elective-stereophonic
elective-stereophonic
[POLL] The IPO idea.
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Latest Stable Nxt Client: Nxt 1.12.2

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7  All

Author Topic: [POLL] The IPO idea.  (Read 22129 times)

MrCluster87

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +81/-3
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 855
    • View Profile
    • youtube
Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
« Reply #80 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".

« Last Edit: March 31, 2016, 10:19:56 am by MrCluster87 »
Logged

Jean-Luc

  • Core Dev
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +816/-81
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1610
    • View Profile
Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
« Reply #81 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.
Logged
GPG key fingerprint: 263A 9EB0 29CF C77A 3D06  FD13 811D 6940 E1E4 240C
NXT-X4LF-9A4G-WN9Z-2R322

farl4bit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +210/-45
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3466
    • View Profile
    • Crypto Advies
Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
« Reply #82 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.  :)
Logged

Marc De Mesel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +228/-83
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 643
    • View Profile
Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
« Reply #83 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.

Marc De Mesel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +228/-83
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 643
    • View Profile
Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
« Reply #84 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.


« Last Edit: March 31, 2016, 07:30:34 am by Marc De Mesel »
Logged

devlux

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +67/-2
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 307
    • View Profile
    • Gemspace
Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
« Reply #85 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 evoluciĆ³n!  :)
Logged
Evolution NEXT D.A.C.
NXTAE:3385321989487982138 (EVOLVE)

remix

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Karma: +18/-2
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
« Reply #86 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.
Logged

farl4bit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +210/-45
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3466
    • View Profile
    • Crypto Advies
Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
« Reply #87 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.   ???
Logged

farl4bit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +210/-45
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3466
    • View Profile
    • Crypto Advies
Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
« Reply #88 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 evoluciĆ³n!  :)

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.
Logged

Marc De Mesel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +228/-83
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 643
    • View Profile
Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
« Reply #89 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"

Marc De Mesel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +228/-83
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 643
    • View Profile
Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
« Reply #90 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.


« Last Edit: March 31, 2016, 08:34:03 am by Marc De Mesel »
Logged

lurker10

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +168/-33
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
« Reply #91 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?
Logged
Run a node - win a prize! "Lucky node" project jar: NXT-8F28-EDVE-LPPX-HY4E7

farl4bit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +210/-45
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3466
    • View Profile
    • Crypto Advies
Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
« Reply #92 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..
Logged

Marc De Mesel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +228/-83
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 643
    • View Profile
Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
« Reply #93 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
 

Damelon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +792/-54
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2314
    • View Profile
    • Nxt Inside
Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
« Reply #94 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.
Logged
Member of the Nxt Foundation | Donations: NXT-D6K7-MLY6-98FM-FLL5T
Join Nxt Slack! https://nxtchat.herokuapp.com/
Founder of Blockchain Workspace | Personal Site & Blog

Marc De Mesel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +228/-83
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 643
    • View Profile
Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
« Reply #95 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.

Damelon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +792/-54
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2314
    • View Profile
    • Nxt Inside
Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
« Reply #96 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.
Logged
Member of the Nxt Foundation | Donations: NXT-D6K7-MLY6-98FM-FLL5T
Join Nxt Slack! https://nxtchat.herokuapp.com/
Founder of Blockchain Workspace | Personal Site & Blog

Triangle

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Karma: +67/-34
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 226
    • View Profile
Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
« Reply #97 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.
Logged

farl4bit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +210/-45
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3466
    • View Profile
    • Crypto Advies
Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
« Reply #98 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.   :)
Logged

lurker10

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +168/-33
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
Re: [POLL] The IPO idea.
« Reply #99 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.
Logged
Run a node - win a prize! "Lucky node" project jar: NXT-8F28-EDVE-LPPX-HY4E7
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7  All
 

elective-stereophonic
elective-stereophonic
assembly
assembly