[Passed] Motion to Empower Motions

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?

1 Like

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.

Right. With the only difference being the money will (might possibly) be wired to the forked network (excluding aka expropriating him).

Face it Gordon, B&C Law and NuLaw always was and will always be as worthless as trust.

Law that cannot be enforced in practice is worthless.

@cbe, are you associated with JordanLeePhoenix in any way?
You appear to pave his way for running with the money :wink:

1 Like

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.

1 Like

I am not sure B&C should be sacrificed, some/most of us have B&C shares. It would be nice to see it completed and functioning.

2 Likes

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.

I don’t think transfering money from one company to another is proper, unless a specific motion passed.

This shouldn’t happen without a motion indeed. I wouldn’t support it.

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.

This has passed. We need just one more rsot member and we can request a transfer to decentralized accounting.

1 Like

@Financisto you seemed vocal about rsot, would you consider being an elected member?

If nobody steps up for this last position then Phoenix will just override it again. You have a limited time to post your motion.

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.

That’s why the “board of directors” exist in real world!

Modern enterprise management system ---- ready
Hayek private money theory ---- ready

But we are strolling around & wasting time and let competitors overtake us.

1 Like

I believe @phoenix is also a big BKS holder, so he may become one of RSOT. I know there are some people dislike him, but business is business. We are on same boat.

1 Like

Sure, if the situation requires it…

Gentlemen,

first of all we need a resonable consensus between @Phoenix position, @Sabreiib ideas and everyone else’s aspirations. If not achieved, we’ll have an endless motion war (one proposal nullifying the other).

So for that reason, I ask you to wait just a few more hours so I can post a Draft proposing Bylaws for RSOT so we can define its real “nature” and detail its purpose, management, composition, mandates, meetings, deliberations, responsibilities, duties, prohibitions, etc.

As @Sabreiib said “business is business and we are on the same boat”.

As a BKS shareholder I still think we can all paddle in the same direction if all rules are well defined!

We have just had a spectacularly expensive (3 million USD) failure of multisig groups in this community. The failed effort to develop multisig management of funds has now consumed more than 70% of the resources ever raised by Nu (as measured in NSR). It cost Nu far, far more than expected. The crisis that began in May with the failure of FLOT multisig groups is still smoldering. With over $300,000 in FLOT having gone rogue and refusing to respond to shareholder directives or interests, it seems rather obvious we ought to put the fire out before we consider rebuilding.

Where the previous crisis that destroyed so many resources is not even fully concluded and where none of the problems that led to the failures are being addressed, it is necessary to conclude that RSOT is extremely dangerous. The probability is that shareholders will lose control of funds handed to RSOT, just as they lost control of funds handed to FLOT. That is a huge, existential risk to the project that is absolutely unnecessary. Multisig control of shareholder funds is extremely experimental. No one has succeeded at the attempt, although there have been some spectacular failures. This means solutions will be difficult and very risky. Attempted solutions take away from development funds in a material way, and distract scarce community attention to an effort that if successful, will only have very modest benefits, while the costs of failure and the probability of failure are both extremely high. It just doesn’t make any sense to do this now.

What we need is development. Secondary concerns should be BlockShare liquidity and marketing. Setting up a novel and experimental method of managing development funds should be way down on the list of priorities, with the understanding that the cost to benefit ratios are not even close to workable at this point.

The people who are pushing for multisig development fund management aren’t doing anything that is going to move the B&C project forward, help it grow, or increase the BlockShare price. The participants in the effort are mostly people associated with Augeas, which we have explained in the past is composed of people whose motive is not economic. Rather, the motive is to do something interesting to nerds in a social context. RSOT meets those those needs quite well. We have seen FLOT was very quick to betray the economic interests of NuBit and NuShare holders precisely because making money was quite far down their priority list.

Shareholders should never trust entities that aren’t properly motivated to meet economic, or growth goals.

There is a lot of value that can be created for BlockShare holders by getting development started again, which was stopped as a direct result of the FLOT failures that began in May. That is where the community ought to focus its efforts. Using a multisig group to manage development funds brings a lot of costs, risks and complications. The potential benefits are modest, so it should not be pursued at this time.

1 Like