How about ‘free range’?
Reminds me of eggs and chickens. I’m all for the ethical treatment of our NBT but it suggests that they might be sold for a higher price.
3 Likes
lol, awesome. ‘Circulating’ is fine. (if anyone has any other suggestions please speak up)
I could explain the reasons for my behaviour, but that doesn’t really help. Let me just say personal challenges cause frayed nerves. I see Nu facing serous trouble and that made me behave the way I did.
I’m sorry for having lost my patience.
I fear for Nu if it isn’t prepared for becoming as successful as all of us want it to be.
There’s a responsibility of all NSR holders for the course of Nu, but I see the work being put on the shoulders of a few hard working people here who program, do marketing and all the stuff for Nu. The number of people who actively contribute in one way or another is way below “dozens or hundreds of shareholders”.
Soon there will be the FLOT, less than two hands full of people on whose shoulders will rest an immense burden.
Thinking about being an FLOT member sparked all the text walls I created - and the frustration not seeing discussions to define the scope of the FLOT more precisely.
If NSR holders don’t act according to their possibilities, they must live with the results. That’s true in general and will be true for FLOT in particular.
I’m not going to sick my head in the sand 
And if a lot of motions are better for achieving consensus, then we need to keep track of them to not get lost in the jungle.
I’m very glad that @Nagalim took the initiative to create this motion here as it’s in my opinion one of the most important adjustments. The dynamic T4 buy side together with a transparent reporting will be important for people who do background checks before they jump on the NBT train.
(as soon as the NSR markets are way more liquid, buy side reliability will be even better than with an ever increased amount of BTC - but that’s for the future…)
Adjusting the T6 sell side helps dealing with an increased demand by more NBT circulating, to mitigate a possible “landslide success”.
This is a good way to go.
I’m only discouraged by seeing the democracy behind Nu being a “perfect” counterpart of the democracy some know from politics.
I wish for more contribution in politics as well, but you can’t force people to act responsibly - maybe it’s ok to be passive; I just don’t like it…
If I would back out completely I wouldn’t contribute as well as those whom I’m blame for doing that. Thinking about it that way makes it quite easy to continue!
Thank you for your patient and kind words!
1 Like
This has now been hashed.
b1ef96aed5c7f9dec482467b254b40c82bf66d23
1 Like
Although shareholder participation hasn’t been very ideal, I think that is an unfair accusation.
Consensus is expensive and we know that from the very design of blockchains - we require a much higher degree of redundancy compared to centralized solutions, yet we still do that for an important ideological gain. When applied to motions, that means we’ll be focusing all shareholders’ brains in one place, and make sure whatever we do is worth such cost. It is important to use shareholders’ limited energy in the most efficient ways, and I still recommend to optimize how motions are presented and structured etc. to let the network move as smooth as possible.
And we’re still at an early stage of growth where I believe we should prioritize action rather than lawmaking. Bottom line is that FLOT can’t steal money, and we establish a consensus on several well-defined situations where we can take action. A more comprehensive set of laws can take a slower pace to mature.
By the way, for my part, I called for a few public keys to test signing but the response hasn’t been great. Though I know it can wait until my scripts are usable and when the “join FLOT motions” all pass.
You have been very diligent in stimulating shareholder response on various issues, unlike my approach which is usually more avoidant - doing my own part or just something else until the issue gets close to spotlight. Yours is a very valuable approach, but it would be healthier to adjust your strategy and expectations at times.
1 Like
Adding to my datafeed.
We come to different conclusions, because we have different expectations.
Configuring votes is an important task, but if shareholders’ energy is already consumed by configuring votes or registering a data feed, they should rather look for other investments than a revolutionary startup.
I consider letting others do the work and just earning earning the credit for their work more unfair than expecting some contribution from them.
If you look at https://discuss.nubits.com/users/ you will have a hard time finding more than one dozen people contributing regularly. Depending on what you consider contribution, it may be two dozen people. As far as I remember the maximum number of NSR that could be obtained when Nu was launched, was limited to 5 million.
So there should easily be several dozens big holders and depending on who sold and who bought NSR, it could very well be hundreds of NSR holders.
Take into regard that not all in the forum who contribute are necessarily sharesholders!
