[NEM] NEM -New Economy Movement - No Envy Movement - Updates+Discussion thread

[j23a]

I don't know exactly what the plan for NEM distribution is, but it might be interesting to give people the option to either receive it as one transaction, or receive it over time in smaller transactions.  If we encourage that later option, then I believe it would be better for the future of the coin, since it will mean there will be less to dump on the market on day 1.

For example, you could decide that you are going to give every stakeholder 5000 coins on opening day, or 450 coins a month for 1 year.  Taking the second option would not only show that you support NEM for the long-term, but you'd also get an 8% bonus.

I'm also very afraid of people dumping on day one, because a lot of people will try to sell them. There's just too many stakeholders.

Perhaps such a solution of not giving out all the coins at once would be a good thing. Maybe not for a year, but something flexible, that takes into account whether people are dumping them.

I know the idea sounds horrible, but it's just an idea to work with.

Maybe something like eMunie, that releases the coins to the stakeholders based on demand.

I just wouldn't want the price to go massively high on day one, just so that the price could drop by 20x, and having the people who bought at the highest point losing 20x their money, followed by the price staying down, because as soon as the price goes up a little, the new people who got into Nem will start immediately selling due to fear of another massive price drop before they can sell.

[1714681129]

1714681129

[1714681129]

1714681129

[1714681129]

1714681129

[1714681129]

1714681129

[patmast3r]

I don't know exactly what the plan for NEM distribution is, but it might be interesting to give people the option to either receive it as one transaction, or receive it over time in smaller transactions.  If we encourage that later option, then I believe it would be better for the future of the coin, since it will mean there will be less to dump on the market on day 1.

For example, you could decide that you are going to give every stakeholder 5000 coins on opening day, or 450 coins a month for 1 year.  Taking the second option would not only show that you support NEM for the long-term, but you'd also get an 8% bonus.

I'm also very afraid of people dumping on day one, because a lot of people will try to sell them. There's just too many stakeholders.

Perhaps such a solution of not giving out all the coins at once would be a good thing. Maybe not for a year, but something flexible, that takes into account whether people are dumping them.

I know the idea sounds horrible, but it's just an idea to work with.

Maybe something like eMunie, that releases the coins to the stakeholders based on demand.

I just wouldn't want the price to go massively high on day one, just so that the price could drop by 20x, and having the people who bought at the highest point losing 20x their money, followed by the price staying down, because as soon as the price goes up a little, the new people who got into Nem will start immediately selling due to fear of another massive price drop before they can sell.

There is always goign to be some dumping but that doesn't necessarily affect the long term success.
If we keep up the momentum and keep building the community than I really do believe that NEM can be a huge success. Like I said. I have never ever seen such a professional team behind a crypto but maybe that just never usually surfaces. It is amazing whats being done and worked on and I'm really stoked about the things that are yet to come.

Spread the word and make the world a nemtastic place

[okaynow]

I have a problem I thought I had resolved this with an admin over a month ago, so i just forgot about it. However, i was just checking the stakeholder list and i see my name hasnt been added.

Here's the deal: user Prusessor posted my hash before I was able to cause stupid bitcointalk told me i had to wait 360 seconds to post.
The hash is 242c20a93bd2badb93bca913c34e9f0b394613ce1539f014a91eb5002e481f36

Please let me know who to pm, or where i can send a small amount to show that it is in fact jman887854 who sent the btc.  Thank very you much. I hope it isnt too late.

send a pm to UtopianFuture with your transaction ID, he will sort it out

[ashapasa]

I don't know exactly what the plan for NEM distribution is, but it might be interesting to give people the option to either receive it as one transaction, or receive it over time in smaller transactions.  If we encourage that later option, then I believe it would be better for the future of the coin, since it will mean there will be less to dump on the market on day 1.

For example, you could decide that you are going to give every stakeholder 5000 coins on opening day, or 450 coins a month for 1 year.  Taking the second option would not only show that you support NEM for the long-term, but you'd also get an 8% bonus.

I'm also very afraid of people dumping on day one, because a lot of people will try to sell them. There's just too many stakeholders.

