I wrote it somewhere - we will get her (and pay) costs first and then we can decide about something like:
spend 10.000 for updating all websites / month
spend 10.000 for updating all social medias / month
- so QTBC could get for example 5.000 from the sites fund + 3.000 from the social media fund / month
So (and I mean this in a very positive way) it has been decided to cover the costs she has made for now? I think that would be great, at least. That is for work done and needs to be covered. In light of the discussion we had the last day it might be a good idea to ask her what costs she has in total and garantuee that for a set period of time. I have no idea if 5000 and 3000 is too much or too little for running those. Can anyone pitch in with an informed view? For actual costs, just convert fiat to NXT and use average price for when the NXT is paid out. As NXT goes up in value, the amount of NXT changes, but the fiat bills get paid. Maybe by year end 300 NXT will be too much! This is what I mean by converting to fiat to calculate the NXT payout. The faster we make NXT go up in value, the more we can do with the budget |
|
|
|
|
Any chance for a guy like me to be on the tech committee?
James
|
|
|
|
I have a question about Dividends. It relates to my previous question. Again it seems that trust in the issuer plays a giant role here. If we cannot completely trust the issuer, the value of the asset needs to be discounted.
Is there a way to create trustless assets? There seems to be a way to put BTC into escrow and I assume the same for XCP. I might have missed this, but is there a way to designate an Asset as being backed by assets in escrow? That way, the purchaser of an asset would have the option of always just redeeming it for the amount in escrow. For things like pooled BTC (XCP) funds, it can be 100% backed by escrow and there would be no risk of default or funny business.
If there was a way to put other cryptos in escrow, then a crypto fund could be setup, closed ended for sure, maybe even open ended and it could be composed of a variety of altcoins and BTC providing a diversified portfolio to reduce risk in this volatile market.
Further risk could be removed (or income produced) by buying put options or selling call options. I am envisioning professionally managed crypto portfolio that doesn't require trust!
Any chance of this anytime soon? Anytime at all?
James
If the money backing an asset were held in escrow, then the issuer wouldn't be able to use it. (BTC can't be put into escrow by the network, but XCP can.) The issuer shouldnt be able to issue something to somebody else and still use the actual asset that the issuance represented. What if he issuer lost the original asset, how would the issued asset be able to be redeemed? This is my concern with assets that are not 100% backed If he can't use both, then there's no reason to issue the asset, which would otherwise just become a new denomination of the one escrowed away. OK, I must be too tired to understand this. Gotta get some sleep |
|
|
|
I have a question about Broadcast. From reading the spec, it seems like there is a strong element of trust needed for a broadcast feed. Certainly if major bets are being made, any funny business in the feed would be something that needs to be prevented. However, I could see no such mechanism.
Is there a way to get trustless feeds for very standard things, eg. data from BTC blockchain, orderbooks from specific exchanges, etc.?
I am envisioning a whole set of data feeds that are guaranteed to be reliable. If we can have that, then XCP will become a very safe place to trade crypto derivatives. Call and put options are sorely needed for some crypto business models, but the lack of liquidity in them make them very hard to get, plus currently requires trusting the option seller to be there when it comes time to exercise the option.
I think there could be a whole set of meta-commands that counterpartyd can implement based on just a large set of standard put/call options for all the assets that have realtime public datafeeds
James
The problem with allowing trustless bets on the orderbook, e.g., is that it can be easily manipulated. There might be a way of creating trustless betting on something like the Bitcoin difficulty, however... Certainly snapshots of orderbooks can be manipulated, but not longer term moving averages. Things like EMA > SMA, not too hard to calculate assuming access to data and short of massive market actions, hard to change it. I don't mean that the market itself could be manipulated, but rather just the orderbook, i.e. by selling to yourself. Sure, but only within the spread. Otherwise you are moving the market. Just dont make bets that are a significant fraction of market liquidity. For example if you make a 100000 BTC bet on the price of BTC, odds are you will lose as 10000 BTC will move the BTC market, even in China. However if you make a 10 BTC bet on price, you might be able to fiddle around the edges, but you wouldn't be able to push the price much at all with a 10 BTC budget. If the price for the bet was the average price over 10 minutes (or longer) it would take quite a lot of BTC to change the price from where it wants to be |
|
|
|
I have a question about Dividends. It relates to my previous question. Again it seems that trust in the issuer plays a giant role here. If we cannot completely trust the issuer, the value of the asset needs to be discounted.
Is there a way to create trustless assets? There seems to be a way to put BTC into escrow and I assume the same for XCP. I might have missed this, but is there a way to designate an Asset as being backed by assets in escrow? That way, the purchaser of an asset would have the option of always just redeeming it for the amount in escrow. For things like pooled BTC (XCP) funds, it can be 100% backed by escrow and there would be no risk of default or funny business.
If there was a way to put other cryptos in escrow, then a crypto fund could be setup, closed ended for sure, maybe even open ended and it could be composed of a variety of altcoins and BTC providing a diversified portfolio to reduce risk in this volatile market.
Further risk could be removed (or income produced) by buying put options or selling call options. I am envisioning professionally managed crypto portfolio that doesn't require trust!
Any chance of this anytime soon? Anytime at all?
James
If the money backing an asset were held in escrow, then the issuer wouldn't be able to use it. (BTC can't be put into escrow by the network, but XCP can.) The issuer shouldnt be able to issue something to somebody else and still use the actual asset that the issuance represented. What if he issuer lost the original asset, how would the issued asset be able to be redeemed? This is my concern with assets that are not 100% backed |
|
|
|
By the way, I have a question - how exactly XCP will support paying in BTC for asset or XCP?
The offered BTC will be matched to offers on asset/Dex, and once the buyer sends the bTC to seller address, the seller will then send back XCP or asset shares back to the buyer BTC address?
Let's say Alice is selling BTC for XCP with a 5 block expiration on her order and Sally is selling XCP for BTC with a 3 block expiration on her order, and their orders get matched. Upon the matching, the protocol debits the XCP from Sally's account, and then Alice has 3 blocks to send Sally her BTC using the btc-pay command. If Alice fails to send Sally BTC within 3 blocks, the deal is cancelled and Sally's account gets re-credited with the XCP. Is there a way to set it up so the btcpay is done automatically? No. The protocol can only debit assets that are created within the protocol, and BTC is not one of them. It is important to note however that while payment is not automatic, there is nevertheless no counterparty risk. Moreover, the protocol will match Alice's order with Sally's only if Alice's fee_provided is greater than or equal to Sally's fee_required; these fees are miners' fees and are in BTC. Therefore, Sally can make her fee_required sufficiently high so that Alice is discouraged from putting up a BTC for XCP order which she fails to send. fee_required is necessary if and only if one is buying BTC and fee_provided is required if and only if one is selling BTC. EDIT: miswrote something. Still a bit confused. Does this mean a "fee_required" is deducted even if Alice fails to send? Wouldn't a large fee_required be a barrier to trading? is not a payment; it's a required fee for the counterparty to provide. fee_provided is deducted from an address upon putting up a give-asset=BTC order. The idea is that if Sally doesn't want to be paired with fake give-asset=BTC orders, she can make the fee_required higher. Of course, the higher the fee, the less likely it is she will get paired, but also the less likely she will get paired with bogus orders. Thanks. It's almost 6am so not thinking clearly enough to understand all the details. I will revisit this after some sleep |
|
|
|
It is time to formalize who is on the marketing committee and how large it is. This committee will decide on how the 3 million NXT will be spent in 2014
Once a decision is made, the treasurer will disburse the funds. The treasurer cannot be on any funding committee.
This is a big breakthrough in funding logistics. I suggest for a rule that the marketing committee consider payments of salary normalized to fiat for people like salsacz who are working fulltime and making results. To avoid conflict of interest, any voting on salary issues should not count the votes of anybody that is being considered for salary position
This is common sense, I hope you agree
James
Both me and salsacz work fulltime on NXT, yet I think both of us want to be paid in NXT rather than fiat if it comes to that. We work on NXT because we truly believe in NXT so obviously more NXT = more dedication. Of course you have to be able to live on the side  But if one runs into real life economic issues you just have to sell some NXT, but at least then the person decides himself how much of his salary is being invested and how much is being spent on food ^^ By normalize to fiat, I mean calculate a reasonable salary in fiat and then get paid in that amount of NXT. For example, if NXT goes up tenfold, we are all happy, but if you are getting a reasonable salary amount before it goes up tenfold, then I imagine a lot if people will feel you are getting unreasonable amounts if it was 10 times more. Of course if NXT is 10 times more, we are all happy, but I have to be concerned about such matters. |
|
|
|
I have a question about Broadcast. From reading the spec, it seems like there is a strong element of trust needed for a broadcast feed. Certainly if major bets are being made, any funny business in the feed would be something that needs to be prevented. However, I could see no such mechanism.
Is there a way to get trustless feeds for very standard things, eg. data from BTC blockchain, orderbooks from specific exchanges, etc.?
I am envisioning a whole set of data feeds that are guaranteed to be reliable. If we can have that, then XCP will become a very safe place to trade crypto derivatives. Call and put options are sorely needed for some crypto business models, but the lack of liquidity in them make them very hard to get, plus currently requires trusting the option seller to be there when it comes time to exercise the option.
I think there could be a whole set of meta-commands that counterpartyd can implement based on just a large set of standard put/call options for all the assets that have realtime public datafeeds
James
The problem with allowing trustless bets on the orderbook, e.g., is that it can be easily manipulated. There might be a way of creating trustless betting on something like the Bitcoin difficulty, however... Certainly snapshots of orderbooks can be manipulated, but not longer term moving averages. Things like EMA > SMA, not too hard to calculate assuming access to data and short of massive market actions, hard to change it. |
|
|
|
First, it's "their", not "there". Very important to get that right in the marketing materials.
Second, ladies and gentlemen, you can see right here and right now how the revolution to take the common heritage of the NXT community from the hands of the many into the hands of the few is complete.
 that's why i'm not a copy writer....I just think up the strategy and they execute what I say. That's how Hitler operated, and it certainly is a straightforward management style. I strongly urge you to get some sort of comment-based review cycle and feedback loop into your thinking. Folks, these committee members haven't actually been selected yet, perhaps you would like to go over there and express your thoughts on who should control this unspent 9M NXT - while you still CAN express your thoughts. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=445209.0;allI think it will be prudent for the community to provide an up or down vote for each slate of proposed committee members. Voting to be done in a special voting thread with posts. This also allows selection between competing slates. I think it best if the voting was open to eliminate sock puppets affecting the future of NXT. By voting for an entire slate, we can be sure each slate has the right mix of talents, etc. in them. We also need to make sure that people on committees cant directly decide to award themselves NXT. Abstention rules, conflict of interest avoidance. Common sense stuff |
|
|
|
Will there be one account for 3 guys or 3 guys with respectively 1/3 funds in their accounts?
If distribution (ratio) of the unclaimed funds has already been decided, then I think it's easier to let each handle one fund (Easier for accountability and record keeping). If distribution of unclaimed funds has not been decided, and it's going to be another long debate over it, I suggest divide it equally and they will reallocate once the ration has been decided. Marketing has been decided at 3 million Tech/Infrastructure the remaining 6 million. Once we know the cost for the 1000TPS hubs, then we will know the right allocation between tech and infrastructure. Just want to be a broken record here and say that IMHO a significant proportion of this 9M should be set aside as a rainy day fund that doesn't get spent for say one year. Otherwise I predict it will be all gone in a year. There is certainly no shortage of people here wanting to spend it, less than 90 days after genesis block creation. Each committee will be able to decide all these issues. It is a constant battle between spending now to boost the value of NXT, which reduces what is needed in the future, versus saving it and counting on each NXT to get that much more. One year is a long time in this industry, but if we can stretch these funds to two years and still maintain top dog status among second gen, then I say stretch. My concern is that we stay on top. That is the most important. If we have to use all the funds up but can stay on top all of 2014, then 2015 will be much easier. If we stretch the funds to three years but end up losing top status, then we might have funds longer, but the outcome is worse. The goal is to maintain our leadership position among second gen James |
|
|
|
By the way, I have a question - how exactly XCP will support paying in BTC for asset or XCP?
