Poll FTC richclub - bad or good idea
-
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. -
We can all wear more than one hat.
+1 to that
One thing about the minimum stake in the coin is just to show that a member is invested and actually cares about the coin.
It’s not a proof ze cares, but at least a small indication ze might care.
… bad decisions on purpose to derail the group.
You said a mouthful there. We are no longer in the initial stage where early bitcoin adopers were all enthusiasts. 51% attack has shown that more than 50% o our mining power is against us, and this can be countered only with temporary centralization by ACP until the coin is at least twice as large as its largest enemy coalition.
-
Where are you Lizhi? Fight for the club :)
-
I’m not against a club, a club which contributes towards the development sounds good, I hope someone sets one up. What I am against Is some sort of coup by the coin holders. We do need a ‘foundation’ so people can democratically have their say, but this idea isn’t it. The CIC as a foundation is a much more community friendly idea.
-
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?)
So at the end return of investment is the point?
Why not moving profits to the fund???Besides that everybody can build a club and create whatever rules they want, but I’m sure, that in the long term this ‘club of rich’ is not good for Feathercoin’s developement.
For me it is the beginning of George Orwell’s Animal Farm: ‘All animals are equal, but some are more equal…’
-
So can we then start a 500k club and force our will over the 100k club?
-
So can we then start a 500k club and force our will over the 100k club?
Won’t matter anyway, the agenda is decided at the annual secret Fetherberg meeting. The rest is just a puppet show. Shhh, I’ve already said too much.
-
Obey the law, listen to the whales.
Muhahaha.
-
How about we build a decentralised voting system into the wallet where regardless of the amount of ftc you hold in that address, the weighting of your vote remains the same.
You can have a wallet with 100 addresses but if it’s set up right, every copy of the qt can send a vote from an adress in the form of ftc, but depending on the size of the address the ftc came from, would determin the weiting.
The idea is that everyone can vote by % of sacrifice from the address
if your address fall in the top 100 donators by total ftc, then you can have a pretty title i suppose.
but yeah i vote no…