Perhaps such a solution of not giving out all the coins at once would be a good thing. Maybe not for a year, but something flexible, that takes into account whether people are dumping them.

I know the idea sounds horrible, but it's just an idea to work with.

Maybe something like eMunie, that releases the coins to the stakeholders based on demand.

I just wouldn't want the price to go massively high on day one, just so that the price could drop by 20x, and having the people who bought at the highest point losing 20x their money, followed by the price staying down, because as soon as the price goes up a little, the new people who got into Nem will start immediately selling due to fear of another massive price drop before they can sell.

I would not mind dumping, it will weed out the profiteers at the doorstep. Only the believers will stick around and they are the one who matter in the long run. Infact I think it would be great if people are allowed to sell thier stakes right now, it will again weed out the short termers and we will gain more valuable stakeholders.  I would not mind buying a couple of stakes more myself lol

[patmast3r]

I have a problem I thought I had resolved this with an admin over a month ago, so i just forgot about it. However, i was just checking the stakeholder list and i see my name hasnt been added.

Here's the deal: user Prusessor posted my hash before I was able to cause stupid bitcointalk told me i had to wait 360 seconds to post.
The hash is 242c20a93bd2badb93bca913c34e9f0b394613ce1539f014a91eb5002e481f36

Please let me know who to pm, or where i can send a small amount to show that it is in fact jman887854 who sent the btc.  Thank very you much. I hope it isnt too late.

send a pm to UtopianFuture with your transaction ID, he will sort it out

The problem is alreafy being dealt with but thank you

[TauMuon]

I don't know exactly what the plan for NEM distribution is, but it might be interesting to give people the option to either receive it as one transaction, or receive it over time in smaller transactions.  If we encourage that later option, then I believe it would be better for the future of the coin, since it will mean there will be less to dump on the market on day 1.

For example, you could decide that you are going to give every stakeholder 5000 coins on opening day, or 450 coins a month for 1 year.  Taking the second option would not only show that you support NEM for the long-term, but you'd also get an 8% bonus.

I'm also very afraid of people dumping on day one, because a lot of people will try to sell them. There's just too many stakeholders.

Perhaps such a solution of not giving out all the coins at once would be a good thing. Maybe not for a year, but something flexible, that takes into account whether people are dumping them.

I know the idea sounds horrible, but it's just an idea to work with.

Maybe something like eMunie, that releases the coins to the stakeholders based on demand.

I just wouldn't want the price to go massively high on day one, just so that the price could drop by 20x, and having the people who bought at the highest point losing 20x their money, followed by the price staying down, because as soon as the price goes up a little, the new people who got into Nem will start immediately selling due to fear of another massive price drop before they can sell.

Think of NXT. They had only 70 stakeholders, some with as much as 4% of the entire supply. Did that fail on day 1 with huge dumping? Nope.

NEM may have more stakeholders cashing out on day 1 than NXT did, but that statistic is meaningless; volume is the key thing here. Because each stakeholder of NEM has a lower % of the supply than the day 1 dumpers of NXT did, the total dumping volume on day 1 could well be much less for NEM, despite the higher number of individual stakeholders selling. Make sense?

[Seven_carat]

NEM what time officially announced？

[j23a]

I don't know exactly what the plan for NEM distribution is, but it might be interesting to give people the option to either receive it as one transaction, or receive it over time in smaller transactions.  If we encourage that later option, then I believe it would be better for the future of the coin, since it will mean there will be less to dump on the market on day 1.

For example, you could decide that you are going to give every stakeholder 5000 coins on opening day, or 450 coins a month for 1 year.  Taking the second option would not only show that you support NEM for the long-term, but you'd also get an 8% bonus.

I'm also very afraid of people dumping on day one, because a lot of people will try to sell them. There's just too many stakeholders.

Perhaps such a solution of not giving out all the coins at once would be a good thing. Maybe not for a year, but something flexible, that takes into account whether people are dumping them.

I know the idea sounds horrible, but it's just an idea to work with.