The offered BTC will be matched to offers on asset/Dex, and once the buyer sends the bTC to seller address, the seller will then send back XCP or asset shares back to the buyer BTC address?
Let's say Alice is selling BTC for XCP with a 5 block expiration on her order and Sally is selling XCP for BTC with a 3 block expiration on her order, and their orders get matched. Upon the matching, the protocol debits the XCP from Sally's account, and then Alice has 3 blocks to send Sally her BTC using the btc-pay command. If Alice fails to send Sally BTC within 3 blocks, the deal is cancelled and Sally's account gets re-credited with the XCP. Is there a way to set it up so the btcpay is done automatically? No. The protocol can only debit assets that are created within the protocol, and BTC is not one of them. It is important to note however that while payment is not automatic, there is nevertheless no counterparty risk. Moreover, the protocol will match Alice's order with Sally's only if Alice's fee_provided is greater than or equal to Sally's fee_required; these fees are miners' fees and are in BTC. Therefore, Sally can make her fee_required sufficiently high so that Alice is discouraged from putting up a BTC for XCP order which she fails to send. fee_required is necessary if and only if one is buying BTC and fee_provided is required if and only if one is selling BTC. EDIT: miswrote something. Still a bit confused. Does this mean a "fee_required" is deducted even if Alice fails to send? Wouldn't a large fee_required be a barrier to trading? |
|
|
|
@James
You mentioned that a part of your NxtCommunityfund will be paid on marketing....you should initiate this immediately....we run two separate marketing campaigns.
Let both marketing campaigns compete to product more results for Nxt.
IMHO there needs to be one consolidated NXT marketing plan and it needs to be written out on a Google spreadsheet and it needs to have cost per thousand impressions (CPM) estimates for each line and this spreadsheet needs to be out there and commented on before any treasurer issues another NXT for marketing expenses. IMHO. However, if James directs this, then I will disburse as authorized. Can I please see some +1s ? The respective committees decides on expenditures. The treasurers for the three committees performs escrow function. So, if you are on the marketing committee you will be able to influence marketing expenditures I think we are getting very close to some clarity in the budgeting process. Now, we need to focus on the Process as proposed by Pouncer. ********** Pouncer's Proposal This is my simplified suggestion. Select 3 founders to be treasurers for the unclaimed funds. One to hold marketing, tech & infra respectively. Treasurers will not sit in any committee Make this selection simple & fast by putting up 3 names and waiting for no objection (1-2 days) period. Any objections should be followed by a good reason. I suggest jl777 propose the 3 names. Once this is settled, we can do the nomination/election process for the 3 committees. What this will solve: 1. Unlikely for founders to "run away" with the trusted funds. 2. They will be in for the long haul 3. They voluntarily give up their right to decide on the usage of funds. Founders will not be seen as monopolising the decision making process, thereby pleasing the opponents of 1NXT = 1Vote to a certain extend. 4. Gives more opportunities to other stakeholders to participate in building up Nxt. ********** The slate of treasurers is: klee, bybitcoin, neer.g with pouncer as alternate. One treasurer for each of the three committees. Lets table any discussions about specific funding decisions that were made in the past or proposed, we MUST come to consensus on Process. Without this consent, there are no funds to debate about. I suggest that the selection process for the three different committees starts right away, those are the decision makers. Merit based for each committee. Details on size, etc. to work out but that is up to each committee. One step at a time. Current step is to get consensus on the Process James |
|
|
|
By the way, I have a question - how exactly XCP will support paying in BTC for asset or XCP?
The offered BTC will be matched to offers on asset/Dex, and once the buyer sends the bTC to seller address, the seller will then send back XCP or asset shares back to the buyer BTC address?
Let's say Alice is selling BTC for XCP with a 5 block expiration on her order and Sally is selling XCP for BTC with a 3 block expiration on her order, and their orders get matched. Upon the matching, the protocol debits the XCP from Sally's account, and then Alice has 3 blocks to send Sally her BTC using the btc-pay command. If Alice fails to send Sally BTC within 3 blocks, the deal is cancelled and Sally's account gets re-credited with the XCP. Is there a way to set it up so the btcpay is done automatically? |
|
|
|
|
It is time to formalize who is on the marketing committee and how large it is. This committee will decide on how the 3 million NXT will be spent in 2014
Once a decision is made, the treasurer will disburse the funds. The treasurer cannot be on any funding committee.
This is a big breakthrough in funding logistics. I suggest for a rule that the marketing committee consider payments of salary normalized to fiat for people like salsacz who are working fulltime and making results. To avoid conflict of interest, any voting on salary issues should not count the votes of anybody that is being considered for salary position
This is common sense, I hope you agree
James
|
|
|
|
It would be difficult to do for people who exposed their real names and addresses, so I don't think it's an issue here.
-10 I am not saying it's a requirement, duh... I am saying, some people already did, one way or another (by going to events, etc). So who are your proposed treasurers? People that the community will trust, but at the same time don't want to be on any of the committee and also willing to give up their identity and address. Can you name even 1? James |
|
|
|
Anyone else thinks independent trustees are better than original stakeholders?
- I think, that it is more chances that independent "trustee" steal the NXT, than that founder does. It would be difficult to do for people who exposed their real names and addresses, so I don't think it's an issue here. So you are putting up three theoretical candidates who would be willing to not be on any committees and perform escrow service AND to reveal their real names and addresses. And these hypothetical three are up against the founders that were instrumental in getting NXT to where it is today? If you want to propose an alternate slate of treasurers, I have no problems in having the community vote between the two slates. The founders have earned the trust of the community and have no need to divulge their identity. Who are the three that you propose and you need to make sure they agree to giving up their identity and location since flight risk would exist for them. James |
|
|
|
|
Its 4am, I am tired. I am hoping that some other people can help with this effort to approve klee, pouncer, bybitcoin and neer.g as treasurers who will be providing escrow service for the unclaimed NXT
It is not a perfect solution, but we need to release those funds sooner rather than later. This proposal has a very good chance to pass and thus give us the resources we need to battle against emunie, etherium, etc.
Please keep in mind that it is the three committees that will decide how to spend the funds. The treasurers are just providing escrow service
James
|
|
|
|
That's it. Purely escrow service for the committees.
I don't want to waste talented people that should be on committees for this. I am amazed that the founders are willing to do this! After all, here they are, millionaires volunteering to be told what to do. Letting new blood come in and help shape NXT
This is really a very positive thing.
And that would be great. Unfortunately, we live in the real word, where things sometime don't work out as we wanted them to be... Anyone else thinks independent trustees are better than original stakeholders? If not, I guess, no point discussing it anymore, we just going in circles. Would you be so kind as to retract your objection? This might not be the perfect solution, but I strongly believe it is the best practical solution that we can actually make happen. James |
|
|
|
http://xcpbank.com/ are selling XCP. they replay fast to e-mails. i bought 1 xcp from them as a "test". they seem legit. what price did you get? |
|
|
|
The BIG deal is that any treasurer cannot be in any of the committees. THAT is a big deal as we need to get people who are not the founders to put their stamp on NXT.
I see the problem, but can't we find 3 people who will voluntarily give up their sits on committees? We should strive for more decentralization, that's why I am in favor of independent trustees. Why should we lose those 3? They will probably be guys like Anon who should be drafted onto the tech committee. Do you understand what the treasurers responsibility and authority is? They are told that the committee has decided to give a bounty for project X to acct # and they send the NXT to that acct. That's it. Purely escrow service for the committees. I don't want to waste talented people that should be on committees for this. I am amazed that the founders are willing to do this! After all, here they are, millionaires volunteering to be told what to do. Letting new blood come in and help shape NXT This is really a very positive thing. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
