Pages:
Author

Topic: [ANN] ORA :: NXT 'monetary system' currency - page 29. (Read 181202 times)

legendary
Activity: 1146
Merit: 1000
It seems like nobody like "dumpers" except me.
I will give you a real example,after the IPO of NXT some initial stakers sell their coin at such low price just want more people can join the community.The price is 1BTC=1000KNXT.Just because they sell their coin at such low price then more and more people can buy NXT at such low price.That's good for the NXT's development.
I have to say people shouldn't hate "dumpers" dump their stake(coin) at low price because they just do the right thing,they just spread the stake(coin) wildely.We should hate "dumpers" dump their stake(coin) at high price because they will harm the market.

Oh yeah? How's that working out for NXT? Seems to me the whales keep dumping while the community keeps paying the price for it. Giving dumpers free $ to dump on stakeholders isn't going to help with distribution, it'll just concentrate the ORA into even fewer hands who buy them up super cheap and at the same time hurt every stakeholder.

Counter intuitively people invest in coins which increase in price not decrease.
sr. member
Activity: 490
Merit: 250
I don't really come from outer space.

If you look at the following link, there was a distinction made by Kora between "existing" and "future" stakeholders.  This was the intended meaning of "existing stakeholders" - the original 800.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7696320


You certain?  Original stake holders at time of distribution would be "past" stakeholders.  Those who currently have Ora stakes on the asset exchange would be "existing" stakeholders.  Those who have no stakes at the moment, but who would like to have some Ora in the future would be "future" stakeholders.  No?
pt7
member
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
my proposal:
distribure oras to original shareholders.

why?
because it is simple and fair and should be done from the start.
as long as majority of coins are not distributed some people will consider ora scam or at least fishy.
Fair distribution was advertised as kora main advantage, you made mistake with initial distribution but it is easy to fix.
there is no point in overthinking it.

The initial poll was to distribute the rest to original stakeholders, wasn't it ? The way I see it ORA distribution is similar to Stellar's Facebook giveaways. The difference is that one uses forum account and the other uses Facebook account.

I also see a potential issue that some people mentioned. So far a original stakeholder our of 800+ received 1/3000 of 50%. Either continue with the plan to find 3000 stakeholders or distribute the rest of the 50% to the original stakeholders. Anything else represents a broken promise.  

"Distribute to existing stakeholders" is what won.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7629545

That is different than "Distribute to original stakeholders".

Besides, the poll was taken before real $$$ was put into Ora.  If it was respected and handled that way before appearing on NXT AE, then no problems.  Now that market has been established, more large giveaways harm those who believe(d) in Ora the most.  Don't disenfranchise your biggest supporters.

 

If you look at the following link, there was a distinction made by Kora between "existing" and "future" stakeholders.  This was the intended meaning of "existing stakeholders" - the original 800.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7696320
legendary
Activity: 1146
Merit: 1000
An observation:  the options to burn the remaining undistributed stakes, and to distribute the remaining stakes as a proportion of current holders are equivalent.  Either way, the current ratio remains the same and burning would be simpler.

Yes burning would be simpler and would avoid distribution criticisms. 
member
Activity: 108
Merit: 10
It seems like nobody like "dumpers" except me.
I will give you a real example,after the IPO of NXT some initial stakers sell their coin at such low price just want more people can join the community.The price is 1BTC=1000KNXT.Just because they sell their coin at such low price then more and more people can buy NXT at such low price.That's good for the NXT's development.
I have to say people shouldn't hate "dumpers" dump their stake(coin) at low price because they just do the right thing,they just spread the stake(coin) wildely.We should hate "dumpers" dump their stake(coin) at high price because they will harm the market.
sr. member
Activity: 490
Merit: 250
I don't really come from outer space.
An observation:  the options to burn the remaining undistributed stakes, and to distribute the remaining stakes as a proportion of current holders are equivalent.  Either way, the current ratio remains the same and burning would be simpler.
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 100
my proposal:
distribure oras to original shareholders.

why?
because it is simple and fair and should be done from the start.
as long as majority of coins are not distributed some people will consider ora scam or at least fishy.
Fair distribution was advertised as kora main advantage, you made mistake with initial distribution but it is easy to fix.
there is no point in overthinking it.

