Pages:
Author

Topic: [ANN] ORA :: NXT 'monetary system' currency - page 31. (Read 181202 times)

legendary
Activity: 1146
Merit: 1000
Actually cant you just burn shares to increase share value? This would be the easiest way.

No, because 1 asset= 1 ORA
After "burning" 1 asset will be = 100%/(sum of all assets) of ORA total supply. But I personally like dump-proof addtitional distribution more  Roll Eyes

How would you provide dump proof distribution?

Offer some sort of illiquid claim check on a stake that only materializes after 4 months of holding, and if traded gets void. This will bring supporters on board without hurting the price.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 500
Actually cant you just burn shares to increase share value? This would be the easiest way.

No, because 1 asset= 1 ORA
After "burning" 1 asset will be = 100%/(sum of all assets) of ORA total supply. But I personally like dump-proof addtitional distribution more  Roll Eyes
legendary
Activity: 1146
Merit: 1000
Actually cant you just burn shares to increase share value? This would be the easiest way.

No, because 1 asset= 1 ORA

What does that mean? We're thinking on a way to distribute the remaining coins to the stakeholders. Solution is just burn the remaining assets.

Then when coin distribution comes around deliver coins based on % of supply.
full member
Activity: 225
Merit: 100
Actually cant you just burn shares to increase share value? This would be the easiest way.

No, because 1 asset= 1 ORA
legendary
Activity: 1146
Merit: 1000
Actually cant you just burn shares to increase share value? This would be the easiest way.

But won't it defeat the purpose of fair distribution to other people who can get stakes in 2nd round of distribution,  as we even couldn't distribute to 1000 users in first round.

The distribution was fair - over 800 stake holders. People who get stakes now will just dump and hurt actual stakeholders who are now invested.
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 500
Actually cant you just burn shares to increase share value? This would be the easiest way.

But won't it defeat the purpose of fair distribution to other people who can get stakes in 2nd round of distribution,  as we even couldn't distribute to 1000 users in first round.
legendary
Activity: 1146
Merit: 1000
Actually cant you just burn shares to increase share value? This would be the easiest way.
sr. member
Activity: 299
Merit: 252
@curT
About later distributions, why not IMO. Cool If we do it once (generate list C) it'd be very easy to replicate for more rounds. At least if the automatic distribution thingy works properly.
legendary
Activity: 1146
Merit: 1000
You coul do something like this :

Liste C :     balance > 100,000  gets additional  of 50,000
                 balance > 150,000  gets additional  of 75,000
                 balance > 200,000  gets additional  of 100,000
                 balance > 300,000  gets additional  of 125,000
                 ....

keep the rest for later distribution. (3rd round, 4th round,.... )


I like this too, but you have to consider the extra workload that this might involve. Remember there was no IPO for this coin and as such, no paid devs.
Yes they are getting ORA and they believe in the project or they wouldn't be doing it. Also remember that anyone in the community can chip in and help with some of these tasks.

Possible negative amplifier: dumper(s) buy X ORA to gain Y% bonus over other holders. Then dumps everything after receiving the bigger shares.

yeah maybe,
but i think the price  will rise and then it is " too expensive " to buy ORA to gain Y% bonus.
The challange is to find a just  balance between the x balance in list C and the x ORA you get.


Ya I dunno personally I'd prefer static volumes, calculated by how many people make it to list C. Sounds most fair if everyone eligible gets equal share instead of handing out more to those who've afforded to buy more. But yeah of course it should be discussed.


Yes, i also don't like the idea of the " rich getting richer" but how do we prevent dump and keep ORA value.

Dumps will likely happen either way but I'd argue it's perhaps less risky if we give everyone equal share. Don't see the benefit over mixing up bonuses to different stakeholders VS the possible confusion/time/"it's unfair" arguments we might face.

Yes that is fair i think.
What about  a later distribution (3rd round, 4th round,5th round,.... ) to keep stakeholders intrested in ORA and not sell (or dump) and leave.


If everyone's stake increases the same proportionally in theory nothing will be dumped as no extra value has been gained.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
You coul do something like this :

Liste C :     balance > 100,000  gets additional  of 50,000
                 balance > 150,000  gets additional  of 75,000
                 balance > 200,000  gets additional  of 100,000
                 balance > 300,000  gets additional  of 125,000
                 ....

keep the rest for later distribution. (3rd round, 4th round,.... )


I like this too, but you have to consider the extra workload that this might involve. Remember there was no IPO for this coin and as such, no paid devs.
Yes they are getting ORA and they believe in the project or they wouldn't be doing it. Also remember that anyone in the community can chip in and help with some of these tasks.