Maybe something like eMunie, that releases the coins to the stakeholders based on demand.

I just wouldn't want the price to go massively high on day one, just so that the price could drop by 20x, and having the people who bought at the highest point losing 20x their money, followed by the price staying down, because as soon as the price goes up a little, the new people who got into Nem will start immediately selling due to fear of another massive price drop before they can sell.

Think of NXT. They had only 70 stakeholders, some with as much as 4% of the entire supply. Did that fail on day 1 with huge dumping? Nope.

NEM may have more stakeholders cashing out on day 1 than NXT did, but that statistic is meaningless; volume is the key thing here. Because each stakeholder of NEM has a lower % of the supply than the day 1 dumpers of NXT did, the total dumping volume on day 1 could well be much less for NEM, despite the higher number of individual stakeholders selling. Make sense?

NXT did not leave my mind when I made wrote my point. I feel that the difference is that you have 70 stakeholders selling off to a lot of people during a point of a lot interest. Demand meeting the supply. With Nem the situation is different because we have hundreds of stakeholders, and my concern is if hundreds of stakeholders decided to sell at the same time, without the the demand that NXT had.

It's not a huge concern because I feel that the demand will be there, just that that a little precaution is always a good thing. I personally would spread it out over like a two weak period. Spreading it out over a certain period would also probably create a lot of discussion on the forums, which would be promotion.

Again, these are just suggestions to drive thinking about all possibility, rather than just believe one thing and not consider anything else. No one is an expert on reality, so I really wouldn't know how the market would react to this or that.

[j23a]

I don't know exactly what the plan for NEM distribution is, but it might be interesting to give people the option to either receive it as one transaction, or receive it over time in smaller transactions.  If we encourage that later option, then I believe it would be better for the future of the coin, since it will mean there will be less to dump on the market on day 1.

For example, you could decide that you are going to give every stakeholder 5000 coins on opening day, or 450 coins a month for 1 year.  Taking the second option would not only show that you support NEM for the long-term, but you'd also get an 8% bonus.

I'm also very afraid of people dumping on day one, because a lot of people will try to sell them. There's just too many stakeholders.

Perhaps such a solution of not giving out all the coins at once would be a good thing. Maybe not for a year, but something flexible, that takes into account whether people are dumping them.

I know the idea sounds horrible, but it's just an idea to work with.

Maybe something like eMunie, that releases the coins to the stakeholders based on demand.

I just wouldn't want the price to go massively high on day one, just so that the price could drop by 20x, and having the people who bought at the highest point losing 20x their money, followed by the price staying down, because as soon as the price goes up a little, the new people who got into Nem will start immediately selling due to fear of another massive price drop before they can sell.

There is always goign to be some dumping but that doesn't necessarily affect the long term success.
If we keep up the momentum and keep building the community than I really do believe that NEM can be a huge success. Like I said. I have never ever seen such a professional team behind a crypto but maybe that just never usually surfaces. It is amazing whats being done and worked on and I'm really stoked about the things that are yet to come.

Spread the word and make the world a nemtastic place

I also never seen such a professional team behind a coin for.

Maybe Ethereum gives a certain impression, but they just really seem more contrived.

Also my concern really the public buying Nem during a massive pump, followed by a huge price drop, causing them to lose big time. My dream would be for a steady price increase.

[utopianfuture]

I don't know exactly what the plan for NEM distribution is, but it might be interesting to give people the option to either receive it as one transaction, or receive it over time in smaller transactions.  If we encourage that later option, then I believe it would be better for the future of the coin, since it will mean there will be less to dump on the market on day 1.

For example, you could decide that you are going to give every stakeholder 5000 coins on opening day, or 450 coins a month for 1 year.  Taking the second option would not only show that you support NEM for the long-term, but you'd also get an 8% bonus.

I'm also very afraid of people dumping on day one, because a lot of people will try to sell them. There's just too many stakeholders.

Perhaps such a solution of not giving out all the coins at once would be a good thing. Maybe not for a year, but something flexible, that takes into account whether people are dumping them.

I know the idea sounds horrible, but it's just an idea to work with.

Maybe something like eMunie, that releases the coins to the stakeholders based on demand.

I just wouldn't want the price to go massively high on day one, just so that the price could drop by 20x, and having the people who bought at the highest point losing 20x their money, followed by the price staying down, because as soon as the price goes up a little, the new people who got into Nem will start immediately selling due to fear of another massive price drop before they can sell.

Think of NXT. They had only 70 stakeholders, some with as much as 4% of the entire supply. Did that fail on day 1 with huge dumping? Nope.

NEM may have more stakeholders cashing out on day 1 than NXT did, but that statistic is meaningless; volume is the key thing here. Because each stakeholder of NEM has a lower % of the supply than the day 1 dumpers of NXT did, the total dumping volume on day 1 could well be much less for NEM, despite the higher number of individual stakeholders selling. Make sense?

NXT did not leave my mind when I made wrote my point. I feel that the difference is that you have 70 stakeholders selling off to a lot of people during a point of a lot interest. Demand meeting the supply. With Nem the situation is different because we have hundreds of stakeholders, and my concern is if hundreds of stakeholders decided to sell at the same time, without the the demand that NXT had.

It's not a huge concern because I feel that the demand will be there, just that that a little precaution is always a good thing. I personally would spread it out over like a two weak period. Spreading it out over a certain period would also probably create a lot of discussion on the forums, which would be promotion.

Again, these are just suggestions to drive thinking about all possibility, rather than just believe one thing and not consider anything else. No one is an expert on reality, so I really wouldn't know how the market would react to this or that.

I would consider slow release but I currently prefer releasing all NEM at once on the launch day. Besides the fact it is easier logistically, it would be very interesting economic experiment for every one. Imagine 3000 accounts are created the same time at launch and each receives 1 million NEM equally and they all start to send/ gift/ exchange hysterically etc. The distribution curve is a flat line at the beginning and start to move over time. Who will sell, who will buy and how much ? Isn't it interesting ? Why should we ruin such a beautiful beginning? NEM launch day should feel like the BIG BANG in the NEM universe so I suggest we should take a breath and watch it unfold in wonder. There is no need to over-engineer a BIG BANG.

[jnada]

I would consider slow release but I currently prefer releasing all NEM at once on the launch day. Besides the fact it is easier logistically, it would be very interesting economic experiment for every one. Imagine 3000 accounts are created the same time at launch and each receives 1 million NEM equally and they all start to send/ gift/ exchange hysterically etc. The distribution curve is a flat line at the beginning and start to move over time. Who will sell, who will buy and how much ? Isn't it interesting ? Why should we ruin such a beautiful beginning? NEM launch day should feel like the BIG BANG in the NEM universe so I suggest we should take a breath and watch it unfold in wonder. There is no need to over-engineer a BIG BANG.

Personally I'm expecting huge dump on first days/ weeks after release, but assuming that we are heading about 10M USD cap market everyone knows when to buy.
Indeed it's going to be very exciting experiment - how egalitarianism (distributio) works in practice
Anyway I hope that in a one year time we will become kind of bitcoiners. That's our unbearable destiny.
 What about 1B market cap? Can you imagine that?

[j23a]

I don't know exactly what the plan for NEM distribution is, but it might be interesting to give people the option to either receive it as one transaction, or receive it over time in smaller transactions.  If we encourage that later option, then I believe it would be better for the future of the coin, since it will mean there will be less to dump on the market on day 1.

For example, you could decide that you are going to give every stakeholder 5000 coins on opening day, or 450 coins a month for 1 year.  Taking the second option would not only show that you support NEM for the long-term, but you'd also get an 8% bonus.

I'm also very afraid of people dumping on day one, because a lot of people will try to sell them. There's just too many stakeholders.

Perhaps such a solution of not giving out all the coins at once would be a good thing. Maybe not for a year, but something flexible, that takes into account whether people are dumping them.

I know the idea sounds horrible, but it's just an idea to work with.

Maybe something like eMunie, that releases the coins to the stakeholders based on demand.

I just wouldn't want the price to go massively high on day one, just so that the price could drop by 20x, and having the people who bought at the highest point losing 20x their money, followed by the price staying down, because as soon as the price goes up a little, the new people who got into Nem will start immediately selling due to fear of another massive price drop before they can sell.

Think of NXT. They had only 70 stakeholders, some with as much as 4% of the entire supply. Did that fail on day 1 with huge dumping? Nope.

NEM may have more stakeholders cashing out on day 1 than NXT did, but that statistic is meaningless; volume is the key thing here. Because each stakeholder of NEM has a lower % of the supply than the day 1 dumpers of NXT did, the total dumping volume on day 1 could well be much less for NEM, despite the higher number of individual stakeholders selling. Make sense?

NXT did not leave my mind when I made wrote my point. I feel that the difference is that you have 70 stakeholders selling off to a lot of people during a point of a lot interest. Demand meeting the supply. With Nem the situation is different because we have hundreds of stakeholders, and my concern is if hundreds of stakeholders decided to sell at the same time, without the the demand that NXT had.

It's not a huge concern because I feel that the demand will be there, just that that a little precaution is always a good thing. I personally would spread it out over like a two weak period. Spreading it out over a certain period would also probably create a lot of discussion on the forums, which would be promotion.

Again, these are just suggestions to drive thinking about all possibility, rather than just believe one thing and not consider anything else. No one is an expert on reality, so I really wouldn't know how the market would react to this or that.

I would consider slow release but I currently prefer releasing all NEM at once on the launch day. Besides the fact it is easier logistically, it would be very interesting economic experiment for every one. Imagine 3000 accounts are created the same time at launch and each receives 1 million NEM equally and they all start to send/ gift/ exchange hysterically etc. The distribution curve is a flat line at the beginning and start to move over time. Who will sell, who will buy and how much ? Isn't it interesting ? Why should we ruin such a beautiful beginning? NEM launch day should feel like the BIG BANG in the NEM universe so I suggest we should take a breath and watch it unfold in wonder. There is no need to over-engineer a BIG BANG.

Sounds good. I really can't wait to see how things turn out.

[ashapasa]

I would consider slow release but I currently prefer releasing all NEM at once on the launch day. Besides the fact it is easier logistically, it would be very interesting economic experiment for every one. Imagine 3000 accounts are created the same time at launch and each receives 1 million NEM equally and they all start to send/ gift/ exchange hysterically etc. The distribution curve is a flat line at the beginning and start to move over time. Who will sell, who will buy and how much ? Isn't it interesting ? Why should we ruin such a beautiful beginning? NEM launch day should feel like the BIG BANG in the NEM universe so I suggest we should take a breath and watch it unfold in wonder. There is no need to over-engineer a BIG BANG.

Personally I'm expecting huge dump on first days/ weeks after release, but assuming that we are heading about 10M USD cap market everyone knows when to buy.
Indeed it's going to be very exciting experiment - how egalitarianism (distributio) works in practice
Anyway I hope that in a one year time we will become kind of bitcoiners. That's our unbearable destiny.
 What about 1B market cap? Can you imagine that?

1 billion is tiny, even bitcoins high cap of 12 billion is actually very small in terms of global financial market.

[conbos]

I would consider slow release but I currently prefer releasing all NEM at once on the launch day. Besides the fact it is easier logistically, it would be very interesting economic experiment for every one. Imagine 3000 accounts are created the same time at launch and each receives 1 million NEM equally and they all start to send/ gift/ exchange hysterically etc. The distribution curve is a flat line at the beginning and start to move over time. Who will sell, who will buy and how much ? Isn't it interesting ? Why should we ruin such a beautiful beginning? NEM launch day should feel like the BIG BANG in the NEM universe so I suggest we should take a breath and watch it unfold in wonder. There is no need to over-engineer a BIG BANG.

Personally I'm expecting huge dump on first days/ weeks after release, but assuming that we are heading about 10M USD cap market everyone knows when to buy.
Indeed it's going to be very exciting experiment - how egalitarianism (distributio) works in practice
Anyway I hope that in a one year time we will become kind of bitcoiners. That's our unbearable destiny.
 What about 1B market cap? Can you imagine that?

Some weeks ago, I expressed a similar concern; but I should recognize that UF's idea of a nearly perfect market from the very beginning is very tempting. Of course, it can happen such dump; then it can also happen that a big whale start buying NEMs at large scale skewing the distribution. That would be a not so nice scenario because all the effort of made the distribution egalitarian will be vanished.
However, our main strength is the community; if we, as a stakeholders contribute to maintain transparent market conditions to avoid pump and dump, together with a good promotion that brings a lot of new people and, most importantly, to have the possibility to use NEM to buy/sell things; I guess it will be hard for anybody try to control a big amount of money. That also will create demand and it will increase the value

[Thingamajig]

I also have to stress that i think the key isn't in just distribution or the fear of dumping, but also in making sure we have ACTIVE stakeholders who are prepared to donate a portion of their NEM to community promotions and other initiatives.

This is the big problem with NXT right now. In order for the idea to succeed in such a competitive market, it'll take community effort to make NEM stand out. This also means, imo, getting NEM to have some presence on the deep web as well as more legit retailers.

[gemini22]

I also have to stress that i think the key isn't in just distribution or the fear of dumping, but also in making sure we have ACTIVE stakeholders who are prepared to donate a portion of their NEM to community promotions and other initiatives.

This is the big problem with NXT right now. In order for the idea to succeed in such a competitive market, it'll take community effort to make NEM stand out. This also means, imo, getting NEM to have some presence on the deep web as well as more legit retailers.

I will be donating NEM for a forging system that runs on the Raspberry Pi, waiting for some NEM and waiting for that RPi bounty to be listed.

[dgex_victim]

Selling all my (a bit less than 90 dont know the exact number but I will count it if you want to buy all) bitcointalk account all invested during nem IPO:

Altough I invested during the whole IPO period, all accounts invested different ammount of btc or nxt, I'm selling every one
account for 0.25 bitcoin / acc, no matter how much did I invest with that acc address, 0.008 or 0.075, all acc have the same price.
For those who want to buy all, im selling for 0.15 bitcoin / acc.

I know some other big nem sockpuppet stakeholders some with 1-5 and some with more than 20 acc, but im think I one of the biggest, 90 is a nice stake if you see the total is about 3k only.

The accounts were all signed up with different IP address, I used my Ukrainen VPN provider with Ukrainein IPs, so there are no 2 account where I logged with the same IP, every one have a different unique, I did this because afraid the bitcointalk admins can bann my accounts if they see many new created with the same IP, so all accounts are bann free.

There is no connection between the accounts and not in their addresses, I withdraw all the invested moneys from several exchanges to unique address, so even you can't find connection with taint analysis, maybe just find a common exchange address, but nothing more direct connection.

All acc have fake email, I dont have access to them, after you buy it you can change with the password, if you want to buy only a few acc I will give the username and password details via pm, if you want to buy all I uploading a text file.

With the 0.15 BTC price for the 90 acc, dont know how much one acc will get, but maybe calculate with 1 million nem in each.
So all with this price is 13.5 bitcoin, and you will have 90 million nem.
This will price 1 nem to 0.00000015 bitcoin or 0.00009$ (if you see 600$ / btc) this is a fair price for a new starting coin.

The last stakeholders paid 0.075 bitcoin, the higher price / acc is because now the IPO is closed, so the only way to buy nem stake before it launches is by buying accounts from who joined to the IPO, and almost nobody selling it.

For the haters: Yes I made sockpuppet accounts, but all of you reading this thread had the same opportunity to make more accounts, if you didnt than it means I took more risk than you, I invested a lot of time (1 week / constant 6-10 hours a day) and money to this IPO, and the OP post at the time the IPO started said if somebody invest that much time then he deserves it because believing in this coin.

Im living in Ukraine, so for personal reasons i need some fiat money instead of nothing now but I keep 5 or 10 btctalk nem accounts, because still thinking this coin have a future.

Write a PM to me!

This guy is perfectly entitled to sell his stakes. He did nothing wrong or against the rules at the time. The best argument in defence of multiple stakes comes from utopianfuture himself.

Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:40 pm
So I saw an attempt to accumulate NEM stakes by one person making 5 accounts in the same manner https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic ... msg4750698 which somewhat goes against our egalitarian principle so my first instinct is to refund him the money and allow the sockpuppet only one stake.

But I realized it is explicitly said in the front page that multiple buy-ins are allowed. So I added a qualification in the front page "the development team reserve the right to refund you the money if an effort to unfairly accumulate NEM stakes is discovered"; however this qualification is added retrospectively so I think I would have to let Mr. sockpuppet to keep all of his 5 stakes if he wants to.

I want the community input for this decision.

https://forums.nxtcrypto.org/viewtopic.php?t=678&p=3161#p3159

Retrospective changes to the NEM rules show a lack of honesty. How can you trust someone who changes the rules to gloss over a poorly thought out & implemented process? Utpoianfuture understood this when he made the statement above about Mr Sockpuppet.

I support the goals of NEM, but all this focus on hunting and shaming people who followed the rules at the time is appalling. Utopianfuture has enough 'supporters' eagerly waiting for their stake who'll attack me, but look at the facts. I believe utopianfuture is an honourable person, and I think he would admit the multiple stakeholder 'witch-hunt' only draws attention to his knee-jerk 'make it up as you go along' approach to NEM back in January.

Retrospective changes kill credibility. Retrospective changes kill trust.

What else might change in the future? An increase in the development stakes? A bonus to utopianfuture for all his hard work? He's changed the rules retrospectively before, so there is no guarantee what might change in the future.

The power of bitcoin is rooted in the fact that the 'rules' are fixed by the math & the algorithms.
The weakness of fiat comes from manipulation by those with power and control.

Retrospective rules - NEM's approach is more like fiat than bitcoin.

Your word is your bond, and utopianfuture broke his ORIGINAL word to cover up a very poorly designed process.

Remember, NEM started as a knee-jerk response to frictionlesscoin's NEX when utopianfuture was a big player in NXT. That explains why the process was not thought out, but it does not justify retrospective changes to the rules.

[j23a]

dgex victim.

I think the word you meant to use was retroactive.

And judging by your user name, and what you said, the vibe that I got from you is that you're the type of person that plays the victim very often in your daily life.

Like, the type of person who would cause a big stink if the person who took your McDonalds order forgot to add in the napkins.

[dgex_victim]

dgex victim.

I think the word you meant to use was retroactive.

And judging by your user name, and what you said, the vibe that I got from you is that you're the type of person that plays the victim very often in your daily life.

Like, the type of person who would cause a big stink if the person who took your McDonalds order forgot to add in the napkins.

So, you don't have anything to contribute other than insults? You can't make any valid criticisms of the points raised in my post?

Utopianfuture is probably above insults I think. I'll wait and see if he responds.

The term is used in situations where the law is changed, making a previously committed lawful act now unlawful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrospective

[j23a]

dgex victim.

I think the word you meant to use was retroactive.

And judging by your user name, and what you said, the vibe that I got from you is that you're the type of person that plays the victim very often in your daily life.

Like, the type of person who would cause a big stink if the person who took your McDonalds order forgot to add in the napkins.

So, you don't have anything to contribute other than insults? You can't make any valid criticisms of the points raised in my post?

Utopianfuture is probably above insults I think. I'll wait and see if he responds.

The term is used in situations where the law is changed, making a previously committed lawful act now unlawful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrospective

Utopianfuture made sensible modifications to the rules that took effect after they were announced. Meaning that it did not affect those who bought a stake prior to the modifications. Very fair and sensible. I don’t see the lack of honesty that you claim.

This is where again you seem to play the victim card to me. Someone makes sensible rule changes, with clear intent to make things more fair, yet you want to catch them on a technicality, and raise hell. That’s the vibe that I get from you, from your user name, and your two posts. Not saying that I’m right about you, that’s just the vibe that I get.