Nxt Forum

Nxt Discussion => Nxt General Discussion => Topic started by: Damelon on March 28, 2016, 07:22:31 pm

Title: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Damelon on March 28, 2016, 07:22:31 pm
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

Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: durerus on March 28, 2016, 08:08:43 pm
Dear voters,

It is not like we need IPO now because there are no funds left. We have enough funds for development and marketing for at least one more year, as was explained in the Q&A on slack yesterday. So don't panic vote for IPO, please!!!

When we make clear that we want 2.0 with a 1:1 NXT : fNXT distribution the price will go up. Then the community can donate more value for marketing and development.

I urge you to think about it: Expropriating NXT holders via democratic vote could destroy the reputation of Nxt, our highest value!
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: VanBreuk on March 28, 2016, 08:09:11 pm
Good to see this vote up. For a graphic overview of results you can also use

Poll #1 (Should a portion of the fNxt in Nxt 2.0 be held back and sold off in an ICO?)
https://www.mynxt.info/poll/7164171584167869009

Poll #2 (Should an ICO for Nxt 2.0 be considered at all?)
https://www.mynxt.info/poll/13164019658351272000
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Sebastien256 on March 28, 2016, 08:15:26 pm
My opinion is that ico=expropriation is not needed. A 1:1 distribution should make the price of NXT rise and this would be enought to get more fund, hopefully.

Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: durerus on March 28, 2016, 08:23:52 pm
My opinion is that ico=expropriation is not needed. A 1:1 distribution should make the price of NXT rise and this would be enought to get more fund, hopefully.

Good opinion!
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: abctc on March 28, 2016, 08:43:55 pm
Jean-Luc said yesterday: "I concur that funding is an issue",
so I will vote for ICO.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Riker on March 28, 2016, 08:48:12 pm
My opinion is that ico=expropriation is not needed. A 1:1 distribution should make the price of NXT rise and this would be enought to get more fund, hopefully.

@Seb: in my view, wishful thinking is not a project plan.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Sebastien256 on March 28, 2016, 08:57:01 pm
My opinion is that ico=expropriation is not needed. A 1:1 distribution should make the price of NXT rise and this would be enought to get more fund, hopefully.

@Seb: in my view, wishful thinking is not a project plan.

My main point is that I think expropriation is not worth going that way at the moment.

Seriously, I would be ready to allow ico at a very last alternative. However, I think we are not at that point yet.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: VanBreuk on March 28, 2016, 08:58:45 pm
I'm not hell-bent on either outcome, but

- I understand currently the NXT tokens have one ability among others that allows them to forge, and that that ability is meant to be transferred to fNXT, but I don't think that means ICO=expropriation. The purpose of an ICO is not solely funding, which regardless of current funded initiatives/people will be needed, but also platform promotion, opening the community wider and getting some extra market attention. If you ask me if I'd donate a part of my forging power for those benefits right now, I'd answer yes.

- The 1:1 distribution and NXT/fNXT decoupling already had an impact in the community and the markets. Probably not in all the contacts being run in the backstage, or in other aspects, but it obviously had an impact. Current uncertainty is surely not good, but we cannot take for granted that confirming the initial 1:1 distribution proposal will now make the price rise instead.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Sebastien256 on March 28, 2016, 09:06:14 pm
@vanbreuk,
of course ico=expropriation to some extent, to be honest i'm not sure what you don't understand here
With a ico it remove the right to forge to some NXT holder, whatever the way you look at it. This is something investor bought when acquiring NXT.

Anyway, I will follow the majority whatever the outcome.

Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: VanBreuk on March 28, 2016, 09:19:16 pm
@vanbreuk,
of course ico=expropriation to some extent, to be honest i'm not sure what you don't understand here
With a ico it remove the right to forge to some NXT holder, whatever the way you look at it. This is something investor bought when acquiring NXT.

Yes, it is taking part of the forging power. I understand that perfectly. But it is in exchange for some things. And considering the timing and the current surging markets for 2.0, I'm saying that I'd agree to exchange some of my forging power for those things. For me it is not a loss, but an exchange. So you can say that expropriation occurs when private property is taken away (some times with an argument for public interest) and with that definition in hand, you could say there's expropriation involved in the process. But saying that ICO=expropriation overlooks the benefits that an ICO could bring.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: durerus on March 28, 2016, 09:42:11 pm
@vanbreuk,
of course ico=expropriation to some extent, to be honest i'm not sure what you don't understand here
With a ico it remove the right to forge to some NXT holder, whatever the way you look at it. This is something investor bought when acquiring NXT.

Yes, it is taking part of the forging power. I understand that perfectly. But it is in exchange for some things. And considering the timing and the current surging markets for 2.0, I'm saying that I'd agree to exchange some of my forging power for those things. For me it is not a loss, but an exchange. So you can say that expropriation occurs when private property is taken away (some times with an argument for public interest) and with that definition in hand, you could say there's expropriation involved in the process. But saying that ICO=expropriation overlooks the benefits that an ICO could bring.

But how much forging power do current stakeholders have to give away so that the benefits of an ICO take place? 50%? More? That's a difficult question.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Damelon on March 28, 2016, 09:59:36 pm
@vanbreuk,
of course ico=expropriation to some extent, to be honest i'm not sure what you don't understand here
With a ico it remove the right to forge to some NXT holder, whatever the way you look at it. This is something investor bought when acquiring NXT.

Yes, it is taking part of the forging power. I understand that perfectly. But it is in exchange for some things. And considering the timing and the current surging markets for 2.0, I'm saying that I'd agree to exchange some of my forging power for those things. For me it is not a loss, but an exchange. So you can say that expropriation occurs when private property is taken away (some times with an argument for public interest) and with that definition in hand, you could say there's expropriation involved in the process. But saying that ICO=expropriation overlooks the benefits that an ICO could bring.

But how much forging power do current stakeholders have to give away so that the benefits of an ICO take place? 50%? More? That's a difficult question.

I'd say that is a discussion we'd better not even start before we know more about support or lack of it about an ICO per se.

There are more ways to do it than using fNxt.

I've seen a plan (can't find it right now, but was posted the last days) to do an ICO for a child chain.

Don't know whether it's a good plan, but it's a different plan at least. That leads me to believe there may well be ways of doing such a thing without fNxt.

Maybe not, but that's independent of the polls I put up. They only are about the support of an ICO yes or no. Nothing else.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Sebastien256 on March 28, 2016, 10:01:52 pm
@vanbreuk,
of course ico=expropriation to some extent, to be honest i'm not sure what you don't understand here
With a ico it remove the right to forge to some NXT holder, whatever the way you look at it. This is something investor bought when acquiring NXT.

Yes, it is taking part of the forging power. I understand that perfectly. But it is in exchange for some things. And considering the timing and the current surging markets for 2.0, I'm saying that I'd agree to exchange some of my forging power for those things. For me it is not a loss, but an exchange. So you can say that expropriation occurs when private property is taken away (some times with an argument for public interest) and with that definition in hand, you could say there's expropriation involved in the process. But saying that ICO=expropriation overlooks the benefits that an ICO could bring.

But how much forging power do current stakeholders have to give away so that the benefits of an ICO take place? 50%? More? That's a difficult question.

I think the pourcentage will dictate approximatly the amount that would be raise in the ico. Let say for example 25% of fNXT would be sold off in a ico. I think it would be a bargain to invest in the ico as long as the value acquired in the ico is less than 25% NXT marketcap. After that point, it would better to buy NXT directly. All in all, I think this could be view a coarse first approximation as it assume, in particular, that fNXT=NXT2.0, which is not completly true because it neglect the NXT1.0 part.

Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: allwelder on March 28, 2016, 10:29:10 pm
Don't take IPO,especially with dilution FNXT,this will scare away users and investors,this is really at risk.

Leave the IPO after sidechain released,then anyone can IPO on their own sidechain.

Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Jean-Luc on March 29, 2016, 06:55:27 am
IPO is the only way to get funding while remaining independent and without jeopardizing the future of the public blockchain.

Without an IPO, NXT2.0 will still be developed. But if instead of being crowdfunded it ends up being financed by private investors, it will be those investors that decide where and how it gets deployed.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: allwelder on March 29, 2016, 07:29:10 am
IPO with redistribution NXT means NXT has died,now a new coin WHATNXT born with IPO again IMO.

What about this?
Let the Nxter who agree to IPO put their FNXT to a pool,then use FNXT of this pool to redistribution with IPO.Dilute the FNXT of all Nxters is not a good idea.
This like a company can start a 2nd round fundraising,but can not expropriate shares of initial investors to redistribute .
Title: IPO The bad idea.
Post by: websioux on March 29, 2016, 07:35:52 am
Post launch IPO = money printing to finance the system.. and this is really bad.

It is not the only way, this is the lazy way.

I'd better regularly "spam" big accounts and those who already showed generosity to collect funds. Or launch a licence/ implementation business with the devs from which they will get paid to continue, in which the community can invest and could even claim a part of the licence profit too. In fact I would do both. If there is a real demand, then we have a dream team, not only the core devs, but the whole community that has a strong marketing power which could show full potential if it was canalized. There are tons of ressources available in the community that any startup can not dream about.

What has been built here ? Isn't it tools to develop an anarchist economy ? Is it so much doomed that this tools can not be used to build the infrastructure ?
What is Asset exchange ? What does it bring to the world ? Let's use it !

Then you have a good reason and good argumentation to attract any investor.

A post launch IPO is a complete waste of the BCNext gift.
Title: Re: IPO The bad idea.
Post by: lurker10 on March 29, 2016, 07:42:52 am
What has been built here ? Isn't it tools to develop an anarchist economy ? Is it so much doomed that this tools can not be used to build the infrastructure ?

An anarchist economy is not possible, it's a dream. There, somebody had to say it. People don't care to support the public infrastructure. (https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/is-there-an-option-that-nxt-holder-will-not-get-any-fnxt/msg213584/#msg213584) It's a fact. There are two ways to solve this problem. Socialism by involuntary taxation (IPO with equal taxation of everyone) or incentivizing and motivating with benefits. (https://nxtforum.org/index.php?topic=11051.msg213608#msg213608)
Title: Re: IPO The bad idea.
Post by: lovely89 on March 29, 2016, 07:55:32 am
What has been built here ? Isn't it tools to develop an anarchist economy ? Is it so much doomed that this tools can not be used to build the infrastructure ?

An anarchist economy is not possible, it's a dream. There, somebody had to say it. People don't care to support the public infrastructure. (https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/is-there-an-option-that-nxt-holder-will-not-get-any-fnxt/msg213584/#msg213584) It's a fact. There are two ways to solve this problem. Socialism by involuntary taxation (IPO with equal taxation of everyone) or incentivizing and motivating with benefits. (https://nxtforum.org/index.php?topic=11051.msg213608#msg213608)

I don't beleive it.

Look at the Tennessee project. Look at Iota, they have so far raised 15 000 000 iota's from their initial 'investors' and 20 000 000 iota's for an unknown investment. This is immediately after the ICO.

The nxt devs have donation addresses where people can donate. If these are running dry or have little to no tokens donated, then a dev equivalent to the Tennessee project should be started again. The devs need to let us know publicly and explicitly that the assistance of the community is needed and a lack of support will have a direct negative effect on nxt's growth (which is so crucial right no in this competitive cyrpto environment). If the community can't support itself, that's a shame and we'll see the result of lack of demand in a service.

One thing that they should not do, is go against the core fundamental principles of 'crypto' currencies. That is, to dilute the value of the tokens of the owners of nxt.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Jose on March 29, 2016, 07:58:45 am
IPO with redistribution NXT means NXT has died,now a new coin WHATNXT born with IPO again IMO.

I must agree with this point.

This is changing the rules in the middle of the game.
“Trust takes years to build, seconds to break, and forever to repair”
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: allwelder on March 29, 2016, 08:15:31 am
IPO is the only way to get funding while remaining independent and without jeopardizing the future of the public blockchain.

