I am pleased to see this attempt to use multisig fund management after the terrible failures we have experienced in multisig fund management recently. We need to be careful how we construct this team to ensure we don’t repeat past failures. Multisig fund management is theoretically very valuable, so we need to continue attempting to develop it, while ensuring nothing close to 1 billion NSR is at stake, as was the case in May and June.
So, let’s turn our attention to its development:
This severely limits the utility of the group, to my understanding. Shareholders can pass a grant to anyone at any time, so no intermediary is needed when shareholders explicitly decide they want a certain quantity of funds granted to a particular entity. The usefulness of a group such as this lies in having them make relatively ordinary payments for services clearly aligned with shareholder directives and interests. To get a grip on the regulations that should apply to signers and their transfers, let’s examine the question of how the group could have functioned optimally in the context of facilitating the Nu 3.0 release (multiple currency support).
There were, or will be, a number of payments and agreements to be arranged with sigmike and woolly_sammoth. How would the team have encouraged development by securing development contracts and paying them as agreed?
How will the group decide what development is to be done going forward? I would like to suggest we fix the NuShare denomination. This can be defended because shareholders already passed a motion to do just this. Since then, it has become even more important to do because the BTC satoshi price is around 35. This number is too low to have good granularity. It enforces a minimum spread on NuShare sales of around 3%, which is a problem. Having the price be 350,000 satoshi or 0.0035 BTC is much better.
Also, @sigmike has stated a clear preference to do business with a registered company. Can this group meet that need? I know proposed signer @cryptog has Satoshi Collar, which might meet that need quite well.
I cannot deal with this immediately. Should the grant be taken off voting for discussion and editing? I generally feel like grants should be accompanied by a motion which is the hash of the agreed upon terms.
So in other words you can keep this Development Funds Management Team completely unfunded and just fund it temporarily using the grant that needs to pass anyway. It would work for BTC funds, however, then
probably wouldn’t be a good idea. It generally sounds like a paradoxon to expect the members to synchronize on burning the funds when there is an irreconcilable dispute between them.
@Cybnate, what have you done … you realize that @henry is JL, @jooize his puppet and that @cryptog signs everything which appears to obtain slight consensus? Did you four guys came together and form this group on your own? I assume it was rather JL who set this up in the background. The funds you are trying to safe were lost in the moment you people sent them to him, not now where you are trying to get them back.
I overlooked that… While @jooize, @cryptog and @henry perfectly fit into that Chief Bird @Phoenix scammer category for different reasons, I am quite disappointed to hear that @Cybnate is willing to join that group. Though, I believe she is the perfect fit from the Chief Bird’s perspective. Within that group, her presence pretends some neutrality which in fact does not exist because she is neck deep financially committed to Nu I guess.
What is the best course of action for adjusting the terms now that I’ve already published the grant? Simply change it from Voting to Draft seems bad. I ponder making a motion draft which we can discuss then publish, and somehow leave this grant up for voting to fund the group. It seems to me it would be better if we begun using motions for grant terms.
Weeks ago we came together with the objective to organise funds for the development of Nu and specifically for the work sigmike was doing for the multicurrency proposal in the short term. Nothing more, nothing less. Is that so extraordinary? Apparently there were no other interested shareholders left to do this. I’m good to hear otherwise.
Not sure what you are talking about. I’ve never sent funds to ‘him’, i was not part of FLOT as you know. And I’m not trying to get anything back either with this proposal. It is just a fund for Nu development. Something we should have had in the first place.
I believe this accusation is not justified. The definition of a scammer has been discussed a few times on this board.
In November 2014 this was already posted: Everyone’s a Scammer!
Investing in altcoins is also know as speculative philanthropy.
We can argue for months about this. My take on it is that Nu is still functioning, although barely. I don’t like how Phoenix acts and I have been vocal about that a number of times. It doesn’t work with attracting new customers at all. But until there is something better there is not much choice than making the best from my remaining investment and some hopefully justified belief that it can get better. As long as Augeas hasn’t developed a clear direction on what it is and wants I’m on the fence and fine to try new things until something better emerges.
Just joining a multisig fund for development to create new chances for Nu is one of them and I work with anyone who thinks among similar lines and has more than zero shares. When I believe we are starting to make the same mistakes there is a clear opt-out in the proposal which I won’t hesitate to use. I’m in on my own terms, not just walking away from everything because that is a ‘common’ belief by a group of people.
I’m disappointed that you see every move as negative without further thinking of what this might achieve even though the chances might look slim at the moment. Not trying is a certain fail.
Well, I doubt, but if he likes critical thinking and being challenged then maybe I am.
Neck deep? With 10k? Less than 1% of the total shares? Really? Same investment as Sentinelrv and heavily diluted so phoenix has control of the majority of the shares. Although I’m close I haven’t walked away just yet, that is the difference. I’m prepared to try something else until something better presents itself as I can’t think of anything just yet.
And why wouldn’t I be one of them?
Maybe we can set up a wider team, I don’t have any objections on that. There will need to be some consensus and alignment. Therefore larger shareholders would take a preference to make it work. I would welcome those. Otherwise it would just be non-functional and drown in endless discussions.
The grant part can be deemed obsolete, it shouldn’t have been in there. An oversight. Not sure if it is worth changing if it just for that. In my opinion this fund is to manage developments agreed by shareholders. After a development focussed motion has passed to pay someone for services based on terms or regular e.g. monthly payments the multisig team would take care of that. In other words this multisig team would just take care of the payments according to the agreed terms instead of raising 3 grants as sigmike just had to do. That is my interpretation at least.
