Waking up to a lot of fuzz here. It is a pity that this forum degraded so much in the style of the conversations and the language being used. Not very attractive for newcomers. Even I and I’m sure others start to think whether I still want to provide my spare and ‘fun’ time over here confronted with harsh language and statements driven by primary emotions of a few. What happened is bad enough, no need to make it even worse…
That is the reason why I locked the thread and gave you a warning. It’s great to see you recognising that ‘law’.
I’m not a fan of banning and deleting posts. But Creon was clearly warned and still opted to proceed. Very immature behaviour apparently driven by a drive to create rifts and controversion instead of collaboration. It is no wonder that this drives others into the measures as taken which are even more heavy-handed than (temporarily) locking a thread. Not good, but no surprise.
I did lock the thread because this thread was going off-topic, potentially offensive to others and out of hand. No good would come out and unfortunately this has been proven true. Hope we all learned from that today. And if you don’t like what I did just raise a motion and I will comply.
We should find and share common believes instead of magnifying differences which do not contribute to the topic of this forum which is clearly captured in the URL: discuss Nubits. There are several other forums to discuss other topics including events in the 30s of last century at will without moderation on it, feel free to enter them in your favourite search engine and ‘have fun’ elsewhere.
i guess because the buybacks don’t offer a real value to the “company”.
just make the shareholders richer.
then it is logical for the big shareholders to vote for this procedure and sell their shares.
I had seen this sell behavior in every single week we had the buybacks and wondered why,
now i know!
Great point – I agree absolutely.
I would even go further – motions are not sufficient to enforce a true state, unfortunately.
This crisis has demonstrated this weakness.
Let me make a bold and provocative statement : It seems very well that @JordanLee and @Phoenix is frustrated that his motion system is limited because it cannot guarantee the enforcing of execution of motions – and the quick “solution” he hastily has come to is: concentrating a fair amount of minting power (perhaps aiming at 50%) so that he can pick up who he wants and order whatever instruction he desires –
But not only is it short-sighted and vain over a distributed& permissionless network, but it also defeats the blockchain essence.
That’s why reputed signers are needed, in B&C’s mechanism, reputed signers are executors, if existing executors don’t obey the decision of motion passed, new executors will be elected. There is competition among reputed signers candidates.
Reputed signers are something like “board of directors” in real world, they manage the daily operation of a company. I guess any type of execution, such as software dev payment, liquidity providing, or exchange (B&C) can be performd by them.
In an extreme situation, where the decentralized decision making(motions vote) is not quick enough to handle the crisis, reputed signers can execute with their proffesional experience, and responsible for the consequence.
We need to combine the merits of centralized and decentralzied systems, trade off bewteen efficiency and fairness. This is democracy.