Possible negative amplifier: dumper(s) buy X ORA to gain Y% bonus over other holders. Then dumps everything after receiving the bigger shares.

yeah maybe,
but i think the price  will rise and then it is " too expensive " to buy ORA to gain Y% bonus.
The challange is to find a just  balance between the x balance in list C and the x ORA you get.


Ya I dunno personally I'd prefer static volumes, calculated by how many people make it to list C. Sounds most fair if everyone eligible gets equal share instead of handing out more to those who've afforded to buy more. But yeah of course it should be discussed.


Yes, i also don't like the idea of the " rich getting richer" but how do we prevent dump and keep ORA value.

Dumps will likely happen either way but I'd argue it's perhaps less risky if we give everyone equal share. Don't see the benefit over mixing up bonuses to different stakeholders VS the possible confusion/time/"it's unfair" arguments we might face.

Yes that is fair i think.
What about  a later distribution (3rd round, 4th round,5th round,.... ) to keep stakeholders intrested in ORA and not sell (or dump) and leave.
sr. member
Activity: 252
Merit: 250
Dont care about the price.
sr. member
Activity: 299
Merit: 252
You coul do something like this :

Liste C :     balance > 100,000  gets additional  of 50,000
                 balance > 150,000  gets additional  of 75,000
                 balance > 200,000  gets additional  of 100,000
                 balance > 300,000  gets additional  of 125,000
                 ....

keep the rest for later distribution. (3rd round, 4th round,.... )


I like this too, but you have to consider the extra workload that this might involve. Remember there was no IPO for this coin and as such, no paid devs.
Yes they are getting ORA and they believe in the project or they wouldn't be doing it. Also remember that anyone in the community can chip in and help with some of these tasks.

Possible negative amplifier: dumper(s) buy X ORA to gain Y% bonus over other holders. Then dumps everything after receiving the bigger shares.

yeah maybe,
but i think the price  will rise and then it is " too expensive " to buy ORA to gain Y% bonus.
The challange is to find a just  balance between the x balance in list C and the x ORA you get.


Ya I dunno personally I'd prefer static volumes, calculated by how many people make it to list C. Sounds most fair if everyone eligible gets equal share instead of handing out more to those who've afforded to buy more. But yeah of course it should be discussed.


Yes, i also don't like the idea of the " rich getting richer" but how do we prevent dump and keep ORA value.

Dumps will likely happen either way but I'd argue it's perhaps less risky if we give everyone equal share. Don't see the benefit of mixing up bonuses to different stakeholders VS the possible confusion/time/"it's unfair" arguments we might face. If we can keep things as simple as possible that'd be the best road to take IMO.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
You coul do something like this :

Liste C :     balance > 100,000  gets additional  of 50,000
                 balance > 150,000  gets additional  of 75,000
                 balance > 200,000  gets additional  of 100,000
                 balance > 300,000  gets additional  of 125,000
                 ....

keep the rest for later distribution. (3rd round, 4th round,.... )


I like this too, but you have to consider the extra workload that this might involve. Remember there was no IPO for this coin and as such, no paid devs.
Yes they are getting ORA and they believe in the project or they wouldn't be doing it. Also remember that anyone in the community can chip in and help with some of these tasks.

Possible negative amplifier: dumper(s) buy X ORA to gain Y% bonus over other holders. Then dumps everything after receiving the bigger shares.

yeah maybe,
but i think the price  will rise and then it is " too expensive " to buy ORA to gain Y% bonus.
The challange is to find a just  balance between the x balance in list C and the x ORA you get.


Ya I dunno personally I'd prefer static volumes, calculated by how many people make it to list C. Sounds most fair if everyone eligible gets equal share instead of handing out more to those who've afforded to buy more. But yeah of course it should be discussed.


Yes, i also don't like the idea of the " rich getting richer" but how do we prevent dump and keep ORA value.
legendary
Activity: 1146
Merit: 1000
Just decide on a % increase per 1 ORA held and problem solved.

sr. member
Activity: 299
Merit: 252
You coul do something like this :

Liste C :     balance > 100,000  gets additional  of 50,000
                 balance > 150,000  gets additional  of 75,000
                 balance > 200,000  gets additional  of 100,000
                 balance > 300,000  gets additional  of 125,000
                 ....

keep the rest for later distribution. (3rd round, 4th round,.... )


I like this too, but you have to consider the extra workload that this might involve. Remember there was no IPO for this coin and as such, no paid devs.
Yes they are getting ORA and they believe in the project or they wouldn't be doing it. Also remember that anyone in the community can chip in and help with some of these tasks.

