wow down another 5% - the race to the bottom it seems for qrk.
By the time we decide to do something qrk will be 100 sats again where it started from. Good luck bringing it back from that level.
Maybe, but from my experience you do worst when you act quick because you start to get nervous. So lets go through the arguments and our view will be clearer afterwards (i hope
![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
So the Quark only IPO. As I said elsewhere, i can´t see how the companion coin wouldn´t massively undermine Quark, because people would always ask why the heck they should keep Quark if they can have a "better" coin (and still the same community). I only see one way where the IPO is a good solution, that is when a Part of the community wants to move away from the developer. I can´t see this as a "companion" solution. However, if the development perspective appears to be negative , then it may be a good solution to move Quark investors to a somewhat more promising solution.
Take this scenario:
1. We look for a capable team of developers who are looking out for a capable and dedicated community
![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
(usually not the case, but as I lined out, the community is one key factor to success and we can provide that)
2. The developer create a Quark based coin (working title: core) that adopts features that are seriously promising (and not only to hype the coin, I am especially thinking of features that allow voting with your coins!) with ~ the amount of coins as Quark + a yearly inflation of say 1% (currently we have no stable inflation, that is seriously confusing)
3. We create an Quark only IPO and sell 1 Core = 1 Quark.
4. However 10% of the acquired amount are saved in a community pot which is used as "community premine" (I talked about this earlier). Unlike "normal" premine this money is administered by treasurers of an elected board (better: smart contracts). This is also the money which we can use to pay the developers on a regular basis (NOT at once).
(optionally 5. Another 40% is stored via smart contract and paid out to shareholders for the next 36 months. This could be a mechanism to reduce prisoners dilemma: People know that there are large shareholders and they might be scared (for good reason?) that those are just waiting for the right time to drop all of their holdings. By "leasing" it back to holders you "store" self-interest and by doing that support trust in the community. (I am not talking about shady concepts like e.g. ECC used [the longer you keep the more you get]. you will get back what you paid in, there is no additional inflation)
I really like this as an alternative in case that there is no development perspective AT ALL. So in my opinion we should seek a critical debate with the developer to level out what is possible and what not with him. If it turns out to be a waste of time then I think this could be our Plan D
![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
Everything I wrote here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=683618.new#newcan be applied
Maybe, but from my experience you do worst when you act quick because you start to get nervous. So lets go through the arguments and our view will be clearer afterwards (i hope ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
So the Quark only IPO. As I said elsewhere, i can´t see how the companion coin wouldn´t massively undermine Quark, because people would always ask why the heck they should keep Quark if they can have a "better" coin (and still the same community). I only see one way where the IPO is a good solution, that is when a Part of the community wants to move away from the developer. I can´t see this as a "companion" solution. However, if the development perspective appears to be negative , then it may be a good solution to move Quark investors to a somewhat more promising solution.hi there,
the problem is here, that we have not acted or reacted to what the market wants for 6 months and the price is falling off of a cliff. Time is a real concern here.
This is not an issue for me to these reasons.
1. people are asking themselves that daily and already moving to other coins. Coins that have no possible give back to qrk.
2. half the qrk holders will not use their qrk to buy coins with POS and anon features. They seem to highly object to them being added to qrk anyway.
3. we could release this coin in batches and control the amount of QRKs that can be used to pay for the new coin.
4. the foundation will control the qrk that was used to buy the new coin they will not dump it on the market like those leaving qrk for other coins.
The other things you mentioned do sound like very good ideas. Also on the other thread you started there are some GREAT ideas.
I like the amount of coins you own giving weight to your vote on things, and i like the forum contributing people for activity, ideas and implementation.
Are you part of the QRK foundation already?