The aim is to be sure it's one voter, one vote. (I hope)
I am not tech savvy enough to ascertain that within a digital environment without giving up identity.

Is there?

Excellent! I love your clear style of presentation.
I post them on my blog, too (linking to PoF) and the video easily gets most hits.

I also like the fact that you honestly warn people about the amount they can safely invest.

Edit: haha, love it that rickyjames gets a mention

No system is perfect.
If we are trying for a perfect system, we will indeed be boned.

The question is if we are judging a system by the fact that someone can take advantage of it or by how much good it actually does.

If we can think up a simple (requirement 1) system that can be explained to any voter (requirement 2) that has a low probability of abuse (requirement 3) that also allows for tweaking in the future based on new insights (requirement 4), then I say implement it and accept that at some point it will f*ck up and we will be prepared for that.

I think the main problem he is referring to is that you are already creating a "class" distribution by giving some groups an "edge"

I haven't posted a single calculation either...

Mainly because they go over my head.

Having said that: íf we have a voting system, it cannot be allowed to be gamed.

As far as I see it, that is the only thing that matters. Everything else is detail.

Don't you just love decentralised decisionmaking?

At the moment we are all starting to shout at each other because we are invested in Nxt. Not just with money, I mean as an idea and something we want to make happen.

That's GOOD!

The fact that we sometimes have totally different ideas of how to achieve this is also good. It means we are getting new ideas and evolving our model.

However, we are starting to reach the point where we are unwilling to listen anymore.

I sincerely hope we all can take a deep breath and can try to get to what we want again.

Nxt is growing and that will mean loads of people with different opinions coming in.

That's hard to deal with, however way you slice it, but it will happen.

Found this nice article in the NEX thread, by the way. It struck a chord regarding the issues in this topic at the moment: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-18/grunt-funds-are-trending-in-startup-circles

Somehow I think we are getting off track in the discussion here.

The way I read it is that you want voters who actually care about the issues that are voted upon.

The discussion revolves on how to make that happen.

I couldn't care less if that meant that everyone had equal opportunities to vote. The issue seems to be you want interest, and not "shit and giggles" votes, as that basically renders the voting system unusuable.

The fact that big stakeholders happen to be the ones with the most to lose just means that. It's a tautological statement: "I have a lot, so can lose a lot. Therefore I have a big interest in any vote".

The part that is missing, I think, is that we fail to involve the smaller stakes at this moment. If we say that a small stakeholder has less to lose and is thus less involved, we miss an important aspect of the whole equation, which is community.

So, how to involve, appreciate the smaller stakes in such a system? It would be great if everyone has an intrinsic motivation, but in my experience, that is just not the case in real life, mostly.

Edit: what am I missing?

interested

Voting on issues that you basically don't care about, just for shits and giggles is extremely destructive though.
All voting systems have certain thresholds built in to keep them manageable.

If I make a vote about say, marketing (this is one of the things I know about) and 200 uninformed people vote based on knowledge that is incorrect or incomplete (and who also have no intention to inform themselves), then voting will die.

Putting up a moderate threshold, which will make people think before voting, will actually make the voting system work.

It should not be so restrictive that you can't vote, but it should be restrictive enough to discourage useless voting.

Sorry but I just stumbled upon this while preparing my summary.

Nearly blew coffee through my nose laughing.

I had never realised it and it's bloody hilarious 

Nice one!

No that's what KLONE is for

Apparently only a few hours in the beginning.

That's not really an answer, but I'll stop clogging up your thread. You gave me some, and that's OK, too.
I have already shown interest and will continue to follow this thread.

Personally, I think your view on business tends to the naïve, but maybe you'll prove me wrong.

Good luck in what you are trying to achieve

I work for a non-profit and so work willingly for a small wage doing a job that could earn me loads of dosh.
That doesn't make it "unfair", it makes it my choice.

I find these cries of "unfair" so unbelievably naïve. I entered Nxt and couldn't buy a lot, because of said wage. So I decided to work, and it's paying off, because people here value work. I love that. Anyone who puts in hours and puts himself in the limelight can earn. I really believe FrictionlessCoin believes his story, though. That makes it a bit sad, because in the end he will still have to deal with the accusations of those who came later to the party.

The sad truth is that a lot people are out for a free lunch.

Thanks for the answers.

What is your view on NEX and NXT existing side by side?
I ask this, because the NXT community is committed to NXT, too, and a smart investor doesn't put all his money on one card.
I also ask this because two coins continually fighting each other is basically bad business.

As a last one, because it's a difficult one: I personally dislike the word "fair" in business. I make money because I have skills that others do not have. I also make money because I am willing to put in the effort. There is a real issue also for the NEX community after the IPO closes how it will address the people who will enter after IPO and *will* have to pay more if it is a success.

A few questions:

First: I still haven't got an answer to my serious question how you are going to avoid a tech based bias in your distribution.
It seems that people that are less able to do your beta testing or development (for all that I applaud merit based distribution) will almost automatically have a better chance at a bigger stake. Would you please explain if and how you plan to avoid this?

Second, as a Nxt holder (a small one) I seem to be in a better position to acquire NEX. Again, thanks for the advantage, but how does that promote a fairer distribution? I actually earned all my Nxt with bounties, so now I am basically NEX easier because I own Nxt?

Thanks for the answers.

I'm not the least bit surprised at this.
The worst part of it, is that they are still updating the site and are selling tickets.
So I would definitely call it a scam, because there is no way they will ever be able to book Science Park just a few months in advance.

Pity. Hopefully the bitcoinfoundation conference will turn out to be legit.

Having acquired over 10,000 Nxt now, I am willing to do a video conference from the Maledives, too, though.

I wanted to keep it for myself

Serious question: how would you keep distribution from being tech owner biased in the beginning?