Poll FTC richclub - bad or good idea
-
Haven’t voted ye as I’m undecided.
I can see the reasoning behind giving those with large investment a say in how FTC should run, but I can also see the downside that some with large investment may be more motivated by short term gain than longevity of FTC.
I would hate to see FTC have a ‘Rich Boys Club’ deciding how FTC should be run as how is that different to banks?
-
On the other side this should be great way to remove final executive power from Bush only.
Centralized group of 10 people is still way more decentralized that 1 guy.
(I am not attacking Bush here, I am trying to solve is problem of being loved/hated creator and No.1 man of coin)
-
I’m not sure? Plus I don’t have 100,000 coins Lol. But the worry I have is the world is already run by the rich! Dobwe really want to emulate that?
I would be happy if the rich club was just a force for good and not in control of the coin as that would stay under community control. But in control of the rich club fund!?
-
I am not big fan of developing everything from scratch. Just adopt usefull stuff (like veribit aka feathersend) and move on.
=move, don’t stay in neverending discussions.
-
I agree.
-
Instead of “FTC rich”, I propose “FTC saver”, and the limit should be lower, such as 10k. Think about the people who will buy higher. It must also be made clear that the club itself is not a centralized management of the coin, just a “club of coin friends”. The coin itself remains decentralized.
-
FTC Saver sounds great.
Everyone must have at least x? Number of Feathercoins. Plus entry fee is 1,000 FTC which is put into the investment fund.
Each member gets a vote on what the fund is used for with majority rule 50%.
If the investment creates a profit (such as a bussiness investment) they would be equally distributed to members.Feathercoin (dragons den style?)
-
FTC Saver sounds great.
Everyone must have at least x? Number of Feathercoins. Plus entry fee is 1,000 FTC which is put into the investment fund.
Each member gets a vote on what the fund is used for with majority rule 50%.
If the investment creates a profit (such as a bussiness investment) they would be equally distributed to members.Feathercoin (dragons den style?)
Did you just destilated my idea into fine liquor?
I love how you put it!
-
I think this is an unfair way of estimating people’s value to feathercoin. The C.I.C will bring about the same result without the having such an old world club. I’m all for a centralised organisation who help look after feathercoin, I’m not even against a ‘membership fee’, but it should be a club where everyone can participate and not just the people who have the largest wallets.
-
@MrWyrm, we can have both. There are certain actions that require nothing but online understanding, for that FTC saver club is enough. Other actions require brick and mortar address, and for those, CIC would be used.
-
Still, I’m against the decision makers or the ‘committee’ being exclusive, feathercoin is an inclusive coin for the community. I cannot stress how strongly I believe that a position on the committee should be on merit alone.
-
Example: What if 51% of this club vote sha256 to be used as PoW algo?
-
Exactly, it’s a dangerous game being able to buy your way onto the board. We need the right people voted for by the people and not the rich people voted for by their wallets.
By all means, have a trading club, but the developers should never be answerable to them.
-
@MrWyrm, we have no control over what kind of clubs people set up. Decentralized currencies are decentralized. A club only decides about its own activites. Clubs with all kinds of rules can be set up.
-
I mean, Feather is still small, so changes to it are possible. Once Neoscrypt whitepaper is out, people can start writing their own clients. Afterwards, it will be increasingly harder to achieve understanding should or go for another algorithm change. Clubs and/or CICs are there only for promotion, for friendship to Feather. We must emphasize we are not a governing body, just a group of Feather friends.
-
People can do as they please. You miss my point, I’m just after some assurances, if the feathercoin developers become answerable to the shareholders then we may as well go back to fiat.
-
People can do as they please. You miss my point, I’m just after some assurances, if the feathercoin developers become answerable to the shareholders then we may as well go back to fiat.
That lamentation would be valid if Bush had infinite resouces.
However that is not our case.
Some serious investors/shareholders should jump on board and provide money for development if they get share of executive power.
This is DECENTRALIZATION of leadership from 1 guy to group. I am not blindly following idea that FTC is community coin where each vote counts.
1st, there is so many voices. 2nd, even the brightest voices of members with abnormal mental capability are unheard sometimes (remeber Kevlar?).
-
Decentralization will be when ACP key could be unlocked by X out of Y where X < Y and X>=2 and Y>=3
-
Decentralization will be when ACP key could be unlocked by X out of Y where X < Y and X>=2 and Y>=3
+1
fully agree with you
-
I think that’s a valid point MyWrym is making. We need to make clear what the boundaries are here. I think the idea for the FTC Savers (could even just be FTC Investors) which would be an privately funded group of Feathercoin enthusiasts who wish to help further the ecosystem for Feathercoin whilst also potentially making some kind of return.
Its not about making decisions about the direction of the coin, although members of this “club” could also be community members who have opinions on that as well.
We can all wear more than one hat. Maybe it should be separate from this forum to make a distinction between the two?One thing about the minimum stake in the coin is just to show that a member is invested and actually cares about the coin. So we don’t get other coin lovers sneaking into the group and making bad decisions on purpose to derail the group. (Have you heard the story about the chicken and the pig?)
<<<<< From Wiki >>>>>>>
The fable of The Chicken and the Pig is about commitment to a project or cause. When producing a dish made of ham and eggs, the pig provides the ham which requires his sacrifice and the chicken provides the eggs which are not difficult to produce. Thus the pig is really committed in that dish while the chicken is only involved, yet both are needed to produce the dish.