Especially in that stage I expect contribution of all who have a stake in this endeavour!
I did and I still do.
I’d have expected to see some demand for seeded auctions which would solve a lot of the trouble Nu faces now because of all the received BTC. I lowered that expectation.
I’d have expected to see some demand for frequency voting or however you might call that. With the rising popularity of Nu there will be rather more than less NSR holders. I hope to have a mechanism like frequency voting early enough. I lowered my expectation to see that anytime soon.
I’d have expected to see more demand for a sound FLOT operation scope. I lowered my expectations.
1 Like
I agree there should be more shareholder participation; even if it’s just about dealing with motions, subscribers of @cryptog’s and @Cybnate’s datafeed probably account for more than 50% of minting shares. But saying it’s a perfect parallel to the state of real-world democracies is way too far. What I’ve seen is that even the regular contributors are too busy to think through FLOT beyond Jordan’s motion. I’m sure yours will get more attention later; I still encourage you to aim for building a framework to assemble FLOT motions and that effort will not be wasted.
…Although if I spent more time on your motion rather typing this you probably won’t be complaining as much (guilty).
Regarding the imbalance of efforts and general inaction, what we really need is a way to get shareholders to fund projects and expand the scope of merit-based compensation. While reasonable I don’t think it can be justified on all grounds that those who have invested more should work more - they’ve already put more of their hard-earned money into the project and are arguably taking more risks.
For that reason I’m having high hopes on the establishment of FLOT, which is a gateway for cultivating more doers in the community. I also hope our community could breed more standalone business projects that have positive effects on Nubits (like BCE), as that is the ultimate source of organic growth for our ecosystem.
Frequency voting: Given JL’s recent complaint on the voting activity of shareholders, if there’s a real demand at some point it will be noticed and acted on. The main reason it’s not pushed for is that the threat is not yet imminent and we want developers to speed up progress on BCE. The culprit is still the lack of manpower. I’ve been studying the codebase and should be able to take up development work on this later; if that happens I’ll come up with a proposal to get paid for it.
Seeded auctions: I agree that the reaction of the community has been lukewarm, but the issue is more on getting shareholders to fund the project. And also there’s only one @Nagalim, who’s spending a lot of his time on ALP at the moment (and if he’s really working on auctions he probably won’t have so much time to talk about FLOT like he did)
1 Like
It’s maybe a little bit exaggerated, but not way too far if I assume (and although we can’t know for sure due to the anonymity) there are way over a hundred shareholders, and only a fraction of them contribute.
The contribution is higher than in other democracies (speaking of politics now), but in difference to them this is no kind of democracy in which you participate by chance. You participate by decision instead. This is not a state you are born in which offers voting rights to adult residents. You need to buy NSR to be a part of the democratic body of Nu.
And that’s the reason why I’d expect more participation.
Just to make this clear: my frustration was not spawned by the lack of interest in the motion I drafted - this was just the last straw after I’ve experienced lack of interest in a lot of areas which are of importance for Nu.
I’m glad that @Nagalim took the initiative to pick the maybe most important part of my draft and put it into a separate motion.
I would have done the same after I had sufficiently recovered from my frustration.
I understand that digesting small bites is easier. I try to remember that the next time I start writing text walls
You are a free person and I need to respect that you do whatever you find worthwhile as long as you don’t step on the someone’s toes.
Indeed it seems reasonable if investors try steering the way Nu goes according to their hopes. Having put (more) money in it makes them (more) vulnerable and more responsible - they have more (at) stake!
I tried to define a scope for FLOT because I might become an elected member of the FLOT and would appreciate having a mandate that is more precise than what’s available now.
I thought about what the FLOT needs to do and when (time, circumstances) and the support by NSR holders.
And I thought that the average NSR holders should be interested in defining that was well. That was obviously wrong. I started to realize that.
FLOT is valuable to free @JordanLee from being highly involved in liquidity operations. This not only wastes JL’s precious time, but poses a centralized risk for Nu.
Whether FLOT can cultivate more doers is partly up to the members of the FLOT. The (future) FLOT members are already quite active. The FLOT might (need to) be able to cultivate doers outside the FLOT!
1 Like
I just wanted to say I love your work and the ideas you have promoted even when I don’t have time to properly digest all the details. Everyone is just very busy with diverse endeavors.
