decided to invest those to anywhere.
It was also stated in Jan that the team reserves the right to make changes if it makes sense. Changes were made. Don't get hung up on what was written almost a year ago. NEM has evolved and therefore changes are necessary.
Yes, changes are sometimes needed.
But still that usage of sock puppets' stakes is coming from the air ... there is no such element as 'sock puppet's stake'. See the example 3 above.
..
for me it all depends on the number of stakes.. i understand a certain portion will go towards nodes for 3 years (i think).
...
In the silver coin discussion I wrote that this issue is the "ultimate" problem. There can not be any decision that "certain portion will go towards nodes". Who has decided so? In the 1st post is defined the statements, which say that [u]there are no sock/unclaimed stakes[/u]. Therefore it cannot be decided to invest those to anywhere.
It was also stated in Jan that the team reserves the right to make changes if it makes sense. Changes were made. Don't get hung up on what was written almost a year ago. NEM has evolved and therefore changes are necessary.
Yes, changes are sometimes needed.
But still that usage of sock puppets' stakes is coming from the air ... there is no such element as 'sock puppet's stake'. See the example 3 above.
Well now there is. That change was needed :)
...
Yes, changes are sometimes needed.
But still that usage of sock puppets' stakes is coming from the air ... there is no such element as 'sock puppet's stake'. See the example 3 above.
Well now there is. That change was needed :)
No, that change was not needed ... in principle, if you look the example 3, it would be a very wrong (and this is a light expression) change.
there is no such element as 'sock puppet's stake'
Are you, pat, now joining to the "twist and shout" club :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVlr4g5-r18
nxkoil:
Nobody thought about sock puppet stakes 1 year ago. Yes, that was a mistake. But that's how it is.
I don't really understand your problem. For the single stakeholder it doesn't change anything if all stakeholders get 1 million or 1.5 million or 2 million or whatever. The main goal MUST be to maximize the distrubtion of NEM. If the silver coin idea could help, then this is a good thing for every single stakeholder.
So its the wrong question if you ask: "Is there such an element as 'sock puppet stakes'?"
The right question is: "What is best for the future of NEM?"
Get this. Fast. Its annyoing (no offence).
1 Like
@Nxkoil: I didnt get the point here. I think its good for every stake holder this decisions in order to make Nem more 'atractif' to investitors. Its good for everyone, except for those whith a lot of ACCs. [emoji6]
Android tapatalk =)
nxkoil:
Nobody thought about sock puppet stakes 1 year ago. Yes, that was a mistake. But that's how it is.
I don't really understand your problem. For the single stakeholder it doesn't change anything if all stakeholders get 1 million or 1.5 million or 2 million or whatever. The main goal MUST be to maximize the distrubtion of NEM. If the silver coin idea could help, then this is a good thing for every single stakeholder.
So its the wrong question if you ask: "Is there such an element as 'sock puppet stakes'?"
The right question is: "What is best for the future of NEM?"
Get this. Fast. Its annyoing (no offence).
...that last line sounds bullying, arrogant one ... why fast? What happens if I am not fast enough?
It is annoying that the facts are overlooked and they are replaced with pure opinions.
Like you just did: you overlooked the facts of the 1st post, and set new "facts" ("wrong question" and "right question").
[u]How that is possible in this community of equality and intelligence?[/u]
In certain situation must be taken risks and making changes to the rules, but is the moment now, that cannot be sure.
"maximize the distrubtion of NEM. If "
- yes: "If" - that you got right there.
But that is not the issue of this thread.
I still think that now is tried to use wrong arguments to cut a small or a medium slice from each stakeholder's share ... that is basically wrong.
Individuals are not respected. (Your last line underlines that)
@Nxkoil: I didnt get the point here. I think its good for every stake holder this decisions in order to make Nem more 'atractif' to investitors. Its good for everyone, except for those whith a lot of ACCs. [emoji6]
Android tapatalk =)
An example about some coins announcement.
It proceeds as follows:
- 1000 accounts reserved a stake
- 1000 sock puppets reserved a stake
After reservation period has ended, it is informed that they have 2000 stakes, because it is not yet known that there are sock puppets. So it is said that everyone will get 1 million coins.
When 1 month is passed, they notice that there are 1000 sock puppets.
Then is invented that the sock puppets' stakes is used to a fund.
And they say that hey everyone is still getting 1 million coins and the coin has a great fund that will make it even better and getting greater distribution.
People believe it and give a half of their original share to the common wealth, whose future is a quite open question mark.
@Nxkoil: I didnt get the point here. I think its good for every stake holder this decisions in order to make Nem more 'atractif' to investitors. Its good for everyone, except for those whith a lot of ACCs. [emoji6]
Android tapatalk =)
An example about some coins announcement.
It proceeds as follows:
- 1000 accounts reserved a stake
- 1000 sock puppets reserved a stake
After reservation period has ended, it is informed that they have 2000 stakes, because it is not yet known that there are sock puppets. So it is said that everyone will get 1 million coins.
When 1 month is passed, they notice that there are 1000 sock puppets.
Then is invented that the sock puppets' stakes is used to a fund.
And they say that hey everyone is still getting 1 million coins and the coin has a great fund that will make it even better and getting greater distribution.
People believe it and give a half of their original share to the common wealth, which future is a quite open question mark.
Was the logic whatever, it is best to distribute nem to as many people as possible, and/or put some of it to common use. It is the original value of nem to have as many shareholders as possible, not pile the money to few and selected. Not even if they were the original stakeholders. What do we achieve in giving more nem to those who already have it? Isn't the goal to have as many people on earth owning nem as possible, and how would giving more nem to the stakeholders make it better?
@Nxkoil: I didnt get the point here. I think its good for every stake holder this decisions in order to make Nem more 'atractif' to investitors. Its good for everyone, except for those whith a lot of ACCs. [emoji6]
Android tapatalk =)
An example about some coins announcement.
It proceeds as follows:
- 1000 accounts reserved a stake
- 1000 sock puppets reserved a stake
After reservation period has ended, it is informed that they have 2000 stakes, because it is not yet known that there are sock puppets. So it is said that everyone will get 1 million coins.
When 1 month is passed, they notice that there are 1000 sock puppets.
Then is invented that the sock puppets' stakes is used to a fund.
And they say that hey everyone is still getting 1 million coins and the coin has a great fund that will make it even better and getting greater distribution.
People believe it and give a half of their original share to the common wealth, which future is a quite open question mark.
They are not "giving half their original share" because the stakes didn't just become yours once they were taken away from sock puppets. everyone who was not found to be a sock Is still getting exactly the same share As they were before the socks were caught.
If you had your way what would you do?
I agree with iaz too..
@Nxkoil: I didnt get the point here. I think its good for every stake holder this decisions in order to make Nem more 'atractif' to investitors. Its good for everyone, except for those whith a lot of ACCs. [emoji6]
Android tapatalk =)
An example about some coins announcement.
It proceeds as follows:
- 1000 accounts reserved a stake
- 1000 sock puppets reserved a stake
After reservation period has ended, it is informed that they have 2000 stakes, because it is not yet known that there are sock puppets. So it is said that everyone will get 1 million coins.
When 1 month is passed, they notice that there are 1000 sock puppets.
Then is invented that the sock puppets' stakes is used to a fund.
And they say that hey everyone is still getting 1 million coins and the coin has a great fund that will make it even better and getting greater distribution.
People believe it and give a half of their original share to the common wealth, which future is a quite open question mark.
They are not "giving half their original share" because the stakes didn't just become yours once they were taken away from sock puppets. everyone who was not found to be a sock Is still getting exactly the same share As they were before the socks were caught.
If you had your way what would you do?
I agree with iaz too..
:) that is the magic trick :)
The trick was there that actually the sock puppets had no stakes. There were only reservations. When correct reservations are counted afterwards, there is those 1000 accounts.
I agree too with laz ... in the silver coin vote I voted "Put the money in with the unclaimed stakes for a community fund". It is better of those 2 choices.
But that thread is another case ... though that case caused the creation of this thread :) because this is the basic question: why we discuss about sockpuppets' stakes, when they actually have 0 stakes. They just made 150 ... 1000 reservations, which were caught and ignored.
...that last line sounds bullying, arrogant one ... why fast? What happens if I am not fast enough?
I apologize for that. Its just... you are telling the same thing over and over again and this is a bit annoying for me.
What I meant:
I have a very high interest in NEM being distributed as wide as possible.
I have a very low interest on stakes getting bigger.
You are debating about questions which in my opinion are just irrelevant. I don't care if (considering whatever definition) sock puppet accounts exist or not.
To be clear: I did not say that the silver coin idea is the best solution or a good solution at all. I am just saying: Your discussion about what was said back in January or the existence of sock puppet accounts is distracting the community from thinking about what is best for NEM.
Please focus on the effects of that silver coin idea and other ideas.
Being one of the unclaimed stake owners, but also a complete newb, my input is only marginally valuable.
Unfortunately, I missed the window to redeem my token. While I understand I will have an opportunity to claim it later, I may also receive less. This may be a good idea in that people who are more active within the community may be rewarded with a larger share. But while 1 month may seem like a long time, those with careers and families know how easily it is for a month to sneak by. Also, health issues like cancer can knock someone out for a month. I would hope the community still values wide distribution rather than increasing individual share amount or recouping shares to line a community fund.
Does anyone have a rough idea of the quantity of unclaimed and fake stakes? If it is not too great, I think distribution should proceed as planned of about 1 mil/share. Then, unclaimed shares reserved for at least 6 months. After 6 months, those shares would be given away via X method. Are the unclaimed stakes so great that this would be a big deal? What is the advantage of quickly distributing the shares?
...that last line sounds bullying, arrogant one ... why fast? What happens if I am not fast enough?
I apologize for that. Its just... you are telling the same thing over and over again and this is a bit annoying for me.
Ok ...
I start being little bit tired about this whole thing too.
I kept on repeating, coz it just looked so that the key point has been missed. Maybe NEM does not need it...
In the last month I have started feeling that NEM is going on the road, which is made of tiles. But there are tiles only here and there. That's why I liked to "put all the tiles on their places" - starting from the beginning of the road.
But obviously that has no order ...
...
Minority rights issues coming. They claim that sock puppet should not be common wealth, but should be treated as private properties and distributed to all stackholders as part of our NEM value. And thus, they don't think the silver coin vote is a fair vote, for no options like that.
...
Unfortunately in the crypto world is no Minority rights. That is how it looks now.
There is only :
- votes: "majority wins"
- shout louder than your opponent - and win (you can get your friends shouts too)
Mock the opponent by "down votes", not with arguments.
- richer wins. Similarly as in politics the richer has clearly better chances
- good talk and positive attitude with great visions win facts. Good talk gathers always "party" along and again majority wins.
Minority wins only if the issue is not important to the "politicians" or
the issue is 100% proven to be the better alternative.
I think i still don't get the point of this thread 