The initial poll was to distribute the rest to original stakeholders, wasn't it ? The way I see it ORA distribution is similar to Stellar's Facebook giveaways. The difference is that one uses forum account and the other uses Facebook account.

I also see a potential issue that some people mentioned. So far a original stakeholder our of 800+ received 1/3000 of 50%. Either continue with the plan to find 3000 stakeholders or distribute the rest of the 50% to the original stakeholders. Anything else represents a broken promise. 
member
Activity: 75
Merit: 12
my proposal:
distribure oras to original shareholders.

why?
because it is simple and fair and should be done from the start.
as long as majority of coins are not distributed some people will consider ora scam or at least fishy.
Fair distribution was advertised as kora main advantage, you made mistake with initial distribution but it is easy to fix.
there is no point in overthinking it.
legendary
Activity: 1146
Merit: 1000
Interesting how suddenly after Kora posted his thoughts a lot of big words are being thrown around; "mistake" about distribution, threats of dumping and concerns if we've joked about letting people actually vote, market manipulation...well at least something he said apparently lit the discussion. Don't get me wrong, people being passionate about something is a very good sign.

We are talking about a very large portion (almost 1/3) of total ORA ever to be in existence (315M).  What to do with this amount certainly seems a big deal.  And yes, I do consider it a mistake to let this question linger.  Would have been far easier to distribute all at beginning and be done with it.  Now we have many competing ideas, all which tout their own vision of 'fair'.

If we run some numbers:
* 889 * 166,666 = 148,166,074 distributed to first round entries.
* Of those, 125 no longer hold their stake = 20,833,250 dumped
* This has created total trade volume of 58,039,433.  Clearly, there are people day-trading on the spread and ups-and-downs already.
* If we assume another round of 315M distributed as before, expect around the same 15% to sell = ~47,250,000 newly released ORA dumped on market.
* For the early supporter who chose to buy after initial distribution, 47M dropped on market will almost certainly reduce the value of their holding significantly.
* With another round as presented, you are harming your most loyal supporters.

Sorry, I just can't agree an approach that devalues early market supporters.  I bought into Ora because I believed in the vision, and felt Kora had a strong commitment to building a healthy community.  Promoting an idea which economically damages your most ardent supporters is disheartening.

The options which I support are:
1. Burn it
2. Top-off existing holders based on balance
3. Reserve for PoS block rewards


My thoughts exactly.
full member
Activity: 224
Merit: 100
What you're saying is increase the bounty fund which itself is already pretty large. I prefer that to distributing to people who want free $. However this could draw fears regarding treasury holding such a large portion of ORA and scare people off.

"LOL DEV HOLDS 70% PREMINE LOL SCAMCOIN!" .. This can become a real concern once ORA actually becomes worth something significant.

Yes, i'm sure all those in charge are trustworthy and honest people but money is easily corruptible.

what I'm saying is to have everyone who votes decide who will get hired and paid. And it shouldn't be the dev to be holding the funds. They should be programming and earning more ORAS that way. We could even have that fund in an escrow and randomly pick 10 active ORA holders to set them in a 6/10 multisig something to be responsible for the funds and then rotate them on some predetermined time frame.
So who knows - next month maybe you'll be one of those 10. Just an example. Who is now holding NHZ? I believe we can do even better.

And I don't think anyone will be saying that: "LOL DEV HOLDS 70% PREMINE LOL SCAMCOIN!" because everyone had the chance to get in. An we can always advertise that the "devs" want to give that away in exchange for adding to the ORA value. Don't forget that the devs still hold 100% of ORA that even hasn't been created yet and that we all now play with assets that may never even be exchanged for real ORA one day at all and NO ONE is saying that now. :-) Funny isn't it.
legendary
Activity: 1146
Merit: 1000
sr. member
Activity: 299
Merit: 252
Interesting how suddenly after Kora posted his thoughts a lot of big words are being thrown around; "mistake" about distribution, threats of dumping and concerns if we've joked about letting people actually vote, market manipulation...well at least something he said apparently lit the discussion. Don't get me wrong, people being passionate about something is a very good sign.
full member
Activity: 224
Merit: 100
My take: (Tompa) (sorry for the wall of text but there is TL;DR at the end)

Don't give anything to anybody for free. Why? We already had a initial distribution phase. It went long enough and no one on BTT can say it ended prematurely or that somebody didn't have the chance to "get in on time".
What to do with the surplus Oras?