My advice would be don’t underestimate the value of hashing proposals and beginning voting as a means of getting attention. Once it gets a few percent of the vote and begins to show prominently in the block explorer then people are more willing to spend time to become familiar with it.
You are a very valuable member of the community and I would hate to see you get discouraged.
5 Likes
Sorry if my participation was almost non existent regarding your ideas. I was having a hard time to grasp all the details. I needed much more time. I would suggest to unpack to say 5 main ideas and discuss each in a specific thread.
Nevertheless, you are extremely valuable for Nu, i feel. One of the most active and important shareholders.
Thank you for taking your time to write these kind words!
That is absolutely true for those who work tireless for the success of Nu - but I really wish it were everyone and not “only” the usual suspects
I’m not discouraged easily at least not in a sense of “final discouragement”. A lot came together and I was quite exhausted when I seemed to be discouraged.
A part of that is going off-topic, but I want to make it really clear:
it was not the participation regarding my ideas. It was the lack of participation in ideas that might be of great importance for Nu that left me exhausted. Real life issues had another part in that.
If you see important parts of the world fall apart or at least not all done to prevent it from falling apart, it leaves you in a helpless and desperate state.
I’m seeing Nu at the brink of a success for which Nu is not yet in the right shape.
I’ll do my best to help bringing Nu in the right shape, because this success poses new risks to Nu.
I know that a part of me is naive and I’m well aware that a lot of people are invested in Nu because they simply want to make money.
Nevertheless I sense a power in Nu to be so much more than just a source of profit. Nu can be a disruptive new way of issuing a currency if it stays successful and gets improved to handle so much more NBT in circulation and so much more liquidity.
Nu can create currencies that can be used almost immune to regulation - at least to regulation by governments.
The times in which “traditional” slavery was all over the world are over. I fear that parts of it are still left, but it has been reduced to a minimum.
These days slavery is cloaked, but it’s still present in the form of countries and governments that enslave other countries by trading agreements, military force, economical oppression, forcing them into subjection.
Money, issued currencies play a “vital” role in the mechanisms to do that.
Ever since central banks have been invented they were used to foster the prosperity of the countries that control the central banks at the disadvantage of the rest of the world that was susceptible for this kind of attack.
Nu can break that circle because it doesn’t answer to a single country or government. The decentralized nature of Nu prevents countries ripping of other countries or at least Nu vastly limits it compared to what the traditional central banks still do.
The more decentralized Nu is and the more countries NSR holders reside in, the more of the world has “representatives” that can voice concerns if Nu is planning to do unethical things at the disadvantage of the home countries of the NSR holders.
I desperately want Nu to succeed. For that I want Nu to be at least one, better two steps ahead of bad guys, attackers, people who want to exploit weaknesses, who only think of their own profit and would sacrifice Nu for that.
Nu must succeed.
It is one of the most important inventions since Bitcoin and Peercoin!
4 Likes
I have not seen any real opposition to this yet it’s only being voted 30%. Therefore bump!
1 Like
How many btcs are there now in T4?
Edit: i d like to know the current amount of T4 buy side and the current number of nubits in circulation as an example for the proposed motion.
It is in my datafeed!
2 Likes
With a lot more NBT in circulation it gets important to adjust the T4 buffer, before too much of it has been spent for NSR buybacks or other stuff.
The NSR buybacks take time to reduce the T4 size, but at some point it will bee too late.
Please start voting for this motion now or please explain why you don’t consider it good or necessary.
I am more or less OK with it but if the additional currency part (not necessary for now) can be removed and why the part on 25% threshold is relevant to this motion can be explained then this motion is in better shape.
So I’m not going to rehash this motion, it’s at 30% support with a 50% 100 block average. The additional currency part certainly doesn’t hurt anything, is that really preventing you from voting for this? The 25% threshold is only because of the language of the T4 dividend motion which seems to have stalled out at 30% support, so it’s mostly just of academic concern. It was only placed there as a preca in the case that both motions pass (moving from a static to a % threshold on both dividends and buybacks).
Did I say I am not voting for it? Christmas tree motions that have unimportant doodads hanging on them don’t tend to get much respect from me, though.
1 Like