[Passed] Re-evaluation of RSOT Implementation

Motion Hash: a2a32c8ef97f7145f05e97e0e7d69ead6a61dc47

The motion is being managed on Daology. Here is a quote of the content:

"no motions until i say so"

1 Like

If you couldn’t stop the previous motion, what makes you think you can pass this one all by yourself?

Delaying tactic.
Augeas is a potential competitor for Nu and B&C.
Keeping people busy with managing B&C draws attention from Augeas. Because the communities of Nu, B&C and Augeas have a lot of congruence this affects Augeas to some degree.

Give us an address then so shareholders can see for themselves. I’m not aware of you having provided proof of the existence of the dev funds.


Having publicly verifiable/auditable addresses and JordanLeePhoenix appear to be mutual exclusive.

I’d be interested to see the NSR of the B&C dev fund resting at the same address(es) ever since they’ve been put there.
The same is true for the address(es), which contain(s) the NBT, which @Phoenix has been traded by his sole discretion and not empowered by a motion.

If there are BTC in the B&C dev fund, publishing addresses is required as well.
In short: all addresses (BTC, NSR, NBT, other) that are or have been involved in keeping funds.

It strikes me as odd that nobody knows the addresses. What’s the reason again for not publishing them?
Privacy concerns?
Seeing blood on JordanLeePhoenix’ hands?

FLOT was very transparent compared to this masquerade.


Appears this motion is lacking enough support to pass.

1 Like

Voting is rigged as a consequence of the discussion about a possible Augeas airdrop to B&C shareholders.

Not sure if you understand what rigged means, I think you meant is influenced by which is definitely not the same thing.

1 Like


It’s almost like actions have consequences.

Also, I’m sure the nsr air drop to people that agree with pheonix isn’t influencing anything.


Not here do defend Phoenix. But…

You cannot fight dishonesty with dishonesty, and win.

Ah but the question is if giving shares to participants of in the network is dishonest. The peershares ability to grant shares is basically designed to intentionally do what you call dishonest: using shares as a reward for doing what the majority shareholders want done.

1 Like

No, Sir! Indirectly you seem to be referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

I am saying that you are calling majority rule dishonest. This is simply how peershares functions, you seem to be advocating that peershares is by its basic functionality dishonest. In which case, this is an interesting choice in forums for you to get involved in.

My argument is that there are intricacies and sometimes what the majority chooses is the moral direction and sometimes not. You are arguing that giving AES to some people and not others is dishonest, but you give very little reasoning for why. That is why your argument seems to devolve into a blanket statement that majority rule is dishonest.

1 Like

No, Sir. I don’t. I thought you were arguing that the majority rule can abused in a dishonest way (and would agree).

Not arguing against past distribution, not arguing against future distribution. Arguing against B&C shareholders’ anticipation of prospective payment based on present and future voting behavior.

It’s like

Hey kids, want airdrop? Go join the mob and vote against Phoenix.

AES shareholders have reason to distrust pheonix, that is precisely why that fork exists. It is in their best interest to have a business partner that is not run by the very person they distrust. If the shareholders use grants (their only true power) to sway their potential business partner into electing a decentralized body instead of a known untrustworthy body, I don’t see that as being dishonest.

It’s one company telling another “If you hire the CEO that we just fired, we will not do business with you.”

Basically, AES has made the statement that there can be consequences for voting certain ways. The entire creation of AES was done using this concept. If I create a dozen blockchains, each excluding different address for voting in different ways, is that dishonest of me? Is it only dishonest if I then support those blockchains and lobby exchanges to add their tokens?

Every vote can be used as a fork point. Indeed, it can be argued that every vote is a fork where the minority branch concedes to disappear. AES has made it clear that anyone at any point in time can choose to award people that vote one way as opposed to another. Is that the dishonesty? How can you possibly avoid the potential for consequences of voting one way vrs another without an anonymous voting scheme?

As a side note, AES holders have made no motion yet promising BKS holders anything, so I’m curious as to who precisely is being dishonest here. That’s like saying the US government is being dishonest because people might fear legal repurcussions for voting in pheonix.


Note: Don’t be open minded. You better always agree with the mob, no matter how stupid it gets.


Agreeing with the mob brought Nu the NSR buybacks.
I’m not sure: was there sarcasm in your post?

1 Like