Poll FTC richclub - bad or good idea
-
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…
-
I like the idea, but I think it would be open to abuse.
-
The movement of a coin as a token for voting is an interesting concept though. You could do it with coloured vote coins, which are returned upon the end of voting. Send to this address for ‘Yes’ and this address for ‘No’. You could issue to the coins to all people who have registered to vote.
-
in the real world though yes a 500k coin group could be formed who invest in what ever they see fit and reap and rewards. just as a 1ftc club could be setup.
these clubs have no say as to the direction of the coin its just a club. but no the 500k, 100k groups would hold no sway over the 1ftc club infact there could be millions on members in the 1ftc club that makes a mockery of the larger clubs.
Although maybe we should rename it to “FTC Investors Club” where its a flexible investment amount where you would get a proportionate amount back so 2% of total investment gets 2% of the end profits. this would make voting more difficult however ? would we all still get one vote? or is 1% = 1 vote? it would be more investment and potentially moe of the risk?
-
I am all opened for tweaking parameters and purpose. So far this is interesting discussion.
Hopefully something potent will be born from this.
I do not want this issue to fall into oblivion and be forgotten.
-
If the ‘plan’ has been tweaked, the poll is now meaningless.
-
If the ‘plan’ has been tweaked, the poll is now meaningless.
So is eating of Carolina Reaper :)
-
No its just a discussion. Which formed after concerns were raised about the original idea. Its an agile process - challenge -> discuss -> refine -> repeat
-
So is eating of Carolina Reaper :)
What I mean is, if there is a ‘plan B’, it might be a plan for the voting to reflect the improved options. Some of the ‘bad’ voters may wish to move their votes.
P.S, have you ever eaten a Reaper?
