Topic: [NEM] NEM -New Economy Movement - No Envy Movement - Updates+Discussion thread - page 473. (Read 661525 times)

But multiple accounts was 'allowed' in the first statement, I think my issue is if you change the game rules half way your going to get a lot of people pissed. With sock puppet accounts you get annoyed complainers upset with the idea that somone has more than them. But changing the rules halfway could seriously give the coin bad PR from the start. People here should be careful not to complain too much cause if they do they will destroy the coin then no one benefits, its hard to promote a coin on the idea of no envy when you have a ton of people full of envy on the forums

I also think you just not going to get too many massive holders. The majority will have one stake...hopefully.

1.) You forgot the 200 free initial "interested" investors in the first 20 page...

2.) If you want to use a new "dictated" law for those who registered and sent the money before you "dictated" it will just simply kill the coin, you can't see any similar regulation what applied in the past, even according to most countries law's if there would be a new punishment law you can't apply the new one to the criminals who did something before the law created.

3.) If you really wan't to apply the new "law" to the old investors why don't just delete the first 200 "interested" page investors? That was unfair for my opinion, the new ones even sockpuppets with 2-5 account are sending true money, not just some post.... interested lol.

4.) You here all see all  this wrong, I have some friend who just came and created a btcorg acount just for THIS, you want to kill their chaches to be involved in the crypto world, you just want bigger shares for you old veterans. Even there were some cheat there like sockpuppet_1...2 and admiral_fu's methods, or the guy who sent his 5 or more hashes with strong font, yeah its a bit interesting but what if the newcomer just saw that and he thought OOH yeas I need to write the transaction with B. You can't prove it was cheat.

5.) Or what if the transaction came from the same XCHANGEor COLD WALLET, I think there are far more less sockpuppet account that you assume, I think its not more than 20, thats nothing for 4000 investors.

6.) If you would make some post restriction like 10, it would kill this coin for the newscomers, that would be the true sockpuppet account battle, only the old time veteran btcorg forumers would participate.

7.) Promotion for entry isn't a good idea though, crypto is half means anonymous, you won't post on your FB to tell everybody where you save your money online...

The best what you could do is to stop it after 2000 investor, I don't think this could reach 4000. Thats a hell lot eve if its cheap now, even NXT had 73 investor what worked for 2 months.
And 2000 investor is a lot, you could say about this coin it distributed well.

Registered and active in facebook, twitter etc, not BTC.org.
My bad, i'll edit my original post

I believe, you have to allow new account to ask for a spot, new user is good! but what we need to do is make it harder for sockpuppet to get more share. That will increase fairness, it is impossible to be 100% fair anyway.

I think you underestimate the unfairness of NXT distribution. Literally the power was in a handful of peoples hands and some could argue that they were 'in' on the release so there was very little public opportunity at all. NEM has that access, no its not perfect but is mining perfect?

It is on page 76 now so we better be quick. My proposition :

• Keep fee as is, or add a fixed amount for every x pages to ensure growth of project

but

• Add rule that promotion elsewhere (FB, Twiter, G+) must be made by an account that has been registered & active since Jan 01 at least

Fee should not change in a radical way, people will be upset
but promoting with original (and older than the project) social media accounts can hinder sockpuppets

Little refreshment between sockpuppet debate  
Which one do you like better? I was rethinking my proposal for symbol. Now it may resemble more the infinity-sign rather than dollar. I will update 3d and graphics if I come to that conclusion...

I don't want to sound negative but the fair distribution is pretty much all that sets NEM apart from NXT. Sockpuppets could render this moot and are therefore a serious problem that I think should be dealt with not matter what page we're at.

Problem
If you do anything retroactively its tricky cause you have already allowed a guy with accounts called 'sockpuppet-1' etc and said multiple accounts were allowed. People will cry foul then you'll have a headache of complaining people. I don't want my NEM diluted too much but I'm still happy at the idea of getting 1M. I was so annoyed I didn't get in on NXT, the distribution was crazy with some with 50M etc that's the same as like 200 accounts of NEM due to it having less coins overall. Even the most dedicated sock puppets maker couldnt do that, and if they do then maybe they deserve it!

Solution
I think a simple post count would stop sock puppets maybe 10 cause with delay to post that's still a massive hassle for anyone wanting to game the system. Or how about posting a 100 word reason why they think they deserve to have the NEM? You only need to slow down sock puppets, cause you can't stop them completely, best just slow them down while others get their stake in.

My opinion
To be honest I feel its fair in the sense people have access this time and a heads up that the price 'might' increase a lot at the start, so people have time and foresight to buy. I honestly think people will be able to buy in early maybe even cheaper than the amounts being asked now, I plan to buy from the start. I think the idea that there was 4,000 accounts will be enough in peoples mind to know that it was a relatively fair distribution I think. You will always get complainers what ever you do, in many ways the complainers are breaking the spirit of the thing by their envy of a few sock puppet accounts. And a word of advice from someone who teaches children for a living. Don't be wishywashy on any rule you do decide, decide it, stick with it and don't change or move it. It opens things up for complainers.
Thats my 5 cents, maybe others have a different opinion.

oops, wrong thread

After checking both the nxt wallet and the bitcoin wallet I am a bit confused. There are less than 800 transactions combined. Some of the bitcoin transactions don't seem to be from buy-ins, so even less. The stakeholder doc lists well over 1000 users. Am I missing something or just being paranoid? It's almost like a bunch of those sock puppet accounts never actually sent any funds.

OK, I must have missed something.  I guess I don't see the difference between the genesis block creation and the fundraising efforts (that include developer stake).  Also, what is this additional funding you mention, and how does that stake compare to the stake being applied to this round of fundraising?

Also let's hear other opinions from the community.

Disagree. As I explain here  "Yep, the fundraising has some incentives built in so probably not perfectly fair. But when we start the genesis block, every stakeholders have an exactly equal footing- the term "completely fair distribution" indicates the fairness at genesis block not at the fund raising. That's being said NEM fundraising is still much better than some other cryptos". NEM fundraising is very different model from any other crypto to date.

To be honest, the project is very well funded by an amount much bigger than the fundraising here;I have guaranteed that the fund raised here won't be touched until we launch the genesis block.  

Understood.  Just as an FYI, I did recommend to a few people that they get in on this.  I have since told them that if they haven't already, not to bother.  At this point, it's not much different than NXT anymore.  At $5USD it was just a lottery ticket.  At $20 it's not worth the effort if we see the same concern.

Agreed, but I still think it should be done before page 81.  It's not much, but at least it means using mutliple BCT.org accounts and multiple funding acounts.  

Not as applying new law retrospectively, imho.

Not in my opinion.  It is in your FAQ...

4. How could you prevent multiple buy-ins ?

In short - We can't. Multiple buy-in will be possible with multiple accounts. We also want you to have the ability to buy a NEM stake for your loved ones so they could all join the movement. However accumulating many NEM stakes goes against NEM's principles of fairness and equality, therefore the development team reserves the right to refund you the money if an effort to unfairly accumulate NEM stakes is discovered.

Think the NEM reputation is taking a pretty big hit on this already.

How about we will check the sending address, if this address has sent money to NEM account before then the money sent will be considered a donation ?

No we don't apply a new law retrospectively since it will ruin NEM's reputation.