Without an IPO, NXT2.0 will still be developed. But if instead of being crowdfunded it ends up being financed by private investors, it will be those investors that decide where and how it gets deployed.
We use more than two year to eliminate the bad effect of 21 BTC IPO,almost solved the distribution.
But now,we are re-creating effect with new IPO.
I did not know what to say,but frustrated. :(
Title: Re: IPO The bad idea.
Post by: Jean-Luc on March 29, 2016, 08:27:01 am
Or launch a licence/ implementation business with the devs from which they will get paid to continue, in which the community can invest and could even claim a part of the licence profit too.
Such a business can and will be launched. It will serve the needs of customers paying for private blockchains. It will have zero incentive to release any code to be used for a public blockchain, and will likely be prohibited from doing so. This is how I see the future of NXT2.0 in the absence of crowdfunding. The developers will work for those who pay the bills.

The Tennessee fund of 10M NXT is worth 78k USD. This is not enough to hire even a single developer at market rates.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: abctc on March 29, 2016, 08:27:22 am
IPO is the only way to get funding while remaining independent and without jeopardizing the future of the public blockchain.
+ 1440
Title: Re: IPO The bad idea.
Post by: lurker10 on March 29, 2016, 08:36:32 am
I don't beleive it.

I used to be like you. The facts have shattered my beliefs. Stubbornly sticking to beliefs when facts go against them is immaturity and denial of reality. Growing out of idealism and choosing the lesser evil is what we can do. Competition is the law of nature, efficiency and robustness are born from competition. Socialism is the ultimate evil, why go for the ultimate when we could first try the lesser evil.

Your examples of the Tennessee donation and IOTA don't fit. The Tennessee donation is not new money, it's the same investors sharing their stash as a last-ditch effort to revive Nxt. IOTA (Lisk, Ethereum) are "shut up and take my money" novelties. Nxt is not a novelty any more, including the future Nxt 2.0 incarnation. Doubt the current investors can donate much, I will be happy to be proven wrong and vote with both hands for no dilution and no expropriation solution, but realistically we will have to face a challenge to choose between bad and very bad. This is not as gloomy as it sounds actually, this challenge, it gives us an opportunity to learn more about ourselves. Think of it as your life learning experience and part of the Nxt experiment :) and remember that unlike in the states ruled by popular majorities, Nxt dissenters can always opt out and stay on the old fork :)
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: abctc on March 29, 2016, 08:40:10 am
With a ico it remove the right to forge to some NXT holder
- maybe it is possible to retain the forging power of NXT in the sense of the right to compose the Nxt-childchain blocks?  while the fNXT will forge the blocks of fNXT blockchain. So, NXT if for Nxt-subchain, and fNXT is absolutely new invention, and all 100% of fNXT should be ICOed.
Title: Re: IPO The bad idea.
Post by: websioux on March 29, 2016, 08:41:00 am
Or launch a licence/ implementation business with the devs from which they will get paid to continue, in which the community can invest and could even claim a part of the licence profit too.
Such a business can and will be launched. It will serve the needs of customers paying for private blockchains. It will have zero incentive to release any code to be used for a public blockchain, and will likely be prohibited from doing so. This is how I see the future of NXT2.0 in the absence of crowdfunding. The developers will work for those who pay the bills.

The Tennessee fund of 10M NXT is worth 78k USD. This is not enough to hire even a single developer at market rates.

What if coin value soar because... well.. good work has been done and its real value finally align ?

Why only private blockchain ? How a dev working on a private blockchain is not getting load of experience that will serve all when he will work part time on a public one ?
Why no attraction from capital to public blockchain ? I do.. You too..
Are you saying that you see no future to public blockchains but still want to organize a crowdfunding for it ?  :o
You are making a prognostic based on secret informations, that endanger everything many have believed in.. this is very strong.

Make load of salary working on their private intranet... on your free time you will keep going to the public internet because you know that it will end up richer at the end.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: lurker10 on March 29, 2016, 08:44:10 am
all 100% of fNXT should be ICOed.

This is very radical. It screws all conscientious forgers.
What do you think of the competition for fNXT plan (https://nxtforum.org/index.php?topic=11051.msg213608#msg213608) that should provide enough fNXT to fund an IPO and reward hard work?
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: abctc on March 29, 2016, 08:50:19 am
all 100% of fNXT should be ICOed.
This is very radical. It screws all conscientious forgers.
- no, all conscious Nxt 1.0 forgers will continue to forge (to compose) Nxt subchain, and continue to gain NXT coins for that composing.  And new Nxt 2.0 believers will forge fNXT blocks.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: websioux on March 29, 2016, 08:55:51 am
An anarchist economy is not possible, it's a dream.

Don't say anything is a dream before you've died trying everything to make it real  ;)

In this specific case, practical reasons made it impossible. Unless small communities, it was impossible to even try. I really think that what has been doing here (starting with Satoshi) was to exploit the greed nature of humans to create the first pillars of a future self organisation that will free them all. Otherwise, what are we doing here ? a Ponzi ?

So be strong guys and resists to the sirens songs of bankster that became blockchain angry, do not ask money to the devil or you will loose your saoul (from me this quote is purely symbolic.). You can sell them tech, but do not destroy the integrity that is still shining within this coin.

Instead of organization stealing wealth to persists, it could communicate, and educate members, and only survive based on their level of education. Make it such that the contributions of everyone is easily visible to others. Let it be something to be proud of, where reputation becomes more important than what you can secretly spend (both being possible). Then you will create an inventive for human to make a serious step in its evolution.

If there is no dream to follow, only money to be made from others who were not first... what am i doing here ? Wake up !
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: crimi on March 29, 2016, 08:57:04 am
all 100% of fNXT should be ICOed.

This is very radical. It screws all conscientious forgers.
What do you think of the competition for fNXT plan (https://nxtforum.org/index.php?topic=11051.msg213608#msg213608) that should provide enough fNXT to fund an IPO and reward hard work?

Maybe give a better rate to people purchasing fNxt in the ICO using Nxt.
In which currency will the ICO funds be held longterm anyway, if you hold it in bitcoin or fiat it kind of makes nxt a little bit more worthless.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: lurker10 on March 29, 2016, 09:00:20 am
all 100% of fNXT should be ICOed.
This is very radical. It screws all conscientious forgers.
- no, all conscious Nxt 1.0 forgers will continue to forge (to compose) Nxt subchain, and continue to gain NXT coins for that composing.  And new Nxt 2.0 believers will forge fNXT blocks.

This is a risk that the forging stake will end being 35% again, like it happened in Nxt 1.0.

Giving a portion of fNXT to Nxt 1.0 forgers is close to certainty that at least these guys will keep the system going. After all, forging has been a selfless effort for the most part, transaction fees are nothing.

If you screw the conscientious forgers out of fNXT completely, you will rid the system of good workers and will have no certainty that future workers will be as selflessly forging as the old ones did in bad unprofitable times. Many old ones will probably say 'screw you' and leave.

What is the portion of fNXT to allocate to the Nxt 1.0 forgers - it's up to a vote I think, but it can't be less than 50% if you want my opinion.
Title: Re: IPO The bad idea.
Post by: Jean-Luc on March 29, 2016, 09:10:41 am
What if coin value soar because... well.. good work has been done and its real value finally align ?
This only matters for those who own the coin. From where do you get coins to give to new developers? You need again to pre-allocate some amount for that, and this should be not a small amount. When talking about IPO, this also includes the suggestion that some of the coins should be reserved as an incentive to new developers after the launch. Still, you need to offer them a competitive salary. And what about funding for all other expenses? You pay marketing and legal with coins too, and hope they believe their value will only grow?

Quote
Are you saying that you see no future to public blockchains but still want to organize a crowdfunding for it ?
No, I am saying that if an entity like the Nxt Foundation conducts a successful crowdfunding, it can employ developers and they will have a legal obligation to work on the public blockchain, because this is what the money has been collected for. (Whether technically the foundation is allowed to conduct such business, or a new entity must be set up, is a separate issue, to be researched if a decision to do an IPO is taken.)
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Sebastien256 on March 29, 2016, 10:12:17 am
Only accepting NXT for an IPO (and nothing else, in particular not accepting BTC) would be very good for the value of NXT. So those who don't participate in the ICO would be happy with price rising but will loose forging power, and those who participate first in the ICO will get fNXt cheaper (in fiat denomination). This could be a hell of pump if you want my opinion!
Title: Re: IPO The bad idea.
Post by: websioux on March 29, 2016, 11:44:27 am
Such a business can and will be launched. It will serve the needs of customers paying for private blockchains. It will have zero incentive to release any code to be used for a public blockchain, and will likely be prohibited from doing so. This is how I see the future of NXT2.0 in the absence of crowdfunding. The developers will work for those who pay the bills.
It will means it is either a prognostic either what you choose it to be. Because a business is what you work for it to be. This work is only vain if there is no demand for your offer. If there is a demand, you have a result. You choose the demand you serve. Why would you only choose private blockchains demand ? because its easier to get clients ? Why wouldn't you believe in a business that would work on public blockchains ? Sure, developers work for those who pays the bills, but they keep their dream, and keep using their skills where they like. There is already in NXT code, right now, for at least half of it things that all of you have learnt and experienced while being paid by others.

Off course it goes faster/easier, it is efficient, to resell the common goods of citizens to fund a community project. But as a community, the way you collect tells everyone all about the philosophy of the governance . This IPO will not make Nxt better than fiat....This is how I will interpret it. It will only give the signal that the pandora box has been opened.. in french we say : "jamais 2 sans 3"



Title: Re: IPO The bad idea.
Post by: wolffang on March 29, 2016, 12:48:57 pm
Or launch a licence/ implementation business with the devs from which they will get paid to continue, in which the community can invest and could even claim a part of the licence profit too.
Such a business can and will be launched. It will serve the needs of customers paying for private blockchains. It will have zero incentive to release any code to be used for a public blockchain, and will likely be prohibited from doing so. This is how I see the future of NXT2.0 in the absence of crowdfunding. The developers will work for those who pay the bills.

The Tennessee fund of 10M NXT is worth 78k USD. This is not enough to hire even a single developer at market rates.


ETH is already trying to attract new developers for money, trying out some new projects, so your vision is correct.
https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/03/29/an-open-source-mining-pool-bounty/
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Marc De Mesel on March 29, 2016, 02:13:29 pm
Made proposal of sustainable business model that avoids creating more shares/coins, while also paying devs well and have incentive to have lots of activity on our blockchain well aligned:

https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/nxt-a-business-model-smart-fees/msg213830/?topicseen#msg213830
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Jose on March 29, 2016, 02:38:49 pm
You can't expect people to *hold the new coins for a long time* if they know that once there use to be just half the number of coins that exist now, and maybe one day there would be twice that amount, in case economic resources are needed again for developing, promotion, etc.


Trust would be lost.

*I was going to say that nobody would invest on it, but of course speculators will do their best to pump and then dump the new coin, just like with some of the new coins that are ICOed these days.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Damelon on March 29, 2016, 03:07:16 pm
https://twitter.com/DamelonNxt/status/714831106361716736
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: starik69 on March 29, 2016, 04:47:04 pm
Sell on ICO only those 1:1 fNXT which are not participating in 362'152'590 NXT Active stake  :o
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: devlux on March 29, 2016, 05:17:55 pm
For anyone interested in my thoughts.  Here is an alternative that I don't see anyone talking about.

https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/nxt-a-business-model-smart-fees/msg213874/#msg213874
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: lurker10 on March 29, 2016, 05:31:08 pm
Sell on ICO only those 1:1 fNXT which are not participating in 362'152'590 NXT Active stake  :o

And some think my competition for fNXT plan (https://nxtforum.org/index.php?topic=11051.msg213608#msg213608) is radical expropriation, while all I propose is competition for fNXT in the future, with equal chance for everyone to claim fNXT.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: farl4bit on March 29, 2016, 07:50:53 pm
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?  :)
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: durerus on March 29, 2016, 09:07:53 pm
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! :)
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: lurker10 on March 29, 2016, 09:35:43 pm
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?  :)

Hard to tell how this plan is not stealing from current investors but selling fNXT for NXT can make this bitter pill sweeter. Monetary System is the right tool to crowdfund this sale?
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: websioux on March 29, 2016, 10:15:51 pm
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..
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Tosch110 on March 29, 2016, 10:55:44 pm
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..

how do you identify "lost NXT"?
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: neofelis on March 30, 2016, 03:13:29 am

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.  ???
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: bitme on March 30, 2016, 07:14:47 am
I have some dilemma about pool to hold back some portion of fNxt for ICO. My vote may change result of that pool on favor NO answer. I would vote YES on condition NXT is the only coin used for ICO but who would guarantee that. @ Damelon : Would You make a pool about coin for ICO after current comes to end?
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: maxll on March 30, 2016, 08:01:37 am
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.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Jean-Luc on March 30, 2016, 08:10:47 am
Any NXT collected during an IPO will have to be sold immediately for cash. If you insist on collecting funds in NXT only, it will just be Polo and the bots that gain from all that back and forth conversion.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: bitme on March 30, 2016, 08:49:37 am
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?
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: lurker10 on March 30, 2016, 08:50:27 am
Any NXT collected during an IPO will have to be sold immediately for cash. If you insist on collecting funds in NXT only, it will just be Polo and the bots that gain from all that back and forth conversion.

