Topic: NEM (XEM) Official Thread - 100% New Code - Easy To Use APIs - page 697. (Read 2985369 times)

I am in favor of the proposal however I'd rather see a win-win situation for both the community and the NEM devs by pegging and thereby limiting the amount that devs can arbitrarily reward themselves each year to the rise in market cap. Let's say a year runs from January 1 2015 to January 2016, compare the market cap on both data, say it has risen 40m, let's peg it to 0.5 percent, which means devs can reward themselves 200k all throughout 2016. This way we won't risk moral hazard situations and suspicion from the community. Let's peg it to the amount of the rise of market cap at say 0.5 percent maximum. That way we all win and devs have a little extra incentive to perform well. 

ok so if a foundation is formed, could there be some kind of mechanism implemented where the community would have to vote. Members who have a certain amount of NEM vested would vote, or like delegated harvesting: members with smaller amounts could let other members (who are voted by them) to represent their NEM as a collection (maybe a token representing that certain delegate) and vote on their behalf (but before the vote is casted, making sure the majority agree on the vote of the delegate). This mechanism would be the ultimate vote of whether to let the foundation go on with whatever plan they want to implement and have presented to the community.

Ultimately you have a main foundation formed and community still has a part of the decision, it would be decentralized and centralized at the same time with checks.

Is there any connection between DistributedLab and NEM developers? DL seems to claim so: http://distributedlab.com/ournem/

ok so if a foundation is formed, could there be some kind of mechanism implemented where the community would have to vote. Members who have a certain amount of NEM vested would vote, or like delegated harvesting: members with smaller amounts could let other members (who are voted by them) to represent their NEM as a collection (maybe a token representing that certain delegate) and vote on their behalf (but before the vote is casted, making sure the majority agree on the vote of the delegate). This mechanism would be the ultimate vote of whether to let the foundation go on with whatever plan they want to implement and have presented to the community.

Ultimately you have a main foundation formed and community still has a part of the decision, it would be decentralized and centralized at the same time with checks.

Please take note of the follwing threads in the NEM forum:

1) Realignment of funds discussion:
https://forum.nem.io/t/realignment-of-nem-funds-discussion/2685

2) Legal entity vote:
https://forum.nem.io/t/legal-entity-vote/2698

I have not faced this problem. I would do the following. Search for all NEM-related files on your machine and delete them. Afterwards, install NEM again from scratch. Then it should usually work. Which WinOS do you use?

Please do not make conjectures. Ask if you have doubts. Making conjectures is fud.

Today, the funds in the non-entity of NEM is controlled by 8 core members. They can run with the fund too and it can collapse.

The legal entity gives it a protection layer as it cannot run away with the funds so easily as it binds the trustees of the fund to the law.

Making decisions to use the funds are explicity spelt out how they are going to be used to promote the 10 focus areas as described here: http://blog.nem.io/a-major-announcement/

THe 10 focus areas are:

• Setting up regional presence
• Organising NEM blockchain technology events
• Collaborating with educational institutions
• Collaborating with Government agencies to define standards
• Collaborating with commercial entities to further develop its use.
• Setting up a centre of excellence and to be headed by our very own core developers
• Setting up a consulting arm to consult on matters relating to the technology and provide such services to businesses at large that will use the NEM blockchain technology
• Acquiring and promoting intellectual properties from its community and working with them to promote such intellectual properties to global businesses
• Spawning new ventures, and where possible, by providing technology and financial assistance
• Providing for scholarships and internship for brilliant and world class students

How the funds will be used will be decided as before. Nothing has changed.

How the funds will be disbursed have always been done by the 8 core members without the need to answer to anyone. How the funds will be used in future will need corporate governance, and simply using funds at will, can land some people in jail. Simple as that. We are putting check and balance into the system. It can only be better, not worse.

Finally, the legal entity is not only a legal entity per se. It will comprise of members, pretty much like a foundation, but the word foundation is not the right description, more so a society in nature. There will be members there who will cast their votes for any major investments.

In the initial stage, this will be very much guided by the core team. The initial stage is expected to be 10 years and by which time, we hope to achieve a proper legacy for all to follow.

Let's hope this will clear some air.

Edit: Please note that the whole question in the end is the community fund. The rest of the fund has always been autonomously decided by the core. So really, the question is the community fund.

Another point to be made, the structure is two tier, trustee tier and society tier.  Society is run by executives who are entrusted to run and execute what has been decided collectively between the members of the society (presumably the nembers here), the executives and the board of trustees. In short, it is not without any check and balance.

Well I cant argue with you about the community being apathetic as I seem to be the only one concerned with the plan ( maybe they all like it ).
I am against centralization in principal but I also see that Bitcoin is in a mess with no decisions being made. I expect most to complain after the vote. I think there should be more details such as who are the people involved in the Legal entity, Which funds are being transferred to them and if there will be any oversight regarding spending, accounts etc.

I would like to hear a better solution rather than the problem we already know. Otherwise there still has to be an answer to the problem to move forward. And to move forward we must.

Honestly, some people in the community wants a resolution. We have made the announcement on 7th. July, but most are apathetic when this is history in the making. THe idea and deadline for resolution was mooted by someone in the community who is seeing inaction and non-deliberation.

About a year ago. when XEM was about 70-80 sat

Can someone tell me when was the 3 mil supernode collateral announced? Or what was the xem price at that time?

No i wouldnt but I dont like a board of directors assigning themselves a wage that they deem fair either out of community funds. Yes the guys who hold the keys to the funds now could run away with them as you say, but that would be stealing and would kill their current holdings value not to mention the project (NEM) in general. Giving ownership of the funds to a legal entity in which they have the power to sign checks as they see fit is not ideal either.

Dont get me wrong, I am not trying derail a plan that is being attempted with good intentions (probably) but making an announcement that there will be a vote with a deadline of the 14th of Aug in which the main beneficiaries  have the power to win that vote and in which the community loses all control of the community funds is rushed to say the least.