Topic: [POLL] Vote on the remaining XBC supply (Read 2292 times)
I voted mixed. I say destroy 90-95pct and keep the remainder for maintenance, promotion, bounty, etc. Though, how much if any is already allocated for that outside of the 47k?
Those committee members are going to vote individually. They are not all working together to sway a vote, so it won't be 100 votes for one decision because they all have different opinions. The result will be spread out.
Ideally, yes. Although I don't know how much communication they do with one another, or if they will form any group decisions. My reply was in response to the previous poster who acted like the committee votes would be the one choosing the poll results.
Quote
destroying wont win. We have ~100 commitee votes for keeping around 2000 coins and destroy the rest.
No 3rd IPO will be done!
No 3rd IPO will be done!
I should also add, it's not a bad decision to save some coins, and destroy the rest. I'd prefer saving a bit of a larger amount however ... besides giveaways and promotions, there are always bounties too.
destroying wont win. We have ~100 commitee votes for keeping around 2000 coins and destroy the rest.
No 3rd IPO will be done!
Hmm... that sort of brings up a concern I had. If the committee holds so much sway that they can alter a vote, regardless of what regular people choose, why even have a public vote?
Not that I am against the committee idea, as it brings focus for the coin and will help get things done. I just wonder if perhaps they may hold a bit too much voting power, or why even bother with public votes, if they can just change the final outcome regardless?
I do agree that the 3rd IPO would be very problematic. I am just thinking that perhaps the 2nd IPO should have went on a bit longer, since there were so many coins leftover.
Commitee members have 10 votes to 1 vote for normal people. This is a very good solution in my opinion!
I am not sure if you understood what I meant. If committee members have 10 votes per person and can alter any poll anyway they please, why even have a public vote?
Might as well have a private polling amongst committee members then? Or less votes per committee person.
Those committee members are going to vote individually. They are not all working together to sway a vote, so it won't be 100 votes for one decision because they all have different opinions. The result will be spread out.
there are about 15 communittee members and about 7 billion people? I even think that 10 votes is way to little for somthing that has such severe impact into the big stakeholders belongings...
I somehow doubt 7 billion people will vote in this poll.
An example... pretend the poll ends where it is now. And the committee decided they all wanted cold storage, which only 1 person so far has voted for. They could override the entire poll and basically choose whatever they want.
And in of itself, that isn't even a bad thing. Some decisions should be made by the dev + whatever coin members he trusts. I am just questioning whether it makes sense for public polls, if they can get overridden so easily. I am also thinking of future polls, not just this one -- assuming there are future public polls.
Perhaps the voting power will work out, and more regular people will vote, evening it out. I am just basing it on current numbers and the fact that you said categorically that destroy won't win due to committee voting power. It just made the entire poll seem meaningless to me.
destroying wont win. We have ~100 commitee votes for keeping around 2000 coins and destroy the rest.
No 3rd IPO will be done!
Hmm... that sort of brings up a concern I had. If the committee holds so much sway that they can alter a vote, regardless of what regular people choose, why even have a public vote?
Not that I am against the committee idea, as it brings focus for the coin and will help get things done. I just wonder if perhaps they may hold a bit too much voting power, or why even bother with public votes, if they can just change the final outcome regardless?
I do agree that the 3rd IPO would be very problematic. I am just thinking that perhaps the 2nd IPO should have went on a bit longer, since there were so many coins leftover.
Commitee members have 10 votes to 1 vote for normal people. This is a very good solution in my opinion!
I am not sure if you understood what I meant. If committee members have 10 votes per person and can alter any poll anyway they please, why even have a public vote?
Might as well have a private polling amongst committee members then? Or less votes per committee person.
there are about 15 communittee members and about 7 billion people? I even think that 10 votes is way to little for somthing that has such severe impact into the big stakeholders belongings...
destroying wont win. We have ~100 commitee votes for keeping around 2000 coins and destroy the rest.
No 3rd IPO will be done!
Hmm... that sort of brings up a concern I had. If the committee holds so much sway that they can alter a vote, regardless of what regular people choose, why even have a public vote?
Not that I am against the committee idea, as it brings focus for the coin and will help get things done. I just wonder if perhaps they may hold a bit too much voting power, or why even bother with public votes, if they can just change the final outcome regardless?
I do agree that the 3rd IPO would be very problematic. I am just thinking that perhaps the 2nd IPO should have went on a bit longer, since there were so many coins leftover.
Commitee members have 10 votes to 1 vote for normal people. This is a very good solution in my opinion!
I am not sure if you understood what I meant. If committee members have 10 votes per person and can alter any poll anyway they please, why even have a public vote?