It will be a joke if fNXT is not sold on the Nxt platform. Who will believe in Nxt 2.0 if nxters don't believe in it to sell for anything but NXT.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: websioux on March 30, 2016, 10:13:19 am
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.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: lurker10 on March 30, 2016, 10:22:51 am
Over a period of one Nxt 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%.

+1440
anything smarter than blunt 50% is right. This is an indication of participation, albeit not as active participation as my rewarding forging proposal.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Marc De Mesel on March 30, 2016, 10:50:20 am
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?

Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: websioux on March 30, 2016, 11:07:20 am
double
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Damelon on March 30, 2016, 11:26:26 am
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.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: farl4bit on March 30, 2016, 11:27:17 am
Over a period of one Nxt 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%.

+1440
anything smarter than blunt 50% is right. This is an indication of participation, albeit not as active participation as my rewarding forging proposal.
"blunt" 50% will give halve of fNXT to new investors (or Nxters who want more) and eliminates the idea that the big stakeholders have again a big part in the new Nxt (fNXT). We want to get rid of this bad burden aren't we? I think we NEED to give at least 50% to the new investors to make it more fair.

Nxters will still keep their own NXT, but now also have a free part in fNXT.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: lurker10 on March 30, 2016, 12:06:08 pm
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.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: abctc on March 30, 2016, 12:15:49 pm
.. why not hold even part of collected amount in NXT and sell when need arise.
- I think because "NXTs are not coins ... They are tokens that grant privileges to support Nxt."  (c) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=458036.msg5051186#msg5051186) BCNext
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: yassin54 on March 30, 2016, 12:26:49 pm
- I think because "NXTs are not coins ... They are tokens that grant privileges to support Nxt."  (c) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=458036.msg5051186#msg5051186) BCNext
+1440!!  ;D
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: maxll on March 30, 2016, 12:41:03 pm
.. why not hold even part of collected amount in NXT and sell when need arise.
- I think because "NXTs are not coins ... They are tokens that grant privileges to support Nxt."  (c) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=458036.msg5051186#msg5051186) BCNext

What if someone tries to steal these privileges which are BCNext granted for me two and a half years ago?
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Jacinto on March 30, 2016, 01:36:55 pm
Where is BCNext when we need him?  ::)
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: lurker10 on March 30, 2016, 01:50:16 pm
Where is BCNext when we need him?  ::)

What do you need him for? besides, he's probably that 50m biggest account forging.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: NxtSwe on March 30, 2016, 01:50:36 pm
This dilution of the tokens thing is nothing new.
Governments are doing it all the time, kings have done it for hundreds of years. Hell, ancient roman emperors did it 2000 years ago.

The common problem is that you need funds in order to get something done, but you, as a king don't have enough, so what do you do?
You melt the gold coins and put some copper there instead, giving you more coins, but making each coin worth less.

If we go down this path, please bare in mind what it will mean in the future.
NXT might be known as the coin where you, at any time can loose some of your % of tokens because other people think so.

In my eyes this coin will have lost all its credibility.
What happens next time we run out of money? Will there be a new IPO then?

I do understand that having this tax is the easy way raise funds among the proposed ways of funding the 2.0 project.
But if that is the path this community is choosing, I might as well go on with my fiat and continue being taxed by my government.
At least I get "free" healthcare out of it.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: bitme on March 30, 2016, 01:59:03 pm
.. why not hold even part of collected amount in NXT and sell when need arise.
- I think because "NXTs are not coins ... They are tokens that grant privileges to support Nxt."  (c) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=458036.msg5051186#msg5051186) BCNext

What if someone tries to steal these privileges which granted BCNext for me two and a half years ago?
If we decide it can even be called sheep, whatever.

As far as I remember NXT first of all was SUPPOSED to be changed on social consensus and if decided that way NXT 2.0 is not steeling privileges but rather transfer of privileges which conditions have to be decided
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Logan on March 30, 2016, 02:07:57 pm
[..]
If we go down this path, please bare in mind what it will mean in the future.
NXT might be known as the coin where you, at any time can loose some of your % of tokens because other people think so.

In my eyes this coin will have lost all its credibility.
What happens next time we run out of money? Will there be a new IPO then?
[...]

Cant say it in a better way. That will have a big Impact into the trust of the nxt value.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: abctc on March 30, 2016, 02:30:22 pm
NXT might be known as the coin where you, at any time can loose some of your % of tokens because other people think so.
- how is it that you loose % of NXT tokens due to IPO ?   NXT tokens still allow you to forge (to compose) Nxt blocks and gain tx commision (in NXT).  So nothing changes to your NXT tokens.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: NxtSwe on March 30, 2016, 02:52:04 pm
NXT might be known as the coin where you, at any time can loose some of your % of tokens because other people think so.
- how is it that you loose % of NXT tokens due to IPO ?   NXT tokens still allow you to forge (to compose) Nxt blocks and gain tx commision (in NXT).  So nothing changes to your NXT tokens.

Hmmmm.. not sure if I follow you here.
Are you talking about the NXT child chain, or do you mean fNXT?
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: websioux on March 30, 2016, 03:06:42 pm
So nothing changes to your NXT tokens.
Absolutely, its like quantitative easing, nothing change to your fiat $$ and it's so good for the world economy :P
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: abctc on March 30, 2016, 03:08:12 pm
NXT might be known as the coin where you, at any time can loose some of your % of tokens because other people think so.
- how is it that you loose % of NXT tokens due to IPO ?   NXT tokens still allow you to forge (to compose) Nxt blocks and gain tx commision (in NXT).  So nothing changes to your NXT tokens.
Hmmmm.. not sure if I follow you here.
Are you talking about the NXT child chain, or do you mean fNXT?
- yes, about the NXT child chain.  Because fNXT (and sidechains) is absolutely new invention, so 100% of fNXT should be IPOed.  Nobody at initial IPO (2013, 21 BTC) paid for sidechains.  And nobody lose any % of their NXT tokens during 2.0 IPO.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Sebastien256 on March 30, 2016, 03:09:43 pm
Where is BCNext when we need him?  ::)

What do you need him for? besides, he's probably that 50m biggest account forging.

Some trustworty Nxter say that they have information saying to them that it is not BCNext account (if I remember correctly). I was never given the information tho.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Sebastien256 on March 30, 2016, 03:15:56 pm
NXT might be known as the coin where you, at any time can loose some of your % of tokens because other people think so.
- how is it that you loose % of NXT tokens due to IPO ?   NXT tokens still allow you to forge (to compose) Nxt blocks and gain tx commision (in NXT).  So nothing changes to your NXT tokens.
Hmmmm.. not sure if I follow you here.
Are you talking about the NXT child chain, or do you mean fNXT?
- yes, about the NXT child chain.  Because fNXT (and sidechains) is absolutely new invention, so 100% of fNXT should be IPOed.  Nobody at initial IPO (2013, 21 BTC) paid for sidechains.  And nobody lose any % of their NXT tokens during 2.0 IPO.

I don't think fNXT is a completly new invention, it is the token that securing the whole platform as NXT currently is securing the platform. The token securing the platform is the one getting the fees resulting from the transaction, so it is pretty valuable. NXT token after fork will still be valuable, but it will certainly loose some value due to the fact that it securing function is removed and given away to fNXT.

So if an IPO of fNXT would happen, it would take away a value that NXT holder currently hold.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: NxtSwe on March 30, 2016, 03:44:09 pm
NXT might be known as the coin where you, at any time can loose some of your % of tokens because other people think so.
- how is it that you loose % of NXT tokens due to IPO ?   NXT tokens still allow you to forge (to compose) Nxt blocks and gain tx commision (in NXT).  So nothing changes to your NXT tokens.
Hmmmm.. not sure if I follow you here.
Are you talking about the NXT child chain, or do you mean fNXT?
- yes, about the NXT child chain.  Because fNXT (and sidechains) is absolutely new invention, so 100% of fNXT should be IPOed.  Nobody at initial IPO (2013, 21 BTC) paid for sidechains.  And nobody lose any % of their NXT tokens during 2.0 IPO.

For the last 2 years or so I have been buying the tokens needed to create transactions on the entire NXT platform.
So in the next version those tokens will only control a tiny part of the NXT platform you say?

Wow!
If that is what will happen I will make sure to dump all my NXT asap before everyone else does.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Damelon on March 30, 2016, 04:11:00 pm
NXT might be known as the coin where you, at any time can loose some of your % of tokens because other people think so.
- how is it that you loose % of NXT tokens due to IPO ?   NXT tokens still allow you to forge (to compose) Nxt blocks and gain tx commision (in NXT).  So nothing changes to your NXT tokens.
Hmmmm.. not sure if I follow you here.
Are you talking about the NXT child chain, or do you mean fNXT?
- yes, about the NXT child chain.  Because fNXT (and sidechains) is absolutely new invention, so 100% of fNXT should be IPOed.  Nobody at initial IPO (2013, 21 BTC) paid for sidechains.  And nobody lose any % of their NXT tokens during 2.0 IPO.

For the last 2 years or so I have been buying the tokens needed to create transactions on the entire NXT platform.
So in the next version those tokens will only control a tiny part of the NXT platform you say?

Wow!
If that is what will happen I will make sure to dump all my NXT asap before everyone else does.

Please not that none of the above has been said by the devs in any way.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: devlux on March 30, 2016, 04:38:56 pm
IPO is the only way to get funding while remaining independent and without jeopardizing the future of the public blockchain.

Without an IPO, NXT2.0 will still be developed. But if instead of being crowdfunded it ends up being financed by private investors, it will be those investors that decide where and how it gets deployed.

Your problem is very simple.  You need to raise funds.

But it's also very complicated.

Jean Luc, like it or lump it, you are effectively CEO of a corporation.

You have investors already, and you owe them a duty of care for their assets that have been entrusted to you.
They are the folks who own the current coin.  You need to avoid alienating and disenfranchising them.
Yet this is exactly what you are proposing.  "Either we do a split, or I'll pull a blockstream."
Do you realize that you're talking about selling their value to someone else without their permission?
That's not exactly inspiring confidence in your existing investors.

Some of them are going activist on you and if the economic majority refuses to support you then you will lose the battle.

This does not have to be adversarial though.
When a business needs to raise funds it has 3 options.
#1 Sell something, i.e. have a viable business model preferably one that is service oriented.
#2 Borrow something, take a loan from somewhere, but you need to have #1 in place before anyone in their right mind will lend.  A bond would be viable, but how are you going to pay it back?

#3 Raise capital from external investors.

#3 needs to be an absolute last resort something you try only when everything else has failed.

What you are doing is lying to yourself and everyone else.  You're saying "we don't have a #1", "We don't have a superior product that can compete in the market place". 

I call BS.   People are using Bitcoin, ETH & Bitshares everyday all of which are massively inferior. 
This corporation has a fantastic technology called NXT. 

Quit trying to chase easy money from the "dollars for coins" crowd.  A lot of investors are going to look at what you've built now and wonder why they should invest in your "New point Oh!". 
To potential investors you're not a Phoenix rising from the ashes, you appear to be a Sloth that has been sleeping all day, only to wake up and realize the tree is now devoid of leaves and now it's time to search out another tree.

Even making the offer is admitting to investors that what you have spent the last several years building wasn't a success, just a complete waste of everyone's time.

Why would the next thing you put out be any better?  Potential investors will be skittish because your current investors are being disenfranchised by this.

Speaking as an investor, why would I invest in a 2.0 when the 1.0 failed and the same people are behind it? 
What's to stop you from disenfranchising the 2.0 folks when that money runs out and you decide that a 3.0 is in order? 
It sounds harsh but these are real questions you'll face from potential investors on the endeavor. 
You'd be better off just walking away and spinning a whole new coin from scratch if you really want to do an ICO with a new coin.

