Topic: [ANN] ORA :: NXT 'monetary system' currency - page 30. (Read 181197 times)

That make sense. Stakeholders bounty would be great.

I agree with points made by Sakura

ORA distribution option: Megashira1

Burn the remaining assets intended for distribution. The stakeholder list was finalized and stakes were issued. Those who sold, sold and those who held held.
Why make those who believe in the project have to pay for it? What does 2nd,3rd,4th round distribution do other than hurt shareholders? If we wanted to increase the distribution pool why not have waited longer before issuing the assets on the AE? Distribution was intended for 3k, it topped off at 900, some sold and the remaining stakeholders stands at 700ish; burn the rest.

Agree

Reward those who have maintained

This should have been set prelaunch

+1

I totally agree! You can't give people something freely and then expect them to do what you want with it or else be penalized. People who sold their stake the minute they got them shouldn't have to feel guilty. It's their choice and it's totally ok. Plus they are only redistributing the coins anyway.

My suggestion:

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.

Agree.



My suggestion:

ORA distribution option:[curT] - version 1.0

- Give 100,000 ORA to existing stakeholders.
- Keep the rest for later distribution.( very important IMHO, do not distribute all ORA now )

Exactly. A few more still have the option to secure their NXT IDs and get onto the list before the next (and final) update on Thursday. But other than that we currently got a list of 825 stakeholders.

Yes, and it is more easy to do, while the list of stakeholder already exists and is ready.

@Kora
That does make sense and I have to agree with this idea more (not being selective) after reading your post. It could very well motivate someone who has sold their first stake to keep their second. Either way it's not our decision to make, there was never rule against not holding. Not being judgemental and just "letting the chips fall where they may" when it comes to whatever the market decides is cool with me. Should be noted we won't have a complete stakeholder list until next week (I wouldn't expect all 889 to make it in time)

The discussion and brainstorming is everywhere.Good job,we just need that!

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

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. 

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?

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.

A committee that samples community attitudes & opinions and then comes up with the voting options could work. It's worth exploring. The danger is most crypto people are libertarians in favour of decentralisation, and lots of people will see a red flag when someone starts talking about forming committees. I'd be open to exploring that option, as a smaller decision making unit has many advantages. We can learn from NXT experience a lot on this topic.

In business the most effective decision making system is often a dictatorship, but ORA isn't a business.  I think a guy like Richard Branson is very successful because he's a smart dictator who knows how to delegate effectively, and he gives his people lots of autonomy. ORA can't use that model because we have no leader, so the 'benevolent dictator' setup is not an option for us. eMunie is a benevolent dictatorship, and It'll be interesting to see how that plays out once it launches.

It's a critical issue for all crypto projects - what organisational setup can best bootstrap a decentralised P2P financial network? It all ties in with the distribution and the tech too, PoW vs PoS, IPO vs FREE stakes vs mining.

Doge shows that identical tech with different 'organisation' can make a big difference, at least in the short term. The tech is important, but it's not the only factor, and if crypto gets hit by onerous regulations from government, then being able to function as a community and make decisions without making individual people targets could be critical to success.

Form a small community committee. It will be then well organised.

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.

Balance stakes = (3000(allocated) - 889(first round reg) × 166,666) = 351,831,926. This is the number provided if all 889 receive their stakes.

Just for clarity how much ORA is intended for distribution purposes?

Some great community discussion going on here, well done! I've made my preferences known before, so I'll stay out of the discussion for now. What I would suggest is we start trying to establish what the different  'options' we'll have for the vote.

If you have a strong opinion on how we should distribute the remaining ORA assets (i.e. the left over stakes from the initial distribution) then consider presenting a brief summary of the option for other people to consider. Maybe if everyone uses a common format it'll be easier for the 'collective' to hone in on the proposals with the most consensus. Some people are making general suggestions which are very useful, but some are offering a complete plan.

Maybe present options like this:

ORA distribution option:[YOUR USERNAME] - version X
- blah blah
- blah blah
etc

If you modify your 'option' after getting feedback, repost the modified version with a different version number. Once you're happy change the version number to FINAL

If we follow a process like this it might help. Some of us have a complete plan in mind, but others might choose to support someone else's plan, but suggest a modification.

If ORA is to succeed, and we end up using some form of 'voting' system then we'll need to develop our own processes, similar to how a parliament works I guess.

In most parliamentary systems new 'bills' are submitted for debate, and some will choose to support the bill, some will try and amend it slightly, and some will reject it completely and put up a rival 'bill'. As ORA is leaderless we don't have anything like a government or a President/Prime minister, but we do have a parliament of sorts (i.e. this forum), and so all our 'bills' would be known as a  'private members bill', at least in my country.

If we're to work effectively together then there'll obviously be many different opinions, and if we end up having as many options to vote on as interested people it'll become very difficult to move forward. We need a process that listens to everyone's opinions, and then forms those into a few basic 'options' which can be amended slightly, and then when supporters of the different options are satisfied with their amended final version, we vote.

Let's not fool ourselves, this process WILL be very difficult at times. If the process completely breaks down you can end up with people rejecting the process, and you have a civil war, and maybe a dissolution of your community, or some form of break up, or maybe even a dictator steps in to tell everyone what to do.

It's still worth doing even if it's hard