We didn't have a fancy Ethereum or similarly BIG IPO through which we acquired thousands of BTC to be able to spend money on developers or media or something like that. But we can still have ORA if we don't do this redistribution v2.0 now. I know we have a bounty fund but what I had in mind is what I'm propose in paragraph after next one. What will be achieved if we give more oras to those who already have it? Will it bring more people to support ORA? Will it help the growth (in price/engagement/loyalty etc)? I don't think so.

I want everyone in the world with computer and Internet access to be able to participate in projects/ideas like this one. I believe most of us do too. I would like to see a widespread adoption of cryptos and I would love to see ORA leading in that field. 900+ is not enough. And out of that number how many really active people do we really see here? We all know that cryptos are going to be big in the coming years. We are now in a perfect condition/time/place to decide what way to go and how. Although we have a fantastic team so far. I love everything our present leaders say and do and how they think. But that is not enough. We need entire divisions of marketing/legal/design/customer care (help to newbies)/development etc. Ethereum guys have money to hire them. We have Oras! NHZ started something that I think could be useful for us.
It was a good idea to have ORA on NXT AE. Now it is a fact that ORA has some value. And that value now can be further distributed to help attract more people and engagement and also holding.

Why not distribute all those ORA that haven't been distributed in the first round to those who are willing to work for it? That way some newbie can acquire oras and really be a part of the team and be encouraged to do so as well as someone who already has ORA stake (and even was buying ORA asset on AE). Also sockpuppeting is gone that way. We need motivated people who won't feel they've missed the boat! Who wouldn't like to join NXT and work now if there would be a big chunk of NXTs still to be distributed? Even BTC cannot do that in this stage any more. Imagine the opportunity we'd have for inviting new people in? You could go to a friend who is maybe not a programmer and say to him: Look here is a new crypto you can really be a part of and really get some coins and in return you can help it by doing ____ (betatesting/translating/spreading the word/etc) also It would be a great incentive to invite businesses to start accepting ORA - Look every actual business that accept ORA as payment method will be given x ora per day or month for he first year. And it shouldn't be a big amount. Few oras per day. or even a percentage of 1 ora per day. Imagine being able to tell businesses that they will be paid for accepting ORA?!? a really groundbreaking stuff.
Everyday there is a new coin that tries to have a good/fair distribution that will attract as much people possible and then everybody hopes that out of that number of people a few would emerge who would carry on their shoulders everybody else on their way "to the moon"TM. But we know it doesn't happen like that.

I've been thinking what can set ora apart from other cryptos and some of the ideas are to have designated spots for potential participants with set "payments" in ora for doing that task/job/role and also very important clearly set goals. We don't want to have someone saying that he'll be IDK a wiki guy/gal and then after x months and X amount of ORA we have a 3 page wiki. I love the starfish approach and I think that is only way to have a really decentralized project and we need now to work on a solutions how to be able to make decisions quickly and in the same time allow everyone to participate. System for this MUST be included in the client. Similar to what Kora was thinking in development thread, I think it would be awesome to have fee free transactions. everyone who has the stake in ORA will be responsible for the network and also merchants. They have their computers on all the time anyway and if they want to be able to see when someone pays them, they have to run the client anyway. I think spam preventing fees should be introduced selectively. Example: If I'm going to be sending 10-20 or even a 100 transactions per day that shouldn't burden the network too much but if I want to run something like oradice then fees should be incorporated and those fees should return to this fund to pay the work. I hate fees. If I can send an email for free I should be able to send cryptos as well. For the beginning to avoid DDOS attacks and to draw more people into running the nodes, they could be paid similar to what NHZ is doing. But ora could be way better at that then NHZ if it is successful in figuring out a system how to collectively make propositions and decisions. Each point of that starfish can even have some kind of autonomy like a board.