But I'm here to tell you Jean Luc.  We won't let you fail if you stick with us. 
We will support you, but you need to do this properly.
You're a CEO not a dictator.  A CEO can be replaced, but it doesn't need to come to that. 

My advice is to leave the tech as it is right now.  Don't screw with it.
You've done a great job programming it, but it's time to let the code cool for a bit.

Evolution NEXT, not Revolution should be the order of business.

Create a new business who's sole revenue model is based on selling tools and services built around NXT as it is now, directly to business.

IPO that business on the NXT Asset market and ONLY ACCEPT NXT for investment.  Hell I'd buy some!

Come up with an awesome business plan built around making it easy for businesses to use NXT. 
Ask us as a community to step up with helping you on this.  I can name 5 people off the top of my head that would write an excellent business plan.
Sell consulting services, integration services, anything you want.
Except changes to NXT itself.

The company could do anything that any company right now can do, but it would have you guys who know the ins and outs of NXT best, to do the work of integration. 

But the company should not have any special privileges and it should not be allowed to collect special fees or assessments. 

This business also needs to be completely distinct from the existing development group.  The development group should be tasked solely with making incremental changes to NXT that benefit the economic majority of NXT stakeholders. 

Therefore, put in place a voting mechanism to allow the stakeholders to approve or veto any changes to core.

I discuss a system that could do this here...  https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/a-modest-proposal/msg213899/#msg213899
Essentially turning development into a community process where anyone can develop NXT and they are "Paid on Delivery".
We're working on a crowdfund right now to pay for development of it.  The first step is a white paper I'll be releasing on Friday or Saturday.
If it goes through, I highly recommend you accept it into core.

By isolating development of NXT core from the business side of "selling services built on NXT", you'll ensure a healthy ecosystem for NXT and that's all the currency needs, a healthy ecosystem. 

A use for the coin and places that accept it.  A way to interface with the outside world.
Furthermore the fact that you have clients who are using the system and who have paid you to build them things on top of it, is going to make you far, far more reluctant to change things on them and on us.

Differentiate in your mind, NXT the coin vs NXT the tech and quit threatening to pull a blockstream.  I came here to get away from all that.
Consider legitimizing my proposal about moving development to a true community process where the stakeholders have the sole right to say what NXT does and does not evolve into.  Centralized development is not a necessary evil, it's just evil.

My final thoughts...
Jean Luc, Riker and the whole NXT core dev team.  Speaking as a fellow programmer who has done this professionally for over 2 decades.  You've done an awesome job.  This product is one of the best open source projects I've seen from a coding standpoint.  It's clean, effective and just works.  The UI is tolerable but needs help. But that's par for the course in any opensource project. UI designers are artists and artists don't really ken to the kinds of abuse you and I take for granted every day.  You need to hire more UX people. 

Besides all of that though, you have an opportunity right now to raise funds to build a business that helps business use NXT.  This is the only correct path at this point, the b2b market is worth trillions and it will be a lot easier than trying to go 2.0  Keep in mind that Bitshares went 2.0 and it was an unmitigated disaster, it's doubtful you would do any better but I also don't think you could do any worse.  The only reason they are worth anything right now is the UX improved and they are spending a fortune on marketing. 

NXT is a far superior product, but is essentially unmarketed.

Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Marc De Mesel on March 30, 2016, 05:08:34 pm
Wow, what a post devlux.

I fully agree with your critique. Fully.

Jean Luc  :'(

Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: zuqka on March 30, 2016, 07:30:01 pm
Speechless.....thx devlux for reviving us and I call on devs and NXT community to reflect.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: lurker10 on March 30, 2016, 07:36:11 pm
Somebody needs to write a summary of all options with pros and cons, summaries are convenient to look at in reflection :)
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: MrCluster87 on March 30, 2016, 07:41:51 pm
Hey, since I haven't read this anywhere I would propose it now:

what do we need?

1) Developers
2) Users

right? At the end of the day IPO funds will eventually finish and we may end up with the same problems with double the tokens...

So let's do the opposite: select 5 tech savy crypto from http://coinmarketcap.com/ and let's merge with them.

Burn a little bit of coin from both sides to prove that we are serious about the deal and suddenly we'll end up with both more dedicated developers and users.

But guess what, the value of the new network will be more than the sum of the previews stand alone parts because of the "Network Effect".

Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Jean-Luc on March 30, 2016, 08:39:08 pm
I don't remember the Nxt "corporation" ever selling any shares to investors. The 21 BTC collected by BCNext are long gone (and I don't know where, since I am not BCNext). People keep speaking as if they have invested in Nxt as a business, but unless you are one of those donating to the community funds, or the Tennessee fund, buying Nxt coins from departing whales dumping on exchanges has in no way contributed any funds to be used for the Nxt development and marketing.

Claims that this "company" has irresponsibly burned through funds and is now asking for more are as far from the reality as it can get. We have been running on good will those two years.

If there is an ICO, it would be the first real ICO in the history of Nxt that can actually collect a meaningful round of funding for development and marketing. And without it, good will and donations will simply not be enough.

Creating a business like you describe around Nxt 1.x might be possible, but we can't abandon the work on 2.0 if we want to remain competitive.

One of the polls Damelon started is actually about whether 2.0 should be created at all. While the IPO votes are split, there is almost unanimous agreement that 2.0 should happen. You are now suggesting to scrap that and stay on 1.x?

1.x is showing its architectural limitations, such as having to use NXT for fees everywhere, and not being able use other units of value for trading. Still, it is being maintained actively (as you may have noticed today), and will be, with the work on 2.0 in the background.

1.x has not failed technologically. You admit that it is a solid product which just works. What it has failed to do is to find adoption, due to the complete lack of marketing for most of those past two years, both to end users and to businesses. So I am not sure what you can achieve by trying to change the development process around it, while there is little evidence that it is the development model that is wrong. All features that have been built for 1.x were always announced and discussed months in advance on this forum. And they actually work as designed. But anyone is free to build on top of 1.x, the client that the core devs produce is just the reference software. If there is funding, to hire actual UI experts, an alternative client - optimized for specific use cases, could be built, without any need for involving the core devs in that or asking for their approval.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: farl4bit on March 30, 2016, 08:59:00 pm
I don't remember the Nxt "corporation" ever selling any shares to investors. The 21 BTC collected by BCNext are long gone (and I don't know where, since I am not BCNext). People keep speaking as if they have invested in Nxt as a business, but unless you are one of those donating to the community funds, or the Tennessee fund, buying Nxt coins from departing whales dumping on exchanges has in no way contributed any funds to be used for the Nxt development and marketing.

Claims that this "company" has irresponsibly burned through funds and is now asking for more are as far from the reality as it can get. We have been running on good will those two years.

If there is an ICO, it would be the first real ICO in the history of Nxt that can actually collect a meaningful round of funding for development and marketing. And without it, good will and donations will simply not be enough.

Creating a business like you describe around Nxt 1.x might be possible, but we can't abandon the work on 2.0 if we want to remain competitive.

One of the polls Damelon started is actually about whether 2.0 should be created at all. While the IPO votes are split, there is almost unanimous agreement that 2.0 should happen. You are now suggesting to scrap that and stay on 1.x?

1.x is showing its architectural limitations, such as having to use NXT for fees everywhere, and not being able use other units of value for trading. Still, it is being maintained actively (as you may have noticed today), and will be, with the work on 2.0 in the background.

1.x has not failed technologically. You admit that it is a solid product which just works. What it has failed to do is to find adoption, due to the complete lack of marketing for most of those past two years, both to end users and to businesses. So I am not sure what you can achieve by trying to change the development process around it, while there is little evidence that it is the development model that is wrong. All features that have been built for 1.x were always announced and discussed months in advance on this forum. And they actually work as designed. But anyone is free to build on top of 1.x, the client that the core devs produce is just the reference software. If there is funding, to hire actual UI experts, an alternative client - optimized for specific use cases, could be built, without any need for involving the core devs in that or asking for their approval.

Thanks for your clear reply. You made a good summary of the status of Nxt and what has been done for great work. The discussion about the future of Nxt os derailing and people don't check the facts. Thanks and you have my support.  :)
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Marc De Mesel on March 30, 2016, 09:58:38 pm
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.

Thanks, makes sense.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Marc De Mesel on March 30, 2016, 10:57:43 pm
I don't remember the Nxt "corporation" ever selling any shares to investors. The 21 BTC collected by BCNext are long gone (and I don't know where, since I am not BCNext). People keep speaking as if they have invested in Nxt as a business, but unless you are one of those donating to the community funds, or the Tennessee fund, buying Nxt coins from departing whales dumping on exchanges has in no way contributed any funds to be used for the Nxt development and marketing.

People that bought nxt, and hold nxt, give value to nxt, it does not matter from who or when they bought. Without them nxt has no value. Thanks to nxt being valued, donations are done to build it, and can uberhaupt be cashed out. Holders, just like developers, are an elementary part of a cryptocurrency.

Imagine the lead dev of bitcoin saying that coinholders didn't contribute anything for development or marketing, hence creating more bitcoin for an ICO to raise money for developers is ok.  ???

When investing in Nxt I assumed you were also sharing the ideology of a limited supply to be a crucial part of cryptocurrency?


I must say I am also shocked that Bas shares your opinion, who setup the 'Nxt Foundation' and is directly payed by Nxt donators for his work but says he does not work for Nxt coinholders.

I'm stumped.


Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: devlux on March 30, 2016, 11:04:56 pm
Jean Luc, first let me thank you for your response.  It explains a lot of your thought process.  I also find it impressive that you are willing to come here and talk to your users.

Let me be clear up front.  I have almost no skin in this game.  If NXT turned into something I didn't want to see I could walk away none the worse for wear.
I have a single company on the NXT Asset board and it's closely held.  We could migrate to anything at any time and I doubt anyone would notice or care.

With that said, I do care about the direction of NXT because I've just watched Bitshares and Bitcoin fall to hell due to governance problems and NXT was the last bastion of stability in the sea of change.  So in a way I do have SOME skin in this game.

My company builds things that run on NXT.  If you break that, then my work breaks and my clients will be pissed, at me.

I'm telling you this so you can understand my perspective which is simply.  Change for change sake is very bad.

Now I'm going to take a moment and post my rebuttals to your comments on a section by section basis.

I don't remember the Nxt "corporation" ever selling any shares to investors. The 21 BTC collected by BCNext are long gone (and I don't know where, since I am not BCNext). People keep speaking as if they have invested in Nxt as a business, but unless you are one of those donating to the community funds, or the Tennessee fund, buying Nxt coins from departing whales dumping on exchanges has in no way contributed any funds to be used for the Nxt development and marketing.
I think this is actually the core of the disagreement.  The bulk of the users I've spoken to, do feel as though the NXT currency in the NXT system is their stake in the future of the tech and whatever organization is running things.  It functions in many ways like a share, they view it like a share.  From their perspective it is a share.  Just because the original investors and even original CEO are long gone, that does not mean that the duty of care to investors is in any way diminished. 

You need to concern yourself with protecting stakeholder value if you care about this coin.  If you fail to do so you'll find it's more than a few whales who are dumping enmasse.

You might feel that this is not a corporation, but you are in a position of trust over the assets of a large group of people and that position of trust allows you to make changes.  These changes can have vast repercussions to the entire NXT ecosystem.  The ONLY people who are actually impacted are those who hold NXT. 

If you don't feel like you owe them a duty of care, then you need to let them know that.  Right now I think they would beg to differ.

Claims that this "company" has irresponsibly burned through funds and is now asking for more are as far from the reality as it can get. We have been running on good will those two years.
Jean Luc, I apologize if the way I have worded my postings makes it sound like I'm being adversarial.  What I am saying here is that your ICO will likely fail because potential new investors are going to see it the way I just spun it.  You can count on it. 

It doesn't matter if this is the truth or not.  What matters is their perception and that perception is going to be largely determined by your trackrecord with your current stakeholders. 

But you don't need to do an ICO. You don't need to mint a new coin and sell it to outsiders.   
You just need to care about current holders and their perception.
Then take the stand that this is a business with a viable business product, but no business plan.

If there is an ICO, it would be the first real ICO in the history of Nxt that can actually collect a meaningful round of funding for development and marketing. And without it, good will and donations will simply not be enough.
What you're saying here is that you see an ICO as the only way to raise funds and furthermore the ICO involves at a minimum dilution of existing value.

What I am saying is that if you do it, new investors are going to want to see a solid business plan.  You don't have a solid business plan.  You are selling a new coin in hopes that people will view it as something worthwhile. But you just said yourself that you don't feel like existing stakeholders contributed in a worthwhile fashion.  However these are the very people that have chosen to keep NXT going this whole time and are likely to be the only ones interested in an ICO.

I hate the word dysfunctional, it's such a divisive term, but the truth is that your plan is dysfunctional.
Whichever direction the ICO goes you run a real risk of damaging the longterm credibility of NXT.
If it goes as you hope, then you've just alienated the bulk of existing stakeholders.  You'll be sitting on a pile of cash and you'll use it to fund development efforts, but I don't see a serious plan here for how you would sustain it.

There is nothing wrong with raising funds, but do it in a way that won't alienate your current stakeholders.  All they care about is the value of their NXT holdings.  Form a new company, task it with attracting interest in NXT have it profit by innovating NXT based solutions for business.  Launch it on the NXT blockchain.  Only accept NXT in exchange for this new asset.  Show us the power of what you've developed.  We all know NXT is the best coin out there right now.  I think we're all wondering why you don't seem to see it that way.

Creating a business like you describe around Nxt 1.x might be possible, but we can't abandon the work on 2.0 if we want to remain competitive.
It's not only possible, to my mind it's the only possible.
However work on 2.0 is not the same thing as an ICO.  These are different things.
If you're doing 2.0 to raise new funds then you are doing 2.0 for the wrong reasons.
More importantly you are breaking the social contract between NXT and the existing stakeholders.

Go ahead and raise funds for a 2.0, but don't do a 2.0 to raise funds, do you see the difference?

One of the polls Damelon started is actually about whether 2.0 should be created at all. While the IPO votes are split, there is almost unanimous agreement that 2.0 should happen. You are now suggesting to scrap that and stay on 1.x?
I suggest you put the whole thing into a whitepaper and then put it to a poll of the stakeholders, let them vote by stake. 
If the majority of holders are on board for a 2.0 then do it. 

But don't do an ICO with a new coin to fund it. 
Just raise the funds from the community and do it with NXT.

1.x is showing its architectural limitations, such as having to use NXT for fees everywhere, and not being able use other units of value for trading. Still, it is being maintained actively (as you may have noticed today), and will be, with the work on 2.0 in the background.
Personally I see the use of NXT for fees everywhere as a plus, not a minus.  NXT is the unit of account on the NXT blockchain network.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  I'm personally very glad you are actively maintaining it.  I think you are a gifted and talented programmer.

1.x has not failed technologically. You admit that it is a solid product which just works. What it has failed to do is to find adoption, due to the complete lack of marketing for most of those past two years, both to end users and to businesses. So I am not sure what you can achieve by trying to change the development process around it, while there is little evidence that it is the development model that is wrong. All features that have been built for 1.x were always announced and discussed months in advance on this forum. And they actually work as designed. But anyone is free to build on top of 1.x, the client that the core devs produce is just the reference software. If there is funding, to hire actual UI experts, an alternative client - optimized for specific use cases, could be built, without any need for involving the core devs in that or asking for their approval.

Ok here is where things are going to get confusing so bear with me for a moment.
If 1.x has not failed, then there is no need for a 2.x period.  I like 1.x.  I think you guys have done a great job and I'm wondering why you don't think so.
Take it now and sell it.  Build great stuff around it.  Attract lots of business.  Promise to do that and I can promise you that NXT will be at EUR parity in a years time.

There is the software and there is a coin.  Spin a 2.0 software, nothing wrong with that.  But if that 2.0 software is going to impact stakeholders by way of becoming the default reference client, then you need to get those stakeholder's approval for those changes, because it changes at a fundamental level what an NXT is.

The idea of moving to stakeholder approved development is a direct response to two things.

Firstly you claim that stakeholders have contributed little to nothing.  This forces them to contribute.  If they want to see a change then they vote a change in or out and it gets paid for.

Secondly, it is not fair at all that you, Riker and the rest of the team are doing this sans any compensation. 
You said earlier that you want to seek external funding in order to fund future development.  Pay on delivery is an option you haven't considered before.  It's something absolutely unique in the crypto world.  The devs are paid for development work as long as they deliver features that existing stakeholders want to see.  Basically you're working for the stakeholders and it's the stakeholders who take responsibility for the future direction of the tech that powers their assets.  In the meantime you are paid whatever you feel your time is worth.

The options you laid out are ICO or private investment.  You then specifically stated that if it was private investment then the private investors would direct the future of the coin.  I think that sets a dangerous precedent, but at least you're honest about it.

I turned this on it's head.  Existing investors should direct the future of the coin.  This includes but is not limited to determining if there are future investors and also what if any future changes need to be made.  The stakeholders are the only ones with anything at risk here.  The value of their holdings needs to be considered in every development decision.

My advice stands.  Forget building a 2.0 for the purposes of an ICO.  Get rid of the ICO idea.  Spin a new business into the NXT Assets market.  Task that business with onboarding other businesses into the NXT world and building customized solutions on top of what you've got.  Then use the funding from that to fund 2.0 so that 2.0 becomes more of what users want and need and not just a feature dump.

I have no business telling you your business, but this is what I would do.  Take it for what it's worth.  You have whales fixing to dump and those same whales will very likely not be buying into a new point oh ICO.

So at least for the moment,
I vote 2 point no! 
Viva la evolución!  :)
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: remix on March 30, 2016, 11:54:07 pm
When investing in Nxt I assumed you were also sharing the ideology of a limited supply to be a crucial part of cryptocurrency?

The NXT token would still have the same limited supply if there is an ICO for fNXT, which is not a transactional token.

I didn't like the idea of an ICO for fNXT at first, but maybe it's not completely horrible. NXT  doesn't lose its limited supply. By getting some of the fNXT, NXT holders are compensated for their loss of forging rights. I think the devs should also support NXT as the main transactional token in 2.0. That way the NXT token has roughly the same status in 2.0 as it does now.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: farl4bit on March 31, 2016, 06:07:16 am
I don't remember the Nxt "corporation" ever selling any shares to investors. The 21 BTC collected by BCNext are long gone (and I don't know where, since I am not BCNext). People keep speaking as if they have invested in Nxt as a business, but unless you are one of those donating to the community funds, or the Tennessee fund, buying Nxt coins from departing whales dumping on exchanges has in no way contributed any funds to be used for the Nxt development and marketing.

Claims that this "company" has irresponsibly burned through funds and is now asking for more are as far from the reality as it can get. We have been running on good will those two years.

If there is an ICO, it would be the first real ICO in the history of Nxt that can actually collect a meaningful round of funding for development and marketing. And without it, good will and donations will simply not be enough.

Creating a business like you describe around Nxt 1.x might be possible, but we can't abandon the work on 2.0 if we want to remain competitive.

One of the polls Damelon started is actually about whether 2.0 should be created at all. While the IPO votes are split, there is almost unanimous agreement that 2.0 should happen. You are now suggesting to scrap that and stay on 1.x?

1.x is showing its architectural limitations, such as having to use NXT for fees everywhere, and not being able use other units of value for trading. Still, it is being maintained actively (as you may have noticed today), and will be, with the work on 2.0 in the background.

1.x has not failed technologically. You admit that it is a solid product which just works. What it has failed to do is to find adoption, due to the complete lack of marketing for most of those past two years, both to end users and to businesses. So I am not sure what you can achieve by trying to change the development process around it, while there is little evidence that it is the development model that is wrong. All features that have been built for 1.x were always announced and discussed months in advance on this forum. And they actually work as designed. But anyone is free to build on top of 1.x, the client that the core devs produce is just the reference software. If there is funding, to hire actual UI experts, an alternative client - optimized for specific use cases, could be built, without any need for involving the core devs in that or asking for their approval.

People that bought nxt, and hold nxt, give value to nxt, it does not matter from who or when they bought. Without them nxt has no value. Thanks to nxt being valued, donations are done to build it, and can uberhaupt be cashed out. Holders, just like developers, are an elementary part of a cryptocurrency.

Imagine the lead dev of bitcoin saying that coinholders didn't contribute anything for development or marketing, hence creating more bitcoin for an ICO to raise money for developers is ok.  ???

When investing in Nxt I assumed you were also sharing the ideology of a limited supply to be a crucial part of cryptocurrency?


I must say I am also shocked that Bas shares your opinion, who setup the 'Nxt Foundation' and is directly payed by Nxt donators for his work but says he does not work for Nxt coinholders.

I'm stumped.

@Marc, I really think you misunderstood Jean-Luc. I have read the explanation of Jean-Luc and I don't see anything strange in it. How come are you stumped? And Bas is just creating a poll, the coinholders voted in that poll for a 2.0, not Bas.   ???
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: farl4bit on March 31, 2016, 06:12:55 am
Jean Luc, first let me thank you for your response.  It explains a lot of your thought process.  I also find it impressive that you are willing to come here and talk to your users.

Let me be clear up front.  I have almost no skin in this game.  If NXT turned into something I didn't want to see I could walk away none the worse for wear.
I have a single company on the NXT Asset board and it's closely held.  We could migrate to anything at any time and I doubt anyone would notice or care.

With that said, I do care about the direction of NXT because I've just watched Bitshares and Bitcoin fall to hell due to governance problems and NXT was the last bastion of stability in the sea of change.  So in a way I do have SOME skin in this game.

My company builds things that run on NXT.  If you break that, then my work breaks and my clients will be pissed, at me.

I'm telling you this so you can understand my perspective which is simply.  Change for change sake is very bad.

Now I'm going to take a moment and post my rebuttals to your comments on a section by section basis.

I don't remember the Nxt "corporation" ever selling any shares to investors. The 21 BTC collected by BCNext are long gone (and I don't know where, since I am not BCNext). People keep speaking as if they have invested in Nxt as a business, but unless you are one of those donating to the community funds, or the Tennessee fund, buying Nxt coins from departing whales dumping on exchanges has in no way contributed any funds to be used for the Nxt development and marketing.
I think this is actually the core of the disagreement.  The bulk of the users I've spoken to, do feel as though the NXT currency in the NXT system is their stake in the future of the tech and whatever organization is running things.  It functions in many ways like a share, they view it like a share.  From their perspective it is a share.  Just because the original investors and even original CEO are long gone, that does not mean that the duty of care to investors is in any way diminished. 

You need to concern yourself with protecting stakeholder value if you care about this coin.  If you fail to do so you'll find it's more than a few whales who are dumping enmasse.

You might feel that this is not a corporation, but you are in a position of trust over the assets of a large group of people and that position of trust allows you to make changes.  These changes can have vast repercussions to the entire NXT ecosystem.  The ONLY people who are actually impacted are those who hold NXT. 

If you don't feel like you owe them a duty of care, then you need to let them know that.  Right now I think they would beg to differ.

Claims that this "company" has irresponsibly burned through funds and is now asking for more are as far from the reality as it can get. We have been running on good will those two years.
Jean Luc, I apologize if the way I have worded my postings makes it sound like I'm being adversarial.  What I am saying here is that your ICO will likely fail because potential new investors are going to see it the way I just spun it.  You can count on it. 

It doesn't matter if this is the truth or not.  What matters is their perception and that perception is going to be largely determined by your trackrecord with your current stakeholders. 

But you don't need to do an ICO. You don't need to mint a new coin and sell it to outsiders.   
You just need to care about current holders and their perception.
Then take the stand that this is a business with a viable business product, but no business plan.

If there is an ICO, it would be the first real ICO in the history of Nxt that can actually collect a meaningful round of funding for development and marketing. And without it, good will and donations will simply not be enough.
What you're saying here is that you see an ICO as the only way to raise funds and furthermore the ICO involves at a minimum dilution of existing value.

What I am saying is that if you do it, new investors are going to want to see a solid business plan.  You don't have a solid business plan.  You are selling a new coin in hopes that people will view it as something worthwhile. But you just said yourself that you don't feel like existing stakeholders contributed in a worthwhile fashion.  However these are the very people that have chosen to keep NXT going this whole time and are likely to be the only ones interested in an ICO.

I hate the word dysfunctional, it's such a divisive term, but the truth is that your plan is dysfunctional.
Whichever direction the ICO goes you run a real risk of damaging the longterm credibility of NXT.
If it goes as you hope, then you've just alienated the bulk of existing stakeholders.  You'll be sitting on a pile of cash and you'll use it to fund development efforts, but I don't see a serious plan here for how you would sustain it.

There is nothing wrong with raising funds, but do it in a way that won't alienate your current stakeholders.  All they care about is the value of their NXT holdings.  Form a new company, task it with attracting interest in NXT have it profit by innovating NXT based solutions for business.  Launch it on the NXT blockchain.  Only accept NXT in exchange for this new asset.  Show us the power of what you've developed.  We all know NXT is the best coin out there right now.  I think we're all wondering why you don't seem to see it that way.

Creating a business like you describe around Nxt 1.x might be possible, but we can't abandon the work on 2.0 if we want to remain competitive.
It's not only possible, to my mind it's the only possible.
However work on 2.0 is not the same thing as an ICO.  These are different things.
If you're doing 2.0 to raise new funds then you are doing 2.0 for the wrong reasons.
More importantly you are breaking the social contract between NXT and the existing stakeholders.

Go ahead and raise funds for a 2.0, but don't do a 2.0 to raise funds, do you see the difference?

One of the polls Damelon started is actually about whether 2.0 should be created at all. While the IPO votes are split, there is almost unanimous agreement that 2.0 should happen. You are now suggesting to scrap that and stay on 1.x?
I suggest you put the whole thing into a whitepaper and then put it to a poll of the stakeholders, let them vote by stake. 
If the majority of holders are on board for a 2.0 then do it. 

But don't do an ICO with a new coin to fund it. 
Just raise the funds from the community and do it with NXT.

1.x is showing its architectural limitations, such as having to use NXT for fees everywhere, and not being able use other units of value for trading. Still, it is being maintained actively (as you may have noticed today), and will be, with the work on 2.0 in the background.
Personally I see the use of NXT for fees everywhere as a plus, not a minus.  NXT is the unit of account on the NXT blockchain network.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  I'm personally very glad you are actively maintaining it.  I think you are a gifted and talented programmer.

1.x has not failed technologically. You admit that it is a solid product which just works. What it has failed to do is to find adoption, due to the complete lack of marketing for most of those past two years, both to end users and to businesses. So I am not sure what you can achieve by trying to change the development process around it, while there is little evidence that it is the development model that is wrong. All features that have been built for 1.x were always announced and discussed months in advance on this forum. And they actually work as designed. But anyone is free to build on top of 1.x, the client that the core devs produce is just the reference software. If there is funding, to hire actual UI experts, an alternative client - optimized for specific use cases, could be built, without any need for involving the core devs in that or asking for their approval.

Ok here is where things are going to get confusing so bear with me for a moment.
If 1.x has not failed, then there is no need for a 2.x period.  I like 1.x.  I think you guys have done a great job and I'm wondering why you don't think so.
Take it now and sell it.  Build great stuff around it.  Attract lots of business.  Promise to do that and I can promise you that NXT will be at EUR parity in a years time.

There is the software and there is a coin.  Spin a 2.0 software, nothing wrong with that.  But if that 2.0 software is going to impact stakeholders by way of becoming the default reference client, then you need to get those stakeholder's approval for those changes, because it changes at a fundamental level what an NXT is.

The idea of moving to stakeholder approved development is a direct response to two things.

Firstly you claim that stakeholders have contributed little to nothing.  This forces them to contribute.  If they want to see a change then they vote a change in or out and it gets paid for.

Secondly, it is not fair at all that you, Riker and the rest of the team are doing this sans any compensation. 
You said earlier that you want to seek external funding in order to fund future development.  Pay on delivery is an option you haven't considered before.  It's something absolutely unique in the crypto world.  The devs are paid for development work as long as they deliver features that existing stakeholders want to see.  Basically you're working for the stakeholders and it's the stakeholders who take responsibility for the future direction of the tech that powers their assets.  In the meantime you are paid whatever you feel your time is worth.

The options you laid out are ICO or private investment.  You then specifically stated that if it was private investment then the private investors would direct the future of the coin.  I think that sets a dangerous precedent, but at least you're honest about it.

I turned this on it's head.  Existing investors should direct the future of the coin.  This includes but is not limited to determining if there are future investors and also what if any future changes need to be made.  The stakeholders are the only ones with anything at risk here.  The value of their holdings needs to be considered in every development decision.

My advice stands.  Forget building a 2.0 for the purposes of an ICO.  Get rid of the ICO idea.  Spin a new business into the NXT Assets market.  Task that business with onboarding other businesses into the NXT world and building customized solutions on top of what you've got.  Then use the funding from that to fund 2.0 so that 2.0 becomes more of what users want and need and not just a feature dump.

I have no business telling you your business, but this is what I would do.  Take it for what it's worth.  You have whales fixing to dump and those same whales will very likely not be buying into a new point oh ICO.

So at least for the moment,
I vote 2 point no! 
Viva la evolución!  :)

You think that Nxt2.0 is invented by the core devs to do an ICO, than you are wrong, look bak in the discussions about Nxt 2.0, that is not the case. The ICO idea came later.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Marc De Mesel on March 31, 2016, 07:27:23 am
@Marc, I really think you misunderstood Jean-Luc. I have read the explanation of Jean-Luc and I don't see anything strange in it. How come are you stumped? And Bas is just creating a poll, the coinholders voted in that poll for a 2.0, not Bas.   ???

I think I'm understanding Jean-Luc correctly. His words as well as actions are well aligned here. Both are devaluing Nxt coinholders. 

I was referring to the latest slack chat where Bas said "we (The Foundation) do not work for "the stakeholders" and never have. Our work may be in their interest and we believe it is, but it was never set up to do that. Some whales support us, some don't. That's up to them. ... We've always worked for Nxt as a platform. That includes the stakeholders, but it's done according to what we think is what it is useful for"
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Marc De Mesel on March 31, 2016, 07:49:10 am
If there is an ICO, it would be the first real ICO in the history of Nxt that can actually collect a meaningful round of funding for development and marketing. And without it, good will and donations will simply not be enough.

This is not true. Nxt was the first to do an ICO in cryptocurrency. Sure there was a cap of 1 btc per person, but 73 people decided to invest. And if you really wanted to invest more than 1 btc you could probably find ways. BCNext stopped at 21 btc but it took months to get that amount.

After that these Nxt'ers made lots of profit thanks to people like me willing to invest in the coin at higher valuations. Many of those early Nxt'ers donated a lot to Nxt development and marketing, I bet it's over a million USD.

So yes, there has been an ICO and some decent money has been invested in Nxt development and marketing.


The problem is that we failed to have adoption with most of the features, except the Asset Exchange, and indeed I failed to market Nxt decently, I failed there.

But we also failed in setting up a sustainable business model, and you have also made some serious mistakes of making big changes that were not user friendly and have caused people to leave.


It is not at all giving me confidence that you don't take any responsibility about the lack of adoption.

Instead it seems you are doubling down, making the same mistakes as before, big changes that are not user friendly and chase more people away than they attract.


This is due to marketing as well, but I cannot market something I disagree with, and this is now happening more and more.

It's not you decide and produce, and I market whatever you come up with.

It's we decide together, and then you create and I market.


I thank you and Riker for the invitation to involve me more in the process, but I'm not seeing any openness from you here on the board.


Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: lurker10 on March 31, 2016, 07:52:18 am
Jean Luc said he will code for one year to release Nxt 2.0 and attach NXT 1.x as the default side chain. Am I misreading him?

The marketing team said they're funded from the Tennessee project to go for 12 months.

Dev will finish work to make Nxt 2.0 a reality, marketing has funds to work to the end of year. Why the hell IPO? Attracting new speculators is not worth risking the loss of store of value status and alienating, dividing the community.

Yes, no IPO means Nxt can't have a huge marketing campaign with flashy videos and presentations. So what. Running stable for years is solid marketing. The price will pick up if the platform is useful. Useful depends on the underlying tech. What can IPO do to the Nxt tech? The platform is used little not because of lack of dev work, GUI, etc. It's not used because people keep trust in centralized organizations. They trust ebay, they trust paypal, they trust traditional stock markets and banks. Bitcoin is used for the sole reason of being first, used by geeks. The number of geeks is limited. Ethereum is not used, it's an illusion. Sorry, IPO will not help to take Nxt to mainstream, people losing trust in centralized institutions is what it takes to take crypto out of the geeks niche to mainstream.

Modest rebranding can be funded by donations. What else is urgent?
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: farl4bit on March 31, 2016, 08:04:55 am
@Marc, I really think you misunderstood Jean-Luc. I have read the explanation of Jean-Luc and I don't see anything strange in it. How come are you stumped? And Bas is just creating a poll, the coinholders voted in that poll for a 2.0, not Bas.   ???

I think I'm understanding Jean-Luc correctly. His words as well as actions are well aligned here. Both are devaluing Nxt coinholders. 

I was referring to the latest slack chat where Bas said "we (The Foundation) do not work for "the stakeholders" and never have. Our work may be in their interest and we believe it is, but it was never set up to do that. Some whales support us, some don't. That's up to them. ... We've always worked for Nxt as a platform. That includes the stakeholders, but it's done according to what we think is what it is useful for"
This is all jibba, jabba and different use of words. In the end they work their asses off for Nxt, and not for the money. Damelon and Dave did way more for Nxt before they got funded with Nxt Foundation. And even the 'salary' they receive now is nothing compared to the work they do all day.

Nxt Foundation stated in the beginning their plans for Nxt and those who funded them, read the plans and some supported the idea. Nxt Foundation is not only for those stakeholders. Their plan was to market Nxt better, not to make these stakeholders better. Otherwise the Nxt Foundation would not me objective..
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Marc De Mesel on March 31, 2016, 08:37:42 am
One of the polls Damelon started is actually about whether 2.0 should be created at all. While the IPO votes are split, there is almost unanimous agreement that 2.0 should happen.

I voted now so no more almost unanimous.

People, please change your votes on NXT 2.0 proposal, I made post here why:

https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/please-change-your-votes-on-nxt-2-0-proposal-some-new-polls/msg214106/#msg214106
 
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Damelon on March 31, 2016, 09:04:03 am
@Marc, I really think you misunderstood Jean-Luc. I have read the explanation of Jean-Luc and I don't see anything strange in it. How come are you stumped? And Bas is just creating a poll, the coinholders voted in that poll for a 2.0, not Bas.   ???

I think I'm understanding Jean-Luc correctly. His words as well as actions are well aligned here. Both are devaluing Nxt coinholders. 

I was referring to the latest slack chat where Bas said "we (The Foundation) do not work for "the stakeholders" and never have. Our work may be in their interest and we believe it is, but it was never set up to do that. Some whales support us, some don't. That's up to them. ... We've always worked for Nxt as a platform. That includes the stakeholders, but it's done according to what we think is what it is useful for"


Marc, this is just low and below the belt.
It's also twisting facts or just plain not reading then plans are put before you.

You really, REALLY seem to have a very selective memory. Read the mission statement on our first page: it's been there for almost one and a half year http://nxtfoundation.org/

Have you even listened to anything we've been saying about the Foundation since the start? http://cointelegraph.com/news/newly-incorporated-nonprofit-nxt-foundation-to-be-a-point-of-contact

Furthermore, I have never at ANY point agreed with doing anything! To suggest this is so utterly below the belt and misleading I am forced to contradict it in the strongest possible terms.

The only problem I am identifying is the problem of funding, something with which most people agree. Why, because it IS a problem.

What Dave and I mean by saying we do not "work for the coinholders" is that we are not on their payroll. That means we do not follow their orders. Why? Because leadership by committee doesn't work!
We have been open about this from the start in mid 2014 and if you haven't read that, your problem.

By the way, seeing as you never invested or contributed to the Foundation or TNNSE in the first place, why are you trying to force us to say what you like? We certainly have no obligation to agree with you.

To recap:

1. I have never agreed on anything. If putting up a vote leads to these kinds of accusations, is it a wonder people don't fucking let their voice be heard?
2. Marc's representation of the NXT Foundation is based on HIS idea of what the Foundation should be. It is what we have always said it is, and we can back that up with posts. I am very disappointed Marc is putting pressure in such a way, by falsifying facts and twisting words.
3. Funding IS a problem. At no time have any of the Foundation members endorsed any way to solve this. I have put up three polls because I think it's better to act on knowledge than hearsay.

I work for how I feel that Nxt can become better. I have a proven track record of actually doing things for two years. They may not have always been succesful, for varying reasons. You may not agree. You don't need to. Do something yourself.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Marc De Mesel on March 31, 2016, 09:13:58 am
@Marc, I really think you misunderstood Jean-Luc. I have read the explanation of Jean-Luc and I don't see anything strange in it. How come are you stumped? And Bas is just creating a poll, the coinholders voted in that poll for a 2.0, not Bas.   ???

I think I'm understanding Jean-Luc correctly. His words as well as actions are well aligned here. Both are devaluing Nxt coinholders. 

I was referring to the latest slack chat where Bas said "we (The Foundation) do not work for "the stakeholders" and never have. Our work may be in their interest and we believe it is, but it was never set up to do that. Some whales support us, some don't. That's up to them. ... We've always worked for Nxt as a platform. That includes the stakeholders, but it's done according to what we think is what it is useful for"


Marc, this is just low and below the belt.
It's also twisting facts or just plain not reading then plans are put before you.

You really, REALLY seem to have a very selective memory. Read the mission statement on our first page: it's been there for almost one and a half year http://nxtfoundation.org/

Have you even listened to anything we've been saying about the Foundation since the start? http://cointelegraph.com/news/newly-incorporated-nonprofit-nxt-foundation-to-be-a-point-of-contact

Furthermore, I have never at ANY point agreed with doing anything! To suggest this is so utterly below the belt and misleading I am forced to contradict it in the strongest possible terms.

The only problem I am identifying is the problem of funding, something with which most people agree. Why, because it IS a problem.

What Dave and I mean by saying we do not "work for the coinholders" is that we are not on their payroll. That means we do not follow their orders. Why? Because leadership by committee doesn't work!
We have been open about this from the start in mid 2014 and if you haven't read that, your problem.

By the way, seeing as you never invested or contributed to the Foundation or TNNSE in the first place, why are you trying to force us to say what you like? We certainly have no obligation to agree with you.

To recap:

1. I have never agreed on anything. If putting up a vote leads to these kinds of accusations, is it a wonder people don't fucking let their voice be heard?
2. Marc's representation of the NXT Foundation is based on HIS idea of what the Foundation should be. It is what we have always said it is, and we can back that up with posts. I am very disappointed Marc is putting pressure in such a way, by falsifying facts and twisting words.
3. Funding IS a problem. At no time have any of the Foundation members endorsed any way to solve this. I have put up three polls because I think it's better to act on knowledge than hearsay.

I work for how I feel that Nxt can become better. I have a proven track record of actually doing things for two years. They may not have always been succesful, for varying reasons. You may not agree. You don't need to. Do something yourself.

Bas, please, you are overreacting.

I am not misrepresenting you or giving blows below the belt.

I'm merely quoting what you said. I didn't leave anything out, I quoted the full text.

You as well as Jean Luc don't value coinholders enough. That is a big problem my friend. A big one.


You cannot say you don't work for the coinholders, you DO work for them. You get payed by them, your job is to give value to the NXT coin.

You are one of the leading figures in Nxt. We are failing and you, and me, and Jean Luc are responsible for that, not the market. 


Don't shake responsibility, and start looking at your own actions.

It is absolutely unacceptable that you think you don't work for the coinholders, and dare to say this.

You are out of touch with reality.


I'm sorry to say this, it's my opinion.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Damelon on March 31, 2016, 09:31:01 am
The Foundation works to maximise the value by working to bring in business.

That is the way we work for the coinholders.

This does not mean that we agree with the strategies that some coinholders propose, and we are free to disagree with them.

I disagree with a lot you have said, and I am also free to voice that. In that way, we do not work for you, as in being employed by you.

We do not have a contract. Your posts more and more seem to imply there is one and there isn't.

We ARE aligned in our target.


If there were a contract, it would be with the people who donated to us. So far, we've only gotten support from these.

So if I say I am not working for the coinholders, what I mean to say is that I am not employed by them. I want to maximise value, otherwise I'd not even have stepped up.
But I think a lot of people are terribly short sighted when it comes to what needs to be done or just don't understand the realities of working in this industry.

One of the biggest reasons that we are not commenting on plans, but merely facilitating the discussion is exactly because we have influence.
Influence can be terrible, because just a few words can be totally misrepresented. I'd like to use your reactions in this thread as an example of just this happening.

You are unhappy and that's your right. What is most certainly not your right is to take words and make them to mean something else entirely.
If you do that, you will get a reaction back, and a strong one.

The situation is in this case that we cannot force the core devs to do anything. Nothing at all.
Since we started TNNSE, we've been approached by more than one person to "change their minds" when they did something people thought was bad.
And we have taken that seriously. The fact that you are talking with Jean Luc and Riker so much now is a direct result of that.
What this doesn't mean is that we are their Masters. We cannot and SHOULD not be.

I have said time and again: that's not how crypto works. If you do not "get" that, you do not get crypto or even the basics of the balance of power. It's basic Trias Politica.

So:

1. In the sense of being employed by Nxt Stakeholders: we do not work for Coinholders. We are not contracted employees.
2. In the sense that we are aligned with the interests of Nxt Stakeholders in as much we want Nxt to succeed and flourish: yes, we are working "for" the Nxt Stakeholders.

Language is a tricky thing.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Triangle on March 31, 2016, 10:09:58 am
My 2 nxts:

Nxt has been heading towards a very obvious doom since mid-2014, that is indisputable. SOMETHING has to change, I don't think anyone doubts this anymore, however before radically changing Nxt or even entertaining the idea of a IPO 2.0 the question that should be answered first and foremost is this: WHAT exactly is Nxt's vision? WHO is going to use NXT and for WHAT?

Ethereum is for smart contracts = easy to underststand and easy for businesses to implement
Z-Cash is for secure and anonymous transactions = easy to understand and easy to build use-cases for
IOTA is for micro/nano-transactions and data transfer = easy to underststand and easy for businesses to implement

Nxt is currently an amalgam of 10 different things. It tries to be this univeral solution, which by all laws of engineering and design is impossible without severe trade offs in every department, meaning that you end up with the ultimate subpar solution. So IMO the IPO discussion is premature, first and foremost there should be a discussion about Nxt's actual utility and what market problem it aims to be a 10x solution for.

Nxt 2.0, while I haven't had time to dig deep into it, seems to me to be an ad-hoc frankenstein solution with no clear goal. Nxt development could learn a lot from iterative development with real life input, rather than these grandeur 1 year long theoretical roadmaps that build a software that might have zero real life utility.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: farl4bit on March 31, 2016, 10:19:02 am
Nxt is currently an amalgam of 10 different things. It tries to be this univeral solution, which by all laws of engineering and design is impossible without severe trade offs in every department, meaning that you end up with the ultimate subpar solution. So IMO the IPO discussion is premature, first and foremost there should be a discussion about Nxt's actual utility and what market problem it aims to be a 10x solution for.

The Unique Selling Point for Nxt is that it is a Crypto Platform for all decentralized possibilities.

I don't want to buy Dash for anonymous transactions, Peercoin for staking, Bitcoin for transactions, Blabla coin for storage, Bla bla bla coin for messaging over the blockchain, bla bla bla bla coin for sending products over the blockchain, etc.. I get tired even thinking about it.  :(

I like Nxt because I only have to buy one coin, don't have to dive in all the different coins and forums. Business don't like that too. They want a easy simple tool for their blockchain solutions. That is a real strong quality of Nxt and none other coin has this.   :)
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: lurker10 on March 31, 2016, 10:29:27 am
The Unique Selling Point for Nxt is that it is a Crypto Platform for all decentralized possibilities.

It is convenient that Nxt can do a lot of functions. Not undermining the store of value function, its one of the main functions, is important. Get IPO money to fund the second sidechain with a different name.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Triangle on March 31, 2016, 10:36:47 am
Farl4bit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_creep

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexibility-usability_tradeoff


No one is saying that Nxt has to restrict itself to jut ONE thing forever, but it should focus on doing one thing REALLY good, and then later on it may expand on that. But it needs real life input, you can't build in a theory-space vacuum forever and expect the product to work in reality, this is especially true for complex systems. I suggest this book: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10127019-the-lean-startup


It's also worth asking: what functions of the decentralized world would get real life adoption first? Even Ethereum is primarily forked and turned into a permissioned system, because that's what most businesses want.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Marc De Mesel on March 31, 2016, 10:44:11 am
Farl4bit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_creep

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexibility-usability_tradeoff


No one is saying that Nxt has to restrict itself to jut ONE thing forever, but it should focus on doing one thing REALLY good, and then later on it may expand on that. But it needs real life input, you can't build in a theory-space vacuum forever and expect the product to work in reality, this is especially true for complex systems. I suggest this book: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10127019-the-lean-startup


It's also worth asking: what functions of the decentralized world would get real life adoption first? Even Ethereum is primarily forked and turned into a permissioned system, because that's what most businesses want.

Great post, as is your other analyses of why nxt is failing.

Thank you.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: bidji29 on March 31, 2016, 10:47:19 am
While i aggree NXT 2.0 need to happen at some point in time to address the scalability issue (i think that's the biggest problem right now).
It is clear that scalability is not an urgent problem looking at transactions load right now.
It seems like this change is being pushed maybe too fast, and to make possible an ICO.

About the ICO :

I wouldn't mind personally a slight devaluation of my coin to attract new investor, i still can't get behind it.

Because a second ICO go against everything that cryptocurrency stand for. Playing with the total supply of a coin is a big NO for me.
And like Devlux said, it would scare new investor anyway. Because if we do another ICO, why not another one when things run out.
It would taint NXT forever and it would impossible to get back up from that. (It is NOT tainted right now, even with some people saying it)
THis ICO would very probably a very big fail. People like invest in new things, not old one with a twist.

If we want to get funding, we need to find another way than playing with NXT supply.
I suggest another coin on top of NXT, like some coin are doing on top of ethereum  (like LISK or Augur ). After 2.0 it should be easy to create this coin.
This coin would need to be differenciated from NXT of course and have another purpose.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: bidji29 on March 31, 2016, 10:48:34 am
.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Marc De Mesel on March 31, 2016, 10:50:10 am
The Unique Selling Point for Nxt is that it is a Crypto Platform for all decentralized possibilities.

It is convenient that Nxt can do a lot of functions. Not undermining the store of value function, its one of the main functions, is important. Get IPO money to fund the second sidechain with a different name.

lurker, didn't you support the idea to do an ICO? I'm confused as this is undermining the store of value function that Nxt has?
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: lurker10 on March 31, 2016, 11:04:01 am
lurker, didn't you support the idea to do an ICO? I'm confused as this is undermining the store of value function that Nxt has?

Generally I don't support IPO. I could support it under special conditions which I would feel uncomfortable with but can understand it's a necessary evil.