Possible negative amplifier: dumper(s) buy X ORA to gain Y% bonus over other holders. Then dumps everything after receiving the bigger shares.

yeah maybe,
but i think the price  will rise and then it is " too expensive " to buy ORA to gain Y% bonus.
The challange is to find a just  balance between the x balance in list C and the x ORA you get.


Ya I dunno personally I'd prefer static volumes, calculated by how many people make it to list C. Sounds most fair if everyone eligible gets equal share instead of handing out more to those who've afforded to buy more. Since not everyone is in an equal economic position but could still be very commited to the project. Keeping X% of one's original stake would be enough "evidence". But yeah of course it should be discussed.
sr. member
Activity: 252
Merit: 250
Just saw this. This could be the solution. Need to test first though

I made a new release and updated the OP.

Version 5 has the ability to choose the timestamp for dividend calculation and the ability to pay in assets.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
You coul do something like this :

Liste C :     balance > 100,000  gets additional  of 50,000
                 balance > 150,000  gets additional  of 75,000
                 balance > 200,000  gets additional  of 100,000
                 balance > 300,000  gets additional  of 125,000
                 ....

keep the rest for later distribution. (3rd round, 4th round,.... )


I like this too, but you have to consider the extra workload that this might involve. Remember there was no IPO for this coin and as such, no paid devs.
Yes they are getting ORA and they believe in the project or they wouldn't be doing it. Also remember that anyone in the community can chip in and help with some of these tasks.

Possible negative amplifier: dumper(s) buy X ORA to gain Y% bonus over other holders. Then dumps everything after receiving the bigger shares.

yeah maybe,
but i think the price  will rise and then it is " too expensive " to buy ORA to gain Y% bonus.
The challange is to find a just  balance between the x balance in list C and the x ORA you get.
And also if there is a later distribution (3rd round, 4th round,.... ) will encourage to hold and buy.

until ora reaches a naturale value.

hero member
Activity: 1204
Merit: 509
You coul do something like this :

Liste C :     balance > 100,000  gets additional  of 50,000
                 balance > 150,000  gets additional  of 75,000
                 balance > 200,000  gets additional  of 100,000
                 balance > 300,000  gets additional  of 125,000
                 ....

keep the rest for later distribution. (3rd round, 4th round,.... )


I like this too, but you have to consider the extra workload that this might involve. Remember there was no IPO for this coin and as such, no paid devs.
Yes they are getting ORA and they believe in the project or they wouldn't be doing it. Also remember that anyone in the community can chip in and help with some of these tasks.

Possible negative amplifier: dumper(s) buy X ORA to gain Y% bonus over other holders. Then dumps everything after receiving the bigger shares.


A possibility. Using comm as an example, there was a dump right after the 2nd round finished up. The coin recovered from that though (at least initially).

It may be easiest to just use a set proportion. Say if a holder held 100%, he gets the full 2nd round. If he held 50% of his initial stakes, he gets half that amount, and so on. Leftovers over can be used for dev work/bounties.

As for dumpers buying X Ora to gain a bonus ... there is a way around it. Don't announce it. Just one day figure out what everyone is holding, then say the 2nd round will be based on that distribution. It won't matter then if dumpers buy extra ORA, as that set calculation will have already taken place.

People may still dump anyway, but the problem of initial dumpers dumping even more coin wouldn't be an issue.

sr. member
Activity: 299
Merit: 252
You coul do something like this :

Liste C :     balance > 100,000  gets additional  of 50,000
                 balance > 150,000  gets additional  of 75,000
                 balance > 200,000  gets additional  of 100,000
                 balance > 300,000  gets additional  of 125,000
                 ....

keep the rest for later distribution. (3rd round, 4th round,.... )


I like this too, but you have to consider the extra workload that this might involve. Remember there was no IPO for this coin and as such, no paid devs.
Yes they are getting ORA and they believe in the project or they wouldn't be doing it. Also remember that anyone in the community can chip in and help with some of these tasks.

Possible negative amplifier: dumper(s) buy X ORA to gain Y% bonus over other holders. Then dumps everything after receiving the bigger shares.
member
Activity: 86
Merit: 10
You coul do something like this :

Liste C :     balance > 100,000  gets additional  of 50,000
                 balance > 150,000  gets additional  of 75,000
                 balance > 200,000  gets additional  of 100,000
                 balance > 300,000  gets additional  of 125,000
                 ....

keep the rest for later distribution. (3rd round, 4th round,.... )


I like this too, but you have to consider the extra workload that this might involve. Remember there was no IPO for this coin and as such, no paid devs.
Yes they are getting ORA and they believe in the project or they wouldn't be doing it. Also remember that anyone in the community can chip in and help with some of these tasks.
Pages:
Jump to: