Switch to ArdorForum

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.

Quote from: farl4bit on March 31, 2016, 10:19:02 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?

Quote from: Marc De Mesel on March 30, 2016, 10:57:43 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.

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.

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.

Quote from: remix on March 30, 2016, 11:54:07 pm

Quote from: Marc De Mesel on March 30, 2016, 10:57:43 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.

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.

Quote from: lurker10 on March 31, 2016, 02:33:58 pm

Quote from: Jean-Luc on March 31, 2016, 01:49:08 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.

Quote from: VanBreuk on March 31, 2016, 02:54:52 pm

Quote from: lurker10 on March 31, 2016, 02:33:58 pm

Quote from: Jean-Luc on March 31, 2016, 01:49:08 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?

Quote from: lurker10 on March 31, 2016, 03:05:06 pm

Quote from: VanBreuk on March 31, 2016, 02:54:52 pm

Quote from: lurker10 on March 31, 2016, 02:33:58 pm

Quote from: Jean-Luc on March 31, 2016, 01:49:08 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.

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.