I don't think the second sidechain funded by the IPO directly undermines the store of value of the default NXT more than other unrelated cryptos undermine the value of NXT or more than other sidechains that anybody will want to create on the Nxt 2.0 platform undermine it. Half of investors will probably be the default NXT investors too, this helps to keep it in check. This IPO can help solve the dev and marketing funding problems which are not urgent as far as I can tell. Jean Luc took upon himself to code and release Nxt 2.0 with the NXT as a sidechain with no additional funding if I read him correctly. More funds may be required for further development, one year from now, these can be done in a IPO creating a second sidechain.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: abctc on March 31, 2016, 01:10:40 pm
When investing in Nxt I assumed you were also sharing the ideology of a limited supply to be a crucial part of cryptocurrency?
The NXT token would still have the same limited supply if there is an ICO for fNXT, which is not a transactional token.
- this.
And fNXT (motherchain-hypervisor) is a completely new invention. Its another story, and should be ICOed in order to bring new businesses and users to the platform.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: abctc on March 31, 2016, 01:28:31 pm
NXT might be known as the coin where you, at any time can loose some of your % of tokens because other people think so.
- how is it that you loose % of NXT tokens due to IPO ?   NXT tokens still allow you to forge (to compose) Nxt blocks and gain tx commision (in NXT).  So nothing changes to your NXT tokens.
Hmmmm.. not sure if I follow you here.
Are you talking about the NXT child chain, or do you mean fNXT?
- yes, about the NXT child chain.  Because fNXT (and sidechains) is absolutely new invention, so 100% of fNXT should be IPOed.  Nobody at initial IPO (2013, 21 BTC) paid for sidechains.  And nobody lose any % of their NXT tokens during 2.0 IPO.
For the last 2 years or so I have been buying the tokens needed to create transactions on the entire NXT platform.
So in the next version those tokens will only control a tiny part of the NXT platform you say?
- imaging someone who bought Win95 back in 90'. She controlled entire platform system! Then she bought WinXP. And she whanted to control run them both. And then Connectix (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Virtual_PC) invented VirtualPC. So our user had to pay for Connectix VirtualPC if she wants to run both OSes.

fNXT is a new invention. It is a hypervisor over the old and new blockchains. And it can/should be 100% ICOed.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Jean-Luc on March 31, 2016, 01:49:08 pm
This IPO can help solve the dev and marketing funding problems which are not urgent as far as I can tell. Jean Luc took upon himself to code and release Nxt 2.0 with the NXT as a sidechain with no additional funding if I read him correctly.
There is some wishful thinking interpretation from you here. While I can afford to work on a project without funding for up to one more year, it would be irrational for me to do so for a project that I consider bound to fail. And without attracting funding for marketing and development, Nxt has very high likelihood of failure.

Quote
More funds may be required for further development, one year from now, these can be done in a IPO creating a second sidechain.
Now this would really be printing money. Because anyone could create a child chain and claim it has value, and repeat that again and again.
If there is an IPO, it must be before the 2.0 platform is launched, and those investing in it should know that they are buying into something that can't be diluted in the future, i.e. the forging token. Other communities who want to launch child chains could do their IPOs for their chains, but if the maintainers of the Nxt platform start doing that, it would really be transparent that such a child chain is created only for the purpose of collecting money - unlikely to attract investors.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: lurker10 on March 31, 2016, 02:33:58 pm
There is some wishful thinking interpretation from you here. While I can afford to work on a project without funding for up to one more year, it would be irrational for me to do so for a project that I consider bound to fail. And without attracting funding for marketing and development, Nxt has very high likelihood of failure.

How rational is working two years without pay which you admitted to? It is not. Nobody sane can believe it. Unless you have invested in NXT and want to make it a success.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: durerus on March 31, 2016, 02:52:08 pm
When investing in Nxt I assumed you were also sharing the ideology of a limited supply to be a crucial part of cryptocurrency?
The NXT token would still have the same limited supply if there is an ICO for fNXT, which is not a transactional token.
- this.
And fNXT (motherchain-hypervisor) is a completely new invention. Its another story, and should be ICOed in order to bring new businesses and users to the platform.
Quote
fNXT is a new invention. It is a hypervisor over the old and new blockchains. And it can/should be 100% ICOed.
NXT 1.x is ownership (forging) token and transactional token to be used for the multitude of features. If NXT 1.x holders loose ownership 100%, as you want it, that would be tough to say the least. With your logic you could also say that childchain is a completely new invention and NXT the childchain should be 100% ICOed.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: VanBreuk on March 31, 2016, 02:54:52 pm
There is some wishful thinking interpretation from you here. While I can afford to work on a project without funding for up to one more year, it would be irrational for me to do so for a project that I consider bound to fail. And without attracting funding for marketing and development, Nxt has very high likelihood of failure.

How rational is working two years without pay which you admitted to? It is not. Nobody sane can believe it. Unless you have invested in NXT and want to make it a success.

I don't think those assumptions are for you to make. Someone can spend time in a project because he has time available, and/or no pressing financial concerns. Of course working for something that can provide additional rewards other than a monthly wage offers bigger incentives, but I don't understand your point. Are you questioning whether Jean-Luc should be working for free or not? Because regardless of payment, neither him or you or me or anyone would choose to invest time and effort in a project with little chance of succeeding.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: lurker10 on March 31, 2016, 03:05:06 pm
There is some wishful thinking interpretation from you here. While I can afford to work on a project without funding for up to one more year, it would be irrational for me to do so for a project that I consider bound to fail. And without attracting funding for marketing and development, Nxt has very high likelihood of failure.

How rational is working two years without pay which you admitted to? It is not. Nobody sane can believe it. Unless you have invested in NXT and want to make it a success.

I don't think those assumptions are for you to make. Someone can spend time in a project because he has time available, and/or no pressing financial concerns. Of course working for something that can provide additional rewards other than a monthly wage offers bigger incentives, but I don't understand your point. Are you questioning whether Jean-Luc should be working for free or not? Because regardless of payment, neither him or you or me or anyone would choose to invest time and effort in a project with little chance of succeeding.

My point is I'd rather see a dev not bullying investors into his vision, work for a pay and listen to users. He can stop developing, there is no obligation for him to go on. Other devs can be found who can pick the project from where it is now and continue. Centralizing development around one dev is stupid and not a crypto way.

The poll results show that majority wants Nxt 2.0 changes, nobody challenges his tech vision of the future. But now he wants to bully investors into accepting his financial vision. That's too much.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: farl4bit on March 31, 2016, 03:09:04 pm
There is some wishful thinking interpretation from you here. While I can afford to work on a project without funding for up to one more year, it would be irrational for me to do so for a project that I consider bound to fail. And without attracting funding for marketing and development, Nxt has very high likelihood of failure.

How rational is working two years without pay which you admitted to? It is not. Nobody sane can believe it. Unless you have invested in NXT and want to make it a success.

I don't think those assumptions are for you to make. Someone can spend time in a project because he has time available, and/or no pressing financial concerns. Of course working for something that can provide additional rewards other than a monthly wage offers bigger incentives, but I don't understand your point. Are you questioning whether Jean-Luc should be working for free or not? Because regardless of payment, neither him or you or me or anyone would choose to invest time and effort in a project with little chance of succeeding.

My point is I'd rather see a dev not bullying investors into his vision, work for a pay and listen to users. He can stop developing, there is no obligation for him to go on. Other devs can be found who can pick the project from where it is now and continue. Centralizing development around one dev is stupid and not a crypto way.

The poll results show that majority wants Nxt 2.0 changes, nobody challenges his tech vision of the future. But now he wants to bully investors into accepting his financial vision. That's too much.
This is cryptocurrency, you are free to create a hardfork with another developer. The forgers will decide which one will win. Jean-Luc has decided for himself to keep working on this project (for free :o) and that is his choice. Cryptocurrency is democratic, that is the beauty.  :)
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Damelon on March 31, 2016, 03:13:25 pm
There is some wishful thinking interpretation from you here. While I can afford to work on a project without funding for up to one more year, it would be irrational for me to do so for a project that I consider bound to fail. And without attracting funding for marketing and development, Nxt has very high likelihood of failure.

How rational is working two years without pay which you admitted to? It is not. Nobody sane can believe it. Unless you have invested in NXT and want to make it a success.

I don't think those assumptions are for you to make. Someone can spend time in a project because he has time available, and/or no pressing financial concerns. Of course working for something that can provide additional rewards other than a monthly wage offers bigger incentives, but I don't understand your point. Are you questioning whether Jean-Luc should be working for free or not? Because regardless of payment, neither him or you or me or anyone would choose to invest time and effort in a project with little chance of succeeding.

My point is I'd rather see a dev not bullying investors into his vision, work for a pay and listen to users. He can stop developing, there is no obligation for him to go on. Other devs can be found who can pick the project from where it is now and continue. Centralizing development around one dev is stupid and not a crypto way.

The poll results show that majority wants Nxt 2.0 changes, nobody challenges his tech vision of the future. But now he wants to bully investors into accepting his financial vision. That's too much.

Can you explain what you exactly mean by "his financial vision"?

What financial vision is he giving?
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: lurker10 on March 31, 2016, 03:25:28 pm
This is cryptocurrency, you are free to create a hardfork with another developer. The forgers will decide which one will win. Jean-Luc has decided for himself to keep working on this project (for free :o) and that is his choice. Cryptocurrency is democratic, that is the beauty.  :)

That's right. That's the beauty of it. I am just saying my opinion.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: lurker10 on March 31, 2016, 03:32:19 pm
There is some wishful thinking interpretation from you here. While I can afford to work on a project without funding for up to one more year, it would be irrational for me to do so for a project that I consider bound to fail. And without attracting funding for marketing and development, Nxt has very high likelihood of failure.

How rational is working two years without pay which you admitted to? It is not. Nobody sane can believe it. Unless you have invested in NXT and want to make it a success.

I don't think those assumptions are for you to make. Someone can spend time in a project because he has time available, and/or no pressing financial concerns. Of course working for something that can provide additional rewards other than a monthly wage offers bigger incentives, but I don't understand your point. Are you questioning whether Jean-Luc should be working for free or not? Because regardless of payment, neither him or you or me or anyone would choose to invest time and effort in a project with little chance of succeeding.

My point is I'd rather see a dev not bullying investors into his vision, work for a pay and listen to users. He can stop developing, there is no obligation for him to go on. Other devs can be found who can pick the project from where it is now and continue. Centralizing development around one dev is stupid and not a crypto way.

The poll results show that majority wants Nxt 2.0 changes, nobody challenges his tech vision of the future. But now he wants to bully investors into accepting his financial vision. That's too much.

Can you explain what you exactly mean by "his financial vision"?

What financial vision is he giving?

Vision is not the right word. Financial management of the Nxt crypto currency ecosystem.

It didn't go unnoticed when Jean Luc "hinted" that development would not be guaranteed to continue past the 1.7 release if investors don't pay up to fund the Tennessee project. Investors swallowed this and paid up. I am not saying the Tennessee project shouldn't have happened, no. But it was a good example that one person can manipulate the community into what he thinks is best and he didn't hesitate to use that power. Clearly the Tennessee project isn't his responsibility but he can influence financial decisions. It's centralization of governance on one person. That's what it is. It doesn't go unnoticed. If he doesn't respect financial decisions of the community and exerts too much influence in those matters, it is very dangerous. As I said, the majority supports his Nxt 2.0 tech vision. Financial matters should be left alone and should be up to the community.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Ludom on March 31, 2016, 03:34:28 pm
Cryptocurrency is not democratic. Proof of work systems are not at all. Proof of Stake is a little more but it's more oligarchic.

I found always funny when CfB explained that the BCNext vision of Nxt PoS was the society of "1984". The big stakeholders was the "member of the Inner party", the little fish was something like the "guys of the Outer party" and the non-NXTholders the workers.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: lurker10 on March 31, 2016, 03:37:19 pm
We have to find some middle ground. It's one boat. Bullying is not the right way. Finding consensus in finances and governance is the right way. Tech matters can be left to Jean Luc to decide authoritatively.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Damelon on March 31, 2016, 03:41:23 pm
What you see as bullying, I see as stating a simple fact: no funding, in the end no development.

Is there anyone questioning the fact that our financial basis is shaky at best?

Is there anyone questioning that this is an issue that needs to be resolved?
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: lurker10 on March 31, 2016, 03:47:33 pm
What you see as bullying, I see as stating a simple fact: no funding, in the end no development.

Is there anyone questioning the fact that our financial basis is shaky at best?

Is there anyone questioning that this is an issue that needs to be resolved?

If there are no funds for development this very moment, this should be stated clearly and unequivocally.
The monthly pay should be suggested and donation fund set up.

Whether there are development funds or not, what I said above still applies, the dev should NOT exert his influence and use power to sway the community in financial decisions or decide how much investors should give up of their stakes.
Title: Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
Post by: Brangdon on March 31, 2016, 07:25:16 pm
If there is an IPO, it must be before the 2.0 platform is launched, and those investing in it should know that they are buying into something that can't be diluted in the future, i.e. the forging token.
Are you saying that the proposed IPO is not a dilution? Or are you saying there was never a promise not to dilute in the past?

Or are you saying that yes, NXT 1.0 was a forging token that was bought and sold on the understanding that its forging power would never be diluted, and that for NXT 2.0 we are going to break that promise, and that after 2.0 we will never break that promise again? Because that doesn't sound very credible.
elective-stereophonic
elective-stereophonic
assembly
assembly