For instance marketing point of the starfish could form somekind of a board of several people who are specialists in marketing and they would have their meetings and work similar how nioccoin is now in charge of dev. and after they've done their part they would just need a confirmation on final voting of the community. Quick and easy.

Another example: picking of logo. I'm not a designer, and I don't want to see (and take the life of my mouse wheel scrolling) here in this thread dozens of logo applications and ideas out of which 90% are total crap. Instead I want to be presented with one post with top 3 logos that our design gurus have chosen are the best and they explained the story behind those logos and then we just vote which we all like the best. and that design gurus should be paid in oras for taking all the submissions in, looking at them, improving the design, communicating to logo creators what we are seeking, making the choice down to top 3 etc. And of course the winner for the logo be paid in ora as well.

Key requirement for this to even be possible is to have a great voting system and also a great and convenient way to propose stuff. If we could have that in our clients that would really be groundbreaking. Imagine that everyone can really be a part of ORA. With this everyone would matter, every tip of the starfish would have it's own purpose and it would be transparent and well organized as well as we would

TL;DR: Don't redistribute ORAS for free. Instead pay people to participate but with clear goals and results - NHZ influenced idea. No fees. Bounties for running a node.

Guys what do you think?

BTW, does anyone know why this http://nxtreporting.com/shareholder.php?a=16194910134118257692 hasn't been updated in 8 days?
legendary
Activity: 1146
Merit: 1000
POS block rewards is also a good idea
newbie
Activity: 40
Merit: 0

ORA distribution option:[*Sakura*] - version 1.0.0.0

1 Give the second shares to existing stakeholders. But only to those who hold at least 50% of the first share. In my opinion, those people who have sold their entire share - a classic dumpers. These people do not believe in the success of any currency other than BTC. So if they get the second part, with a probability of 200% they will do it again after few seconds.
2 Keep the acceptable amount for later distribution & future bounties.
3 Implement an automated system of stakeholders bounty. You can ask for help from NHZ developers. [/b]

This seems reasonable to me. I would state that it should be original stakeholders, not all existing stakeholders,, unless you want things to get overly complicated. You could end up with people who hold a lot of ORA simply splitting up their coins into different accounts, to then appear like multiple people... expecting multiple 2nd stakes then. If you just go with the original list, and reward those who held at least 50% of their stake, it'd seem fair and simple to me.

It may also have the bonus of weeding out a lot of puppets too, as I'd guess a lot of puppets tend to sell off quickly.


Well, my advice to you is similar, or not, or to allocate shares now held by the user, there is no absolute fairness.

legendary
Activity: 1573
Merit: 1057
I agree with Ochi. If it weren't for a dumper I would not have received any stake. I was not aware of Ora until after the distribution process ended, so I joined late. Probably there are other people that are in the same situation than me.

^ Give more to people like mess-lelouch ^

Give nothing to those who don't believe in Ora enough that they sold at first opportunity.

Give a bonus to all who have Ora tokens as % of current balance.
+1
hero member
Activity: 1204
Merit: 509

ORA distribution option:[*Sakura*] - version 1.0.0.0

1 Give the second shares to existing stakeholders. But only to those who hold at least 50% of the first share. In my opinion, those people who have sold their entire share - a classic dumpers. These people do not believe in the success of any currency other than BTC. So if they get the second part, with a probability of 200% they will do it again after few seconds.
2 Keep the acceptable amount for later distribution & future bounties.
3 Implement an automated system of stakeholders bounty. You can ask for help from NHZ developers. [/b]

This seems reasonable to me. I would state that it should be original stakeholders, not all existing stakeholders,, unless you want things to get overly complicated. You could end up with people who hold a lot of ORA simply splitting up their coins into different accounts, to then appear like multiple people... expecting multiple 2nd stakes then. If you just go with the original list, and reward those who held at least 50% of their stake, it'd seem fair and simple to me.