Might as well have a private polling amongst committee members then? Or less votes per committee person.
destroying wont win. We have ~100 commitee votes for keeping around 2000 coins and destroy the rest.
No 3rd IPO will be done!
Hmm... that sort of brings up a concern I had. If the committee holds so much sway that they can alter a vote, regardless of what regular people choose, why even have a public vote?
Not that I am against the committee idea, as it brings focus for the coin and will help get things done. I just wonder if perhaps they may hold a bit too much voting power, or why even bother with public votes, if they can just change the final outcome regardless?
I do agree that the 3rd IPO would be very problematic. I am just thinking that perhaps the 2nd IPO should have went on a bit longer, since there were so many coins leftover.
Commitee members have 10 votes to 1 vote for normal people. This is a very good solution in my opinion!
destroying wont win. We have ~100 commitee votes for keeping around 2000 coins and destroy the rest.
No 3rd IPO will be done!
Hmm... that sort of brings up a concern I had. If the committee holds so much sway that they can alter a vote, regardless of what regular people choose, why even have a public vote?
Not that I am against the committee idea, as it brings focus for the coin and will help get things done. I just wonder if perhaps they may hold a bit too much voting power, or why even bother with public votes, if they can just change the final outcome regardless?
I do agree that the 3rd IPO would be very problematic. I am just thinking that perhaps the 2nd IPO should have went on a bit longer, since there were so many coins leftover.
It looks like destroy shall win, but I voted for a mixture.
One problem with destroy is that it benefits big coin holders more than the small guys, or those who don't own the coin yet, so it could appear as if committee members are voting to benefit themselves, rather than the community as a whole. I'm not even saying that is the case, I just mean by appearances it may not look ideal.
Although a 3rd ipo or giveaway opens up a different can of worms, as then it could possibly devalue existing coins. Hence why I voted for a mix of options.
Save some coins for regular giveaways, social media tasks, BTT people giveaway (limit one giveaway per acct via some form of verification, IP check, etc), and bounties.
Offer a 3rd IPO with a limited number of coins. This serves a dual-purpose, as it provides some coins to those who missed the previous IPOs. And perhaps more importantly for the community, it stifles trolls/fud spreaders who cry about an unfair initial distribution. As to how to set it up so it's fair, that may be tricky. You can't just list coins at .001 again on Poloniex.
Either list a secondary coin/placeholder on Poloniex at a arbitrary price, cheaper than current prices, but not super cheap ... say at current rates, .002-.005/coin. Or offer coins through an ipo via BTT using more traditional methods (sending coins manually). If you want an even distribution, you can even put a limit on how many per person.
And destroy the rest. So say half of remaining coins are destroyed outright. For the remaining half, use them for giveaways/bounties and a partial IPO. Neither should affect the current price negatively, as the destruction of the other 1/2 would balance it out. Longterm it'd still result in a higher value of coin than you started with, perhaps with a fairer balance, and more publicity.
One problem with destroy is that it benefits big coin holders more than the small guys, or those who don't own the coin yet, so it could appear as if committee members are voting to benefit themselves, rather than the community as a whole. I'm not even saying that is the case, I just mean by appearances it may not look ideal.
Although a 3rd ipo or giveaway opens up a different can of worms, as then it could possibly devalue existing coins. Hence why I voted for a mix of options.
Save some coins for regular giveaways, social media tasks, BTT people giveaway (limit one giveaway per acct via some form of verification, IP check, etc), and bounties.
Offer a 3rd IPO with a limited number of coins. This serves a dual-purpose, as it provides some coins to those who missed the previous IPOs. And perhaps more importantly for the community, it stifles trolls/fud spreaders who cry about an unfair initial distribution. As to how to set it up so it's fair, that may be tricky. You can't just list coins at .001 again on Poloniex.
Either list a secondary coin/placeholder on Poloniex at a arbitrary price, cheaper than current prices, but not super cheap ... say at current rates, .002-.005/coin. Or offer coins through an ipo via BTT using more traditional methods (sending coins manually). If you want an even distribution, you can even put a limit on how many per person.
And destroy the rest. So say half of remaining coins are destroyed outright. For the remaining half, use them for giveaways/bounties and a partial IPO. Neither should affect the current price negatively, as the destruction of the other 1/2 would balance it out. Longterm it'd still result in a higher value of coin than you started with, perhaps with a fairer balance, and more publicity.
destroying wont win. We have ~100 commitee votes for keeping around 2000 coins and destroy the rest.
No 3rd IPO will be done!
