Switch to ArdorForum

Sell on ICO only those 1:1 fNXT which are not participating in 362'152'590 NXT Active stake 

And some think my competition for fNXT plan is radical expropriation, while all I propose is competition for fNXT in the future, with equal chance for everyone to claim fNXT.

We don't want to steal NXT from people or let it lose value. That is completely wrong. 
They paid for it and the are allowed to keep the value, if they forge or not. Leave Nxt as it is.

Nxt stays Nxt, but on a childchain of the mother fNXT. People will still use Nxt for sending money, hashing tokens, trade assets, send messages, creating votings, do coin shufflings etc..

We can do some kind of ICO for fNXT and that can only be paid with NXT (as Sebastien256 proposed) on 50% of the coins of fNXT. The other 50% is for NXT holders. 1NXT:0,5fNXT distribution.

The NXT holders get 50% of the fNXT and the other 50% is for new investors and that money will get used for development and marketing.

This way NXT holders have profit from people buying NXT, they will get 50% of fNXT and the development/marketing gets funded. Everybody happy? 

Good idea!

On slack, Ludom started to elaborate the idea to use the lost Nxt (among other ideas). There should be quite a significant amount of them. Those could represent the amount sold at ipo for fnxt generation and then actual coin holders would not be taxed. If there is enough of them that's something positive to sleep on..

I urge you to think about it: Expropriating NXT holders via democratic vote could destroy the reputation of Nxt, our highest value!

Democracy is the enemy of freedom.  America was free for 11 years until the founders wrote a constitution which gave us democracy.  So much for freedom. 

Pardon the libertarian rant. 

Only one valid option for crowdfunding is situation where fNXT can only be paid with NXT. If you dont have any NXT, pay for it first.

I know safe source of funding is needed but why not hold even part of collected amount in NXT and sell when need arise. Are You saying Jean-Luc that in Your opinion NXT (1.0) value is doomed to collapse?

how do you identify "lost NXT"?

Over a period of one YEAR we could do whatever possible for Nxt account owner to claim ownership (message). After that period we scan to find account who claimed and make the total. The missing are considered lost and do not qualify for fnxt distribution and represent a pool that can be sold in an ico way. It hurt much less than a blunt 50%.

Although even if we succeeded to inform everyone concerned lost nxt are part of the nxt value. they are not dumped. But that's a way to create a more legitimate pool for ico investors.

I know safe source of funding is needed

What is really needed ?

Yes we must scratch our heads to find ways such that everyone is compensated for its work.

Sure going to 2.0 will be a lot of work.

But.. do we really want to invest now all it requires to be there in one year ?

Personally I do not want to invest to go to 2.0 very fast, as long as the coin remain secure. I only care to believe enough that it can be done. When a real market need for 2.0 will exists, all the required funding will be falling from the trees. Once again, it depends if you are here for long term of for a get rich quick scheme. For the second, you need 2.0 as fast as possible for the buzz.

But, if you do not have much coin.. what is your best interest ?

You interest is more in finding your place in this new economy and start earning coins. The lower the value, the more you will have. And the more real economy the coin will supports the more stable the value will become and climb.

People say : if you do not agree, fork and do not follow new developments... so without devs ? devs are not needed ?
Yes when there is no maintenance needed devs are only about new stuffs.

So..

From now on why not devs only start working if they consider they are sufficiently compensated for the job?

devlux made a development proposal in a response to a PoofKnuckle suggestion https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/a-modest-proposal/msg213917/#msg213917 
I'm not advertising the suggestion (I didn't study it) but the mechanic of development suggested by devlux is a very natural one.

By the way, perhaps it is the best opportunity for the devs & us to invest into really using the system such that it becomes a useful market place for tech development. This type of market place, devs can develop it very well (pertinence) because it is their business, they understand their complex need and to some extends they can succeed understand those of their clients.
From these developments requests a lot will concern NXT feature/functions as well as the move to NXT2.0. It will be slower than the ipo route. It will be the speed provided by the market need.

I have just created a few polls on my own, because I think the IPO idea needs to be discussed and polled as soon as possible.

The reasons are that if it clearly is rejected, it needs to be done ASAP.
If accepted, it needs to be planned.

Either way, it needs to be clear. The recent lack of clarity is making people jittery and I'd like to get it out of the air.

I would like to ask everyone to vote on this simple vote on whether to even consider an ICO. It will hang over our heads if it's not decided soon, I think.

Poll #1:
https://nxtportal.org/transactions/7164171584167869009

Poll#2
https://nxtportal.org/transactions/13164019658351272000

I see many vote against an ICO that involves holding back fNxt but many vote for 'should an ICO be considered'.

Do you mean with the second question 'should it be considered', whether it is even proper to consider and talk about it on the forum?

Seems that even when people vote yes here, they may be against an ICO in any form but think it's ok to consider any idea and talk about it?

Do you mean with the second question 'should it be considered', whether it is even proper to consider and talk about it on the forum?

What I mean is "Should an ICO even be an option in the first place?"

Any question is "proper" in my view.

we NEED to give at least 50% to the new investors

The same can be achieved but with a smart approach of not punishing good workers or punishing them less, encouraging participation. If the goal of ICO is to have new people in the community, to liven it up, it's stupid to paint everyone with a broad brush. Get rid of sleeping whales, dead people, accounts with no public key. A smart 50% cut is better than a dumb 50% tax on every account.