[Withdrawn] *DRAFT* Proposal for Mining-Driven Dual-Side LCP

Ah… I apologize. I was under the assumption that megabigpower was a cloud mining company.

I think we should find another way of generating dividends. I don’t mean to bring it to this thread but this proposal has brought the dangers of custodians to my attention (I’m not saying that your proposal is malicious in any way). Buy support is important but we need to have a much stronger demand mechanism if it looks like we will need to continue buy support custodians.

Now… is it possible for NuNet to invest in your venture with NuBits to help further your company while also generating outside profits for you and NuShareholders?

This is also an option. Capital investments into revenue producing mines happens all the time. Perhaps this is a way to do dividend production without all the custodial stuff (though we are willing to do this work if it is needed.)

First off, thank you for submitting a proposal. I think the Nu community will only be strengthened by having public faces and businesses involved with the network.

I need to take some time to read through your proposal more in-depth before I respond.

One question that immediately jumps out at me from a marketing viewpoint is that this type of custodial support would be indirectly supporting PoW mining, which many in our community find extremely wasteful. Nu now runs solely on Proof-of-Stake and so I worry about the branding perceptions that might occur if we are seen to be supporting an environmentally-unfriendly business.

Have you given this any thought? Again, I’m supportive of anyone who takes the time to write a proposal and I will be reading it more in-depth tonight and tomorrow.

This looks like heading to a direction, which I’ve already tried to sketch :

While I share the concerns of (directly) supporting PoW (because of the “waste” of energy) I tend to rely on the voting mechanism of Nu :wink:
I might dislike supporting PoW, but I’m aware that any money and any business that might be attracted by Nu will have some drawbacks of one kind or another.
…even if one simply invests money in Nu, you need to ask where that money comes from and how it has gotten into the hands of the investor, to be fair…

Stating the obvious I could say that I think people tend to stop asking questions after some degree. So the more obvious something is, the more it will be recognized and regarded.

PoW is an obvious aspect of this business.
Having a business with public faces that is interested to work together with Nu in some way is yet another aspect.

Whether or not the Nu shareholders want to make business based on these terms will ultimately be decided by a vote once this proposal is beyond draft status.

1 Like

Thanks for your proposal and I think I’m still digesting it but here is my first reaction:

  • It is bold to ask for a lot of trust without any track record in this community. I know that is a wider issue and transferring reputations is not easy, but I envisage people building more trust first before they propose shareholders to take risks.
  • I’m a bit of a greenie, so I’m not entirely convinced about the sustainability of the whole mining model. It seems to be profitable on a large scale at the moment, but the high volatility of Bitcoin (downwards), the lack of innovation and risks are a very unattractive mix to be involved in for me. So anything related to this industry inherits these risks. I suspect that this proposal actually tries to spread that risk for you, driving this effort.

I’m on the fence and as said still digesting and following this thread, but not overly enthusiastic.

Hi Dave.
Tks for this interesting proposal.

Which coindesk article by the way?

I’ve decided to withdraw this proposal due to a lack of support from shareholders. I plan to create a more straightforward proposal that hopefully will be better received.


1 Like

Thank you, @buzzdave . I look forward to reviewing your future proposal.

Thank you