It looks like destroy shall win, but I voted for a mixture.
One problem with destroy is that it benefits big coin holders more than the small guys, or those who don't own the coin yet, so it could appear as if committee members are voting to benefit themselves, rather than the community as a whole. I'm not even saying that is the case, I just mean by appearances it may not look ideal.
Although a 3rd ipo or giveaway opens up a different can of worms, as then it could possibly devalue existing coins. Hence why I voted for a mix of options.
Save some coins for regular giveaways, social media tasks, BTT people giveaway (limit one giveaway per acct via some form of verification, IP check, etc), and bounties.
Offer a 3rd IPO with a limited number of coins. This serves a dual-purpose, as it provides some coins to those who missed the previous IPOs. And perhaps more importantly for the community, it stifles trolls/fud spreaders who cry about an unfair initial distribution. As to how to set it up so it's fair, that may be tricky. You can't just list coins at .001 again on Poloniex.
Either list a secondary coin/placeholder on Poloniex at an arbitrary price, cheaper than current prices, but not super cheap ... say at current rates, .002-.005/coin. Or offer coins through an ipo via BTT using more traditional methods (sending coins manually). If you want an even distribution, you can even put a limit on how many per person.
And destroy the rest. So say half of remaining coins are destroyed outright. For the remaining half, use them for giveaways/bounties and a partial IPO. Neither should affect the current price negatively, as the destruction of the other 1/2 would balance it out. Longterm it'd still result in a higher value of coin than you started with, perhaps with a fairer balance, and more publicity.
One problem with destroy is that it benefits big coin holders more than the small guys, or those who don't own the coin yet, so it could appear as if committee members are voting to benefit themselves, rather than the community as a whole. I'm not even saying that is the case, I just mean by appearances it may not look ideal.
Although a 3rd ipo or giveaway opens up a different can of worms, as then it could possibly devalue existing coins. Hence why I voted for a mix of options.
Save some coins for regular giveaways, social media tasks, BTT people giveaway (limit one giveaway per acct via some form of verification, IP check, etc), and bounties.
Offer a 3rd IPO with a limited number of coins. This serves a dual-purpose, as it provides some coins to those who missed the previous IPOs. And perhaps more importantly for the community, it stifles trolls/fud spreaders who cry about an unfair initial distribution. As to how to set it up so it's fair, that may be tricky. You can't just list coins at .001 again on Poloniex.
Either list a secondary coin/placeholder on Poloniex at an arbitrary price, cheaper than current prices, but not super cheap ... say at current rates, .002-.005/coin. Or offer coins through an ipo via BTT using more traditional methods (sending coins manually). If you want an even distribution, you can even put a limit on how many per person.
And destroy the rest. So say half of remaining coins are destroyed outright. For the remaining half, use them for giveaways/bounties and a partial IPO. Neither should affect the current price negatively, as the destruction of the other 1/2 would balance it out. Longterm it'd still result in a higher value of coin than you started with, perhaps with a fairer balance, and more publicity.
Destroy
yesssssss destroy them all , then we hold 2x the value ^^
Destroy the remaining coins. I did not get in on any IPO and I just bought some *more* at going rate. I see a lot of potential here. Destroying the remaining coins is the best move.
I can help promote it for free later, looks like it has a lot of potential so far.
I can help promote it for free later, looks like it has a lot of potential so far.
obviously everyone that isn't a stakeholder votes for giveaway 
lol too true
I am over 1% stakeholder and I would like to see at least one giveaway for social media tasks..I was prepared even to do it myself through my blog..even if no one donates for a giveaway I will probably do a small one myself.. We shouldn't all just be thinking elitist here sharing a little bit of coin won't make us that much poorer..Just my 2 xbcs lol. I wanted to host a giveaway where punters subscribe to reddit, like and share fb posted and subscribe and retweet on twitter..Would be a nice social media blast for a bit of coin. :)Also voted for destruction of most coins..coin is moonbound now..
whoa looks like destruction is imminent
If we have a 1% supply how do we prove it to the Dev?
PM the dev with your address. He'll be able to verify your minimum requirement.
If we have a 1% supply how do we prove it to the Dev?
It is always good to give to charity. Go the Doge route. Sometimes helping others is helping yourself.
Help your coin holders who lost money on the Scam Exchange on the OP site that we went to in good faith 
I intend to buy more coins, but this did leave a bad taste in my mouth.
I intend to buy more coins, but this did leave a bad taste in my mouth.
I choose mixed, destroy 95% of the coins, let strong hands mint up to the max of 100k coins. Keep the remaining 5% for infrastructure!
This
Jump to: