I have 200K USD now, if I invest into B&C, how much is needed to finish its development?
Sunk cost fallicy. B&C has no more funds and any work done is open source. You have no reason not to take your money and fund your own version of the project that you own 100% of.
Is there any value for the current blockchain? I think the community who understand how B&C will work is still valuable.The current blockchain holds their stakes. I see some possibilities
- keep the current blockchain and negociate with Nu to make a plan to payback B&C dev fund. Phoenix would need to reconcile with the community, e.g. hand back airdropped shares from the shadow NSRs he was holding durng B&C IPO. Phoenix might agree as he is also a big B&C shareholder so should have incentive to make B&C work.
- get a white list of members and their addresses (verify by signing) and allocate shares of a rebooted blockchain, according to their current balances so the current community members would be interested in the rebooted B&C.
Then get funding for development via an ICO.
If you don’t want to start from scratch, take your money, hire developers and offer your help to any existing project with same/similar goal, e.g. BitShares - it would be awesome to have a decentralized exchange for native coins, IOUs and stablecoins in one package.
Each forum member exposes his BKS balance on forum(via signature); we can assure there is no big shadow whale. Then we relaunch a project as per public balance.
We try to ICO and restart decentralized exchange.
Agree with @mhps.
Unless you have an expert like Sigmike to develop and maintain the blockchain, then it’s not a good idea to start your own chain. In fact even if you did it’s not a good idea, as it’s the old way of thinking that every single new idea needs its own chain, which is false.
It would be a better idea to build B&C on Peercoin using the new PeerAssets protocol, as the Peercoin chain already has a number of developers (including Sigmike) maintaining and updating it, as well as a larger community. Indicium is following this path, which recently raised $250k and is in development as we speak.
There is little point continuing to waste significant amounts of money on blockchain maintenance and upkeep when the money can instead be put to use on the actual business. Security concerns should be the problem of the host chain developers, not B&C shareholders. The owners of the DAC should remain focused only on the business. PeerAssets can allow that.
Not to mention BKS could easily be listed on any exchange Peercoin is already traded at.
Building a dex on PA would be a technical feat. Then again, building a dex on Peershares would also be a technical feat, so there’s that. Basically, without someone with some serious vision and technical skills, I’m ready to declare B&C a pipe dream.
In case anyone is having trouble grasping what B&C would look like on PA, you aren’t alone. The basic concept of B&C is to use multisig for multi-chain txns and pay the multisig owners using a voting system. On PA, this would be akin to tying an asset creation event to a vote. You could then play around with how to do voting efficiently enough to make this semi-continuous. Alternatively, you could attempt to use the blockchain agnosticism of PA to make a multi-chain validation system that automatically pays the multisig holders. This would be more difficult and complicated but much more efficient. The end result would be a dex that doesnt even really need a host chain, but instead lives on all chains it allows trading on simultaneously.
I have no interest in decentralized exchange, I like Hayek coin.
On PA, the coin quantity is controlled by myself, which is absurd.
You clearly don’t understand PA. The rules are determined by the client implementation, your argument could just as easily be applied to how shareholders can control the coin quality at will. It’s comparable to what’s being dubbed a UASF in the bitcoin community. Anyway, I’m not going to argue the point with you, believe what you want.