NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[dzarmush]

Then please change the name. subcommittee means it is subject to the main committee, not the other way around. Words mean things, stuff like this can be easily misinterpreted

lets not get stuckup on semantics...but I agree

Thanks. Can we agree on "Trusted 7" (or N if we end up with something other than 7)
and just "Marketing committee", "Tech committee" and "Infrastructure committee"

This would clearly indicate that the Trusted 7 are holding the funds but the committees are independently deciding how to spend the funds

See no reason in "Infrastructure committee" as well as in "Marketing committee" and "Tech committee". Seven (or five) people is enough to make a decision on any matter.

[jl777]

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.

If the founders are willing to do this, then that would certainly be the best solution! It is much better than my proposal. It even creates a positive PR event!

I have not been here the whole time, so I am not sure that I am the right person to select the Trusted Trinity, but I would say three out of klee, bybitcoin, neer.g and of course Pouncer. I am not sure the availability of the four. If all four are able and willing, then the ones with the biggest stakes left.

James

[bitcoinpaul]

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.

Less is more. I like it.

What about 5-7 guys, sitting on unclaimed funds, making polls about bounties (or not). Simple. If they run away: shit happens. Don't make it too complicated. They put ideas to discussion for the community, they make polls, blahblahblah...

[jl777]

There has to be some debate on my proposal. I must have made some mistakes somewhere. Does everybody agree with this:

**************
Proposal for Unclaimed NXT

I suggest we put up a slate of 7 trusted members that the thread discussing this will recommend. Then we put it up for an up or down vote.

If approved, the unclaimed NXT are divided among the trusted 7. They will be obligated to disburse funds that are approved by a marketing committee (3 Million NXT) and a tech committee (5 Million NXT) and an infrastructure committee (1 Million Nxt).

The election to the marketing, tech and infrastructure committees are independent from the decentralization of the unclaimed NXT. This means we can independently figure out who is on the three different committees and as soon as one group is formed, projects can be funded.

The community has already decided on 250,000 NXT per month for Marketing, so the marketing committee task is to figure out how best to allocate that budget.

tech and infrastructure committees have not formed yet, but we don't need to figure out all the details for getting the trusted 7 members in place.
**************

James

Nice idea. But we should leave this to the committee. If they fuck up, they fuck up.

Please clarify. Leave what up to the committee? Are you saying to revisit the allocation to marketing? Are you saying to not separate funding decisions from disbursement ability?

I retract my statement. I don't have an opinion on this.

Can we agree on "Trusted 7" (or N if we end up with something other than 7)
and just "Marketing committee", "Tech committee" and "Infrastructure committee"
This would clearly indicate that the Trusted 7 are holding the funds but the committees are independently deciding how to spend the funds

No. Let's pretend we have 12 trustworthy (that's a lot) and capable nominees when we vote. 7 go straight to the Trusted 7 (in no particular order. maybe all our marketing guys are in it). This leaves us with 5 random guys who maybe have no clue about marketing, dev, or infrastructure. And the Trusted 7 sitting there, brilliant things in their mind, and nothing happens.

Wrong?

Pouncer's proposal is a million times better than mine!

[landomata]

Then please change the name. subcommittee means it is subject to the main committee, not the other way around. Words mean things, stuff like this can be easily misinterpreted

lets not get stuckup on semantics...but I agree

Thanks. Can we agree on "Trusted 7" (or N if we end up with something other than 7)
and just "Marketing committee", "Tech committee" and "Infrastructure committee"

This would clearly indicate that the Trusted 7 are holding the funds but the committees are independently deciding how to spend the funds

See no reason in "Infrastructure committee" as well as in "Marketing committee" and "Tech committee". Seven (or five) people is enough to make a decision on any reason.

Specialization....each committee will be specialized in what it does.....marketing guys don't really know about infrastructure etc.

[jl777]

Then please change the name. subcommittee means it is subject to the main committee, not the other way around. Words mean things, stuff like this can be easily misinterpreted

lets not get stuckup on semantics...but I agree

Thanks. Can we agree on "Trusted 7" (or N if we end up with something other than 7)
and just "Marketing committee", "Tech committee" and "Infrastructure committee"

This would clearly indicate that the Trusted 7 are holding the funds but the committees are independently deciding how to spend the funds

See no reason in "Infrastructure committee" as well as in "Marketing committee" and "Tech committee". Seven (or five) people is enough to make a decision on any matter.

Pouncer's suggestion is brilliant

[bitcoinpaul]

Ok, we need 3 founders who are trustworthy and we don't want need in the 'subcommittees'.

[dzarmush]

Then please change the name. subcommittee means it is subject to the main committee, not the other way around. Words mean things, stuff like this can be easily misinterpreted

lets not get stuckup on semantics...but I agree

Thanks. Can we agree on "Trusted 7" (or N if we end up with something other than 7)
and just "Marketing committee", "Tech committee" and "Infrastructure committee"

This would clearly indicate that the Trusted 7 are holding the funds but the committees are independently deciding how to spend the funds

See no reason in "Infrastructure committee" as well as in "Marketing committee" and "Tech committee". Seven (or five) people is enough to make a decision on any reason.

Specialization....each committee will be specialized in what it does.....marketing guys don't really know about infrastructure etc.

But they're not stupid and ignorant, right? If devs say that the network needs more nodes they'll listen and give funds for that.

Committee is just a trusted people who keep funds and send them when something comes up. They don't have to set up nodes.

[jl777]

Ok, we need 3 founders who are trustworthy and we don't want in the 'subcommittees'.

klee, neer.g, Pouncer, bybitcoin

I think one of these will decline, leaving three. If not, top three stakeholders

[Labteck]

This will have a tragic end, as usual.
Send the money to the genesis void and end with this stupid burocracy.

[bitcoinpaul]

This will have a tragic end, as usual.
Send the money to the genesis void and end with this stupid burocracy.

Wtf, please leave this room.

[landomata]

But they're not stupid and ignorant, right? If devs say that the network needs more nodes they'll listen and give funds for that.

Committee is just a trusted people who keep funds and send them when something comes up. They don't have to set up nodes.

makes sense

[pinarello]

Ok, we need 3 founders who are trustworthy and we don't want in the 'subcommittees'.

klee, neer.g, Pouncer, bybitcoin

I think one of these will decline, leaving three. If not, top three stakeholders

shall we vote in the other thread

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=445209.msg4905549#msg4905549

[Pouncer]

Ok, we need 3 founders who are trustworthy and we don't want in the 'subcommittees'.

klee, neer.g, Pouncer, bybitcoin

I think one of these will decline, leaving three. If not, top three stakeholders

No need stakeholder ranking. I can be backup if any of the other 3 declines.

Edit: no need voting. Based on "Consensus by NO Objection" method. We already have 3. I will act as backup (only if any one declines)

[jl777]

Ok, we need 3 founders who are trustworthy and we don't want in the 'subcommittees'.

klee, neer.g, bybitcoin with Pouncer as alternate in case one of the first three decline.

NXT community, 2 days to object to any of the proposed treasurers. Please provide good reason for any objection.

At the end of 2 days, assuming no objections, we will have treasurers for the unclaimed NXT, minus previously committed amounts which CfB will continue to administer.

CfB, please confirm this is acceptable

James

[bitcoinpaul]

Will there be one account for 3 guys or 3 guys with respectively 1/3 funds in their accounts?

[jl777]

Ok, we need 3 founders who are trustworthy and we don't want in the 'subcommittees'.

klee, neer.g, Pouncer, bybitcoin

I think one of these will decline, leaving three. If not, top three stakeholders

shall we vote in the other thread

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=445209.msg4905549#msg4905549

This is not a vote. It is a call for objections to any of the four proposed treasurers. 2 days is plenty of time. Any objection needs to have a good reason.

Pouncer agreed to be the alternate, so the slate is bybitcoin, klee and neer.g

James

[dzarmush]

Will there be one account for 3 guys or 3 guys with respectively 1/3 funds in their accounts?

I think 3 separate accounts in more secured than 1 account.

[jl777]

Will there be one account for 3 guys or 3 guys with respectively 1/3 funds in their accounts?

Pouncer's Proposal was three different accounts, one for each treasurer.

Marketing = 3 million
infrastructure = 1 million or cost to deploy hubs needed for 1000TPS
tech = ~6 million - infrastructure

James

[Come-from-Beyond]

Ok, we need 3 founders who are trustworthy and we don't want in the 'subcommittees'.

klee, neer.g, bybitcoin with Pouncer as alternate in case one of the first three decline.

NXT community, 2 days to object to any of the proposed treasurers. Please provide good reason for any objection.

At the end of 2 days, assuming no objections, we will have treasurers for the unclaimed NXT, minus previously committed amounts which CfB will continue to administer.

CfB, please confirm this is acceptable

James

Looks good.