That would be ideal, but I can imagine that @cryptog and others would be hesitating to lend their business on where Nu is at today. I believe there is long way to go before some trust can be established. We are at the bottom and maybe there is no way out. Time will tell within the next few months and it mostly depends on your actions @phoenix. When things get better I’m sure we can liaise with a business eventually or set something up specifically for Nu development purposes.
I am getting fed up with the on going fight and negative energy.
As a shareholder with a public face, I am seriously considering giving up on all my involvement with Nu.
I ll make a decision this week.
Cryptog, it might not be the worst of ideas to be cautious, if you are publicly known.
I don’t doubt your assessment, but want to ask: ou are aware that most of the negativity isn’t for the sake of negativity, but for a reason?
Phoenix has accumulated a lot of power, but all too often remains silent, when he should speak and speaks when he’d better be silent.
This doesn’t foster a trusting environment.
Decentralized institutions (FLOT, liquidity providers) got disbanded and replaced by single points of failure (Phoenix, jooize, Nulagoon).
The amount of NSR in circulation got more than doubled with additional hundreds of million NSR on their way.
Yet there are still a lot (coinmarketcap.com might be wrong listing more than 700,000) in circulation, which aren’t backed by reserve. What’s the current reserve ratio?
Additional currencies are on the roadmap, but a revenue scheme isn’t.
“Raw accounting data” is available, but it’s far from being complete and not compiled/usable in this way (otherwise it’d be simple to tell the reserve ratio). There’s no information about the early phase. Addresses are missing.
I won’t immerse into the plethora of strange (in)activity and events any further.
If you can, contribute to lifting the fog.
The constructive way to fight the negativity is to fight the reasons for it.
I’m sorry to hear this. I think everyone doing diligent and good work to advance decentralized stable currency here feels this way. The community has been surprisingly self-destructive, negative, and quite frankly, very uncivilized. I’m inclined to think that moderators of the forum should take steps to end the extremely hostile work environment by imposing some very basic standards of decency for forum participants. We need a forum that represents shareholder interests as well, although that is a somewhat separate issue. What kind of organization leaves libel and false statements about their own operations on their own web site? It isn’t professional and it isn’t likely to lead to success.
@cryptog, do you think we should establish a forum with basic standards for decency, accuracy and respectful interactions? We shouldn’t facilitate abuse of the people doing good work here. We shouldn’t allow people like @ConfusedObserver, who obviously is an opponent of our network, to come in here and launch random, unrelated attacks in nearly all our threads. There should be decency and the basic respect that everyone deserves. I have offered that to everyone, even though I have not been treated in kind.
Should we start a new forum that advances shareholder interests while requiring respect from all participants? It could be a place where work gets done. It might be more a place where representatives of shareholders coordinate their work, and not so much a place where unaffiliated enemies of our network come to try to destroy what we are building.
OK after reading a bit up on this, the assignment of @sigmike was mandated by motion and @phoenix is the king of funds or however it is called, so shouldn’t he simply pay @sigmike the money that was specified pretty clearly by this motion? This group here looks more like another RSOT which is more easily controllable for JL.
I didn’t mean you specifically, but you all collectively passed a motion to put all money into @phoenix pocket. What I am just saying is that this was the moment where it was clear that you won’t see the money again, regardless what happens here.
Look, as I see it there is only one thing left here which can be preserved from this formerly great project, and this is the group of people with passion and fun in doing this thing. There is now a new opportunity with Augeas with great potential, and even if its not the thing in the end then at least something was on the table and other options can be discussed.
The time would be spent so much better if all would go back to the drawing board for a while and to use the knowledge you gained to design something where these things cannot happen, instead of making the “best” out of this awful situation.
EDIT: oh, and @cryptog: No hard feelings, but from your posts I still cannot make up where you stand. You seem to be positive regarding the augeas movement, and removed support on critical @phoenix motions, but at the same time you seem to support him in everything he is doing. You also know that you could help the community a lot by providing BTC addresses from which you received your payments, but you never published them. So while I am sure that you are a good person with good overall intentions, I don’t see from my current interpretation how you can be a critical member of this group.
Right, I’m the problem. Criticism is rarely welcome in dictatorships.
Oh wait, I reconsidered: I am not! It’s sad that you weren’t even able to see the constructiveness in my last post in this thread.
But please do as always: put the blame on others. It’s easier than getting the things on your end straight.
[quote=“Phoenix, post:15, topic:4720, full:true”]
There should be decency and the basic respect that everyone deserves. I have offered that to everyone, even though I have not been treated in kind.[/quote]
I’d argue that basic respect and decency is replying to questions posed by multiple large shareholders. Yet you keep ignoring our request to respond to this thread on a daily basis. Not even replying the reason for not responding, I’d say that is extremely rude and disrespectful and downright negligent.
Don’t demand respect and decency when giving out none yourself.
And in your words, the king of funds delegates a development fund to a multisig group. The idea is that this group does some governance and checking deliverables during development after it has been agreed that a piece of work will be done. If it is a lump sum it doesn’t make sense, but for larger development I believe it does. The king can then focus on his liquidity manipulations and hopefully find some time to provide some transparency from scratch for the new currencies. Maybe wishful thinking… we will see.
Until we have consensus on where Augeas is going and how to fund it there is not a lot to do. There is no king making decisions although woodstockmerckle made an impressive effort to get things started. It won’t be easy going forward.