[ANN] ◈◈UNIQREDIT P2P LENDING✔✔ BLOCKSHARES✔✔ TECHSTRAP ◈◈

[uniqredit]

Ok since you decided to move to a new slack out of nowhere. etc.  Let's continue here.

Where or who is going to hold these new funds from blockshares and the upcoming crowdfund?

It should be released via vote by the share holders. You might be the pope but we're in this context of anonimity, investors need asurance.... the less trust needed, the healthier for everyone. Submit a budget and let the community decide if you get the funds or not.

I find it strange that you want to *continue* here. Last i checked we were discussing the rules for the voting system. I think the simplest and fairest rule to ensure that a majority is what has voted, not a highly organized minority is to require a 60% voter turn  out . Your suggestion to keep the vote between yes/no makes the assumption that there will only ever be two options, which i think will not be the case. So now with 60% of eligible voters having cast votes, i think that we can then use a simple tally. We can of course go a little further and attempt to apply something like STV or an alternative vote system, depending on user response to this post.

So if only ChainIDs can vote, the voter pool is smaller eh ?

The idea is that people with true interest will be the ones starting votes and participating in them. There is always the risk of spamming.

[1715217191]

1715217191

[1715217191]

1715217191

[1715217191]

1715217191

[proletariat]

Ok since you decided to move to a new slack out of nowhere. etc.  Let's continue here.

Where or who is going to hold these new funds from blockshares and the upcoming crowdfund?

It should be released via vote by the share holders. You might be the pope but we're in this context of anonimity, investors need asurance.... the less trust needed, the healthier for everyone. Submit a budget and let the community decide if you get the funds or not.

I find it strange that you want to *continue* here. Last i checked we were discussing the rules for the voting system. I think the simplest and fairest rule to ensure that a majority is what has voted, not a highly organized minority is to require a 60% voter turn  out . Your suggestion to keep the vote between yes/no makes the assumption that there will only ever be two options, which i think will not be the case. So now with 60% of eligible voters having cast votes, i think that we can then use a simple tally. We can of course go a little further and attempt to apply something like STV or an alternative vote system, depending on user response to this post.

The voting dynamic can be worked out etc.

The issue at hand is the BTC you will receive for further funding. You were given 21 BTC for the premine plus 3 BTC from bidders recently. There is no precedence for transparency or accountability. 

Not to mention the BCR that bidders paid for and were awarded to you instead, effectively funding you twice there. It always should have been transparent and 100% accountable more so now with the new round of funding you're seeking.

[hack_]

Ok since you decided to move to a new slack out of nowhere. etc.  Let's continue here.

Where or who is going to hold these new funds from blockshares and the upcoming crowdfund?

It should be released via vote by the share holders. You might be the pope but we're in this context of anonimity, investors need asurance.... the less trust needed, the healthier for everyone. Submit a budget and let the community decide if you get the funds or not.

I find it strange that you want to *continue* here. Last i checked we were discussing the rules for the voting system. I think the simplest and fairest rule to ensure that a majority is what has voted, not a highly organized minority is to require a 60% voter turn  out . Your suggestion to keep the vote between yes/no makes the assumption that there will only ever be two options, which i think will not be the case. So now with 60% of eligible voters having cast votes, i think that we can then use a simple tally. We can of course go a little further and attempt to apply something like STV or an alternative vote system, depending on user response to this post.

The voting dynamic can be worked out etc.

The issue at hand is the BTC you will receive for further funding. You were given 21 BTC for the premine plus 3 BTC from bidders recently. There is no precedence for transparency or accountability. 

Not to mention the BCR that bidders paid for and were awarded to you instead, effectively funding you twice there. It always should have been transparent and 100% accountable more so now with the new round of funding you're seeking.

When do you want to work these dynamics out ? From my understanding the dev has made a proposal, why are you brushing it aside ?The time is now to work out the dynamics before launch. Your statements are half truths and you are leaving stuff out. Let's look at what really happened, firstly the dev came up with a number, he said he needed 21 BTC for him to push development up to p2p lending. Only after the number was agreed he sold the premine, empasis on SOLD, those were not donations, everyone who bought was compensated in BCR. He gave a quick accounting of what he did on slack and it was in line with what he had requested before. What is recent about the 3 BTC of bids, is it not spread over almost 9 months that is 1 BTC, every 3 months?

You seem to be very bitter at the dev for some unknown reason. Or perhaps you are trying to drive away new users? I remember you were heavily against the move to uniqredit, so is this your way of opposing since you lost in the slack thread? The dev asked you who decides the "basis" on what is done and you said users, I think voting should be used in cases that actually require a vote.  As far as I am concerned I am happy with leaving all things development in his hands, he clearly has a plan and he has stuck to it. True to his word he has produced a working product. What the dev decides to develop next is up to him since he designs and codes it.

Remember the last vote ? what was the result ? I remember there being a point he initially wanted to scrap the old version of bids, users voted to keep it, and guess what, you are back to complain to him. I actually have some knowledge of code so i will tell you, everything he said was true. He wanted to drop it, perios, we cannot hold him responsible for something he told us had problems and we still opted to keep. I think it's that attitude that actually pushed him to finally veto it's existence.

By the way, isn't the reason you are now posting in this thread because you stubbornly refuse to move to the uniqredit slack channel? Thie project is now called uniqredit, it only makes sense that the slack channel should match.

[uniqredit]

Well, it's up to the donors. I asked for what i needed and used it to produce what I promised. If users like what i have managed thus far, they will fund continuation of the project. For someone who says he has a vested interest in this project's success, he acts quite contrary.

[proletariat]

Well, it's up to the donors. I asked for what i needed and used it to produce what I promised. If users like what i have managed thus far, they will fund continuation of the project. For someone who says he has a vested interest in this project's success, he acts quite contrary.

I say? I personally paid you 3.5BTC for a sixth of the pre-mine plus 0.73BTC total daily bids and I can sign with that BTC address. Don't pretend like you doubt I own any.
What did I get from that? well 1M from the 3.5 BTC and from my 0.73BTC bids I got about half the BCR I should have received I and EVERY OTHER BIDDER were skipped around half the daily blocks and those blocks went to you or to dragos. Now you will reply that the bidding was flawed etc but that didn't stop you from being quiet about those BCR you were getting daily, BCR that were not yours and were dumped constantly. And you act like nothing is wrong with that ....

But wait there's more!

The cherry on top is that out of the current circulating BCR my percentage will be devalued with a sudden influx of new shares you are creating out of thin air for your new crowdfund and blockshares... One current share = 0.28 now, an effective drop of 72% .... How sweet is that?





Well excuse me for not trusting you I guess I'm the bad guy!? wtf



You want to be funded? earn and work for those funds on a per needed basis you have got to answer to the people who blindingly trust you with their btc, unfortunately for you and me, I am one of them.

[hack_]

Insert FUD here

I hope the dev doesn't waste his time responding to you again. This was all discussed in slack and at least three people did the math for you and showed that you had gained more value per unit. This worthless showmanship will only work on those who did not read the conversations.

[parthack9]

Ok since you decided to move to a new slack out of nowhere. etc.  Let's continue here.

Where or who is going to hold these new funds from blockshares and the upcoming crowdfund?

It should be released via vote by the share holders. You might be the pope but we're in this context of anonimity, investors need asurance.... the less trust needed, the healthier for everyone. Submit a budget and let the community decide if you get the funds or not.

I second this poster. Will you use an escrow for this?

[uniqredit]

Ok since you decided to move to a new slack out of nowhere. etc.  Let's continue here.

Where or who is going to hold these new funds from blockshares and the upcoming crowdfund?

It should be released via vote by the share holders. You might be the pope but we're in this context of anonimity, investors need asurance.... the less trust needed, the healthier for everyone. Submit a budget and let the community decide if you get the funds or not.

I second this poster. Will you use an escrow for this?

Do you not think it is unwise to move the funds before the auction is even over?

here is the part of the conversation that may interest you

proletariat [6:43 PM] 
about that auction and the next one and whatever comes after

[6:44] 
we clearly discussed and agreed about whatever new funds came in would be secured in a multisig account

[6:44] 
so that needs sorting before the 3 days are up

bitcreditscc [6:56 PM] 
hi, can you look back into conversation history
and bring up the point where we agreed, i am fuzzy on the details
last i remembered were my own words preffering to use a middle man like bitpay or bittrex

bitcreditscc [7:17 PM] 
multisig is useless without a structure to determine how it is used

[7:17] 
Also multisig does not do what most people think it does.

[7:18] 
say i need 1.5 BTC for bittrex, and we have 2 BTC, rather than paying out the portion and keeping the rest, you can only send it all

[7:18] 
One possible item i have been considring

[7:19] 
is  modifying a bitcoin client, then re-sending all the coins in smaller denominations and messing with the locktimes

[7:19] 
effectively this becomes a time -released fund

[7:19] 
ie, only when the lock time comes by can the funds be used

[7:20] 
this IMO is a much more suitable arrangement

[7:20] 
multisig is not ideal, middleman can cause problems, so instead we rely on the one thing we all know is secure, the blockchain itself

proletariat [7:26 PM] 
uploaded an image: asdfasdfas.PNG
Add Comment

proletariat [7:27 PM] 
releasing funds on a per needed basis

[7:28] 
in the meantime they should be locked and then sent to whatever third party address

[7:29] 
is that a dash fork feature btw?

bitcreditscc [7:36 PM] 
nope we have our own voting mechanism, still primitive but allows way more control

proletariat [7:37 PM] 
Great. That's like a DAO ...  a community decision etc... that should be the dynamic for project finances

bitcreditscc [7:38 PM] 
@proletariat: i agree, but here is the current problem , we need the auction to end first, with all the funds in one place , moving anythin mid auction is shady

[7:39] 
once the auction is complete, we can then time lock all the transactions

I clearly told him that

1) Multisig does not work how people think it does, most people don't really study these things, it's my job to.

If you me and @pro have a two of  three multisig with 5 BTC and we need to send 1 BTC, we cannot specify that we wish to send just 1 BTC, we have to send it all. Doe you see the problem with that? During the course of the original conversation we spoke of escrow and/or using an exchange as a middle man , but it was never finished.

2) Moving the funds mid auction is a bad idea. I think that moving anything from the auction address before the auction is closed may be send the wrong signals.

I personally have no problems with using an escrow/third party, but only once the auction has been closed.

[uniqredit]

All users who wish to join the slack channel Slack Invite

[uniqredit]

Hello

https://s32.postimg.org/ae9iexonp/Screenshot_Uniqredit_Core_Wallet.png

From this page you can select a loan request to service. Once you send the loan, the request will be removed from the list of active ones and the entire deals' details can now be viewed either online or in-wallet under the current loans tab.

[bitcreditscc]

Hello



From this page you can select a loan request to service. Once you send the loan, the request will be removed from the list of active ones and the entire deals' details can now be viewed either online or in-wallet under the current loans tab.

newb limits

[bitcreditscc]

2 days until the BlockShares auction is closed

[dzejmsdin]

so how many UniQ will be splitted between bidders during the whole year?

[uniqredit]

so how many UniQ will be splitted between bidders during the whole year?

About 2 M +/-

[gavrilo77]

2 days until the BlockShares auction is closed

What time auction is closed?

[uniqredit]

2 days until the BlockShares auction is closed

What time auction is closed?

13th july 23:59

[arransiv]

I think I need 2 x 50 minutes to read and understand the ANN. Nothing negative. Seems a good coin on the works.

[thelonecrouton]

Bear in mind that 2 million UNIQ with a final supply of 11 million is equivalent to about 38 million BCR given the reduction in final supply from BCR's 210 million. Then you have the decimal point drop.

So 1 UNIQ / 11 million  ~  190 BCR / 210 million BCR.

Anyone yet to bid for a UNIQ blockshare might want to do the maths re: the curent blockshare bids vs. the current BCR price...

https://blockchain.info/address/1UniQ1TiDyGbB7KXejnjUAZMEjLCyiEPe

[dzejmsdin]

I think we have to cancel the auction. The results are ridiculous so far.
It had too less exposure, we have to fix that and start again!

[hack_]

I think we have to cancel the auction. The results are ridiculous so far.
It had too less exposure, we have to fix that and start again!

I agree, cancel it. You can either return the funds, or if users agree, hold them in advance of the re-do.