This motion does only one thing technically. It invalidates motion a2a32c8ef97f7145f05e97e0e7d69ead6a61dc47 should these two motions pass in successtion, thereby reinstating RSOT and requiring the B&C funds to be moved into multisig possession.
Abstractly, this motion makes the statement that motions created by B&C shareholders have the full authority to govern the organization. It disavows the structure of loyalty referenced by the aforementioned motion and revalidates the shareholder’s power to govern B&C development funds via blockchain motions.
Either JordanLeePhoenix bows to motions or he doesn’t.
Ever since I started writing here I had the feeling that he only points to motions/nulaw if it’s in his favour.
Handing over funds to RSOT obviously isn’t in his favour.
Plus there’s some explanation missing about how the funds were reduced (from $320,764 proceeds from the crowdsale) by $200,000.
This is regarding a position as reputed signer. I don’t see any room for applying double standards:
Strictly, no one can fork phoenix out of Nu/B&C, even augeas fans didn’t fork themselves out because augeas fan still have same amount of NSR. And no one has lost or will lose a single NSR/BKS, is it right? Phoenix still has the same amount of NSR and BKS, is it right?
If @Phoenix disobeys BlockShareholders, then not only is B&C Law worthless, NuLaw is equally worthless, because that means if he did it to BlockShareholders, he can also do the exact same thing to NuShareholders. His word will mean absolutely nothing and he will be completely discredited. Go ahead and sacrifice B&C. It will also spell the end for Nu as long as Phoenix is running liquidity operations.
It doesn’t matter what you think might happen. What BlockShareholders decide to do with their own dev funds is completely up to them. If they do receive the dev funds back, then I don’t seen any reason why they would need to be sent to another DAO.
B&C will continue being B&C, but have the money to finish development and Augeas will most likely end up being a replacement for Nu. If B&C doesn’t get the funds back, then the network may end up getting abandoned by shareholders like Nu.
I agree. What I was trying to say there is that if he doesn’t turn over the dev funds when asked to do so by BlockShareholders, his credibility will go into the toilet even worse than it is already, which means he can’t be trusted as chief of liquidity operations at Nu. I’m trying to give him a reason why he should turn over those dev funds.
A question to shareholders:
is support for this motion held back to prevent it from passing before a2a32c8ef97f7145f05e97e0e7d69ead6a61dc47 possibly passes?
Otherwise I’d expect more support for it.
Just post a motion saying it cant be nullified. Or, require a 60% consensus to override. Something like that. Honestly, this whole tug of war thing has shown clearer than i ever could how stupid the peershares template really is. For example, take two motions that contradict eah other released at the same time. Assume they both pass. The one with the lower support is actually the one that wins because it passes after the one with higher support. Thats like laughably stupid.
