[Passed] Motion to Empower Motions


#21

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.


#22

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.


#23

Sure, if the situation requires it…


#24

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!


[Draft] Bylaws of the Board of Reputed Signers (former RSOT)
#25

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.


#26

You are reliable and claim that you handling funds in singlesig is safer?
Can you please answer those questions?

And please don’t die or get hit by a train while being the sole keeper of the dev funds.


#27

If you try to be a good leader then read this book.


#28

The model is certainly not perfect, however it needs to be compared with the risk of a single actor having control of all the funds. I still believe that risk is even greater. Unless you can demonstrate that you have been able to mitigate the risk of loss of the funds I would still support a multisig fund one way or the other.[quote=“Phoenix, post:25, topic:4704”]
will only have very modest benefits
[/quote]
What are the benefits of having a single actor in full control? I don’t believe they weigh up against the risks.

The FLOT members are a different group than RSOT anyway. I’m not a fan of making the same mistake twice, but without any proof or guarantee that the shareholder funds are safer with you as a single actor I believe we should go ahead. Besides we are talking development funds only, which is also different from FLOT’s role which was almost operational.


#29

@phoenix you started with $120k, how much is the dev fund worth now, after your managing it for nearly 6 months?

Mind you, in this period btc has gone up a good bit. So you should have something like $150k, right? Or did you invest every penny of the B&C fund in some extremely volatile altcoin that dropped precipitously over the last few months in a last ditch effort to save your own investments?

Also, i love the “i didnt like how a board of directors acted once so all boards are bad”. Seriously, can you @Phoenix think of anyone other than yourself that you would let control the money? Not just rubber stamping but actually having power over the company funds. It sounds to me like you just want full power no matter what and dont trust anyone else with any power. There is only one reason I could see for your purposes disaligning with literally every other shareholder: insider trading. Of course you trust no other shareholder with the funds, because they wont value your personal bottom line above the company’s.


#30

The original B&C Dev fund held over 1000 Bitcoins imagine if that fund was not tempered with by a specific single actor. Instead the same single actor that now holds the fund decided without shareholder approval or knowledge to put all the funds into an altcoin that later on failed and became worthless. Whether you agree with his fairy tale of how it was all FLOT’s fault or not the fact remains that it was him and solely him that decided all funds should be transferred into an altcoin. We all know how that worked out.

One might rightfully argue that he alone is responsible for the loss of hundreds of thousands of BKS shareholder funds.


#31

To be fair, the motion putting the money in nsr passed. Coincidentally (Ha!) it happened during a SDD spike. The first spike happened when phoenix was elected. Which means someone with a huge share in BKS hopped on the system, elected phoenix, then hopped off. 4 months later, they hopped on again, voted to convert the funds to nsr, then hopped off again. Just a reminder that hopping on and off in this manner can give someone a 25% or so boost in the effectiveness of their shares.

What do you want to bet that those shares correspond to the same ones that hopped on the nsr network to vote in pheonix during the nsr sdd spike in june.


#32

Just 10 days ago, someone hopped on B&C and disabled RSOT motion.


#33

I’m not talking about the conversion from NBT to NSR I’m talking about the total conversion of shareholder BTC designated to B&C development which was without being voted on in secrecy 100% converted into Nubits. I would never have supported such a plan and I’m sure many other BKS shareholders feel the same.

Regardless of what happened in Nu, B&C was a separate project that has been taken down by the fall of Nu, all of this solely because 1 individual decided all shareholder development funds should be converted into Nubits.

To this date that person has never commented on his actions which were not mandated by any motion and were done secrecy. On top of that he keeps ignoring this fact which is by far the single most detrimental action that caused B&C to lose the value of its development fund. He likes to spin it around and state that it was FLOT that caused Nubits to collapse (which is false but besides the point) while in reality those funds should have never been in Nubits at all.

Ironically that same person proposed to empty the reserves and spent 555+ Bitcoins on an 80m NSR buyback program. Seeing his track record he’s quite probably the worst person to be in a position to manage any kind of funds. He’s shown outright incompetence, irresponsibleness, lack of transparency, dishonesty and complete lack of accountability.


#34

Just like you, I invested more than 100BTC into B&C project in 2015, and see what’s left for me?


#35

And this sadly is the well-meaning interpretation of the events.


#36

Well, I love reading your posts from the past given the present. It is just wonderful! Oh btw, what is the Blockshare price since multisig now has never been set up? Would you like to purchase my Blockshares @Phoenix?