It may also have the bonus of weeding out a lot of puppets too, as I'd guess a lot of puppets tend to sell off quickly.
newbie
Activity: 6
Merit: 0
i agree with kora.
Why dumpers can't receive their stake?Dump their coin is not a fault,if nobody dump the stake then nobody can buy,because of those weakhands so that i can buy more cheap stake,it's good,is it?If a coin(stake) want a health development then dumpers is important.For example,if everyone of us grab our coin(stake) tightly then it stops new member to our community.I always hate the name "dumper" because those "dumper" help us spread the coin(stake) wildly!

I agree with Ochi. If it weren't for a dumper I would not have received any stake. I was not aware of Ora until after the distribution process ended, so I joined late. Probably there are other people that are in the same situation than me.
member
Activity: 108
Merit: 10
i agree with kora.
Why dumpers can't receive their stake?Dump their coin is not a fault,if nobody dump the stake then nobody can buy,because of those weakhands so that i can buy more cheap stake,it's good,is it?If a coin(stake) want a health development then dumpers is important.For example,if everyone of us grab our coin(stake) tightly then it stops new member to our community.I always hate the name "dumper" because those "dumper" help us spread the coin(stake) wildly!
member
Activity: 66
Merit: 10
Also a suggestion. If we are definitely going to give some extra ora to 1st stake holders, why dont we just concentrate on that first, make a decision and distribute away. Putting everything in 1 plate will cause a mess. My honest opinion.


We could break the issue into smaller chunks. If we do give existing stakeholders a top-up then we need to decide:
- how much of the left-over stakes we give them
- who is eligible

IMO if someone was on the original list they were a stakeholder, and if they dumped that was their choice, and their right as an ORA stakeholder, and it's ok with me.

You're not a 'bad guy' if you dumped your stake, and if it let another guy buy ORA who valued them more, then that's the advantage & efficiency of a market mechanism, and I welcome that - it's a win win!

I'm not in favour of carrot & stick incentives to try and make people hold. I want voluntary hodl'ing, and the free market can give us that. If some people instantly dump the top-up, then some other people will buy it, no problem. just don't worry about the price.

I think if we try and exclude original stakeholders based on whether they sold or not we set a bad precedent and it will come back to haunt us. If I choose to go and live overseas should I relinquish my citizenship? No, of course not, my nationality was my birthright, and nobody can take it from me. NXT had 73 stakeholders, QORA had 137, and ORA had ~880! There aren't good stakeholders & bad stakeholders, just rational people making their own decision. That's freedom, and I like it!

It might sound silly, but our initial stakeholder list was based on an honest & fair process, and we should be proud of that, and we shouldn't discriminate against ANY stakeholders who exercised their free choice and sold.

Sockpuppets, if identified, are another story though, and we should eject them if the evidence is conclusive.

I support this. Once we are done with this, we can fully concentrate on the idea of new distribution via video submissions. Getting very impatient with the video idea. That will be a very fun process.  Grin

Edit: current status as of now (not a confirmation) from nxtreporting, 701 is still holding. So rough calculation 125/825 has sold off. Now does that make a huge difference or impact?

It doesn't change my opinion, but that's just me.

If anybody strongly disagrees with me (you think dumpers should NOT get a top-up, or there should be some minimum hodl amount), SPEAK UP!

I might be wrong, and you might be right ... convince me Smiley

I totally disagree with this line of thinking!

1. I have explained here why there should be no additional stake for those that dumped their initial stake:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8114020

2. You said that this will be decided by voting. Obviously the stakeholders that vote will not vote to give stake to the dumpers. You must be fully aware of that.

3. I will tell you what I will do if you insist on this non-sense approach and try to convince everybody this is the way to go (even worst if you decide it without voting). I will sell my stake before all those dumpers. Why - I will get a better price if I sell before them. When they got their new stake they will dump driving the price even lower. Then I can re-evaluate, and decide if I want back in at those extra low prices, or if the decision was made from the top (i.e. no vote) - just stay out.

Pages:
Jump to: