Dear community,
I would like to point out the following situation:
Some members who have applied to join the New Economic Movement have lost access to their BTT account.
In a few cases, these same people have made contact with the development team with a second (new) account in order to claim their token.
I have come up with a simple system in which these tokens can be reclaimed by the rightful owner without risking the original owner getting scammed.
System:
The developers assign two types of priorities to the following accounts:
Priority 1 (highest priority): The original (lost) BTT account.
Priority 2 (lowest priority): The new BTT account.
Then, whenever someone claims to have lost access to an account, the developers would have to carefully inspect the case and hand over a so called "temporary token".
If the original owner claims the token from the original account at a later point in time, the developers would have to remove the "temporary token" from the list and blacklist the person who had claimed a "temporary token".
If the original owner is in fact the same person as the one who claimed the "temporary token", the stake has found it's way back to it's owner.
With this simple system, you can help those who are in a bad situation while preventing any scam.
Feedback is welcome!
I would like to point out the following situation:
Some members who have applied to join the New Economic Movement have lost access to their BTT account.
In a few cases, these same people have made contact with the development team with a second (new) account in order to claim their token.
I have come up with a simple system in which these tokens can be reclaimed by the rightful owner without risking the original owner getting scammed.
System:
The developers assign two types of priorities to the following accounts:
Priority 1 (highest priority): The original (lost) BTT account.
Priority 2 (lowest priority): The new BTT account.
Then, whenever someone claims to have lost access to an account, the developers would have to carefully inspect the case and hand over a so called "temporary token".
If the original owner claims the token from the original account at a later point in time, the developers would have to remove the "temporary token" from the list and blacklist the person who had claimed a "temporary token".
If the original owner is in fact the same person as the one who claimed the "temporary token", the stake has found it's way back to it's owner.
With this simple system, you can help those who are in a bad situation while preventing any scam.
Feedback is welcome!
To continue with this discussion, when and how are we as a community going to decide what to do with these particular stakeholders?
It'd probably be better to open a vote forum.nemcoin.com (I'll do that).
From the reactions here though, I don't think they'll vote in favor or giving lost btt accounts stakes.
The reason why I think a vote is unfair for the people who have lost their BTT account is because people who vote against the reimbursement have something to GAIN when they vote for neither. After all, those people might only act out of self-interest keeping in mind that those NEM stakes probably will get redistributed into the NEM economy and into THEIR wallets.
This puts an incentive on voting AGAINST reimbursement, leaving the already duped in an even more negative position.
Therefore the vote will always be biased and can not result in a fair outcome for the people who lost their stake.
Although I completely get your argument here, if those who participated in NEM (via claiming a stake) also acted out of self-interest and did their homework, this entire scenario would've been avoidable in the first place. Bare in mind the IPO was a call of participation; it wasn't your conventional "investment"; it was a request for people to participate and help develop NEM, it was more than an investment, it was a movement and a call to join said movement. The New Economy Movement.
I voted against purely for this reason. Not because of some agenda or some bias. I think long term NEM would suffer considerably if devs bent over backwards to accommodate to those who lost their stake through their own errors or neglect (especially when, as a movement, following it should be a priority). Sure, by all means try and help those who have lost out, but within reason, is what i'm saying.
Don't get me wrong, the last thing i'd want is for anyone to lose their stake, but I think some personal responsibility if often missing in today's modern society and seeing it transfer to NEM is destructive, in my view.
