[ANN] ORA :: NXT 'monetary system' currency

[coinsolidation]

9%+25% = 34,000,000 MS, or 3.4% of total (1B) supply to get the oversight project off the ground and run it.  If Bitcoin had 3.4% of total supply in the foundation, they'd have 714,000 BTC to fund projects with.  Seems more than reasonable?

I realise this is a radical proposal, but it's only a proposal, an alternative approach to discuss

[Kora]

The fact that ORA hasnt launched yet and the value of the asset on the exchange is so low makes this idea possible as it wont effect the existing stakholders of ORA negatively in the long run.

time is on our side.  

edit: i would like to bring attention to everyone. There is a high possibility we need to raise funds for 2 matters.

1.) To register the name on MS, a certain fee is charged. 25,000 nxt for 3 letter name and 1,000 nxt for 4 letter name. My personal opinion to register the 3 letter name for ORA. How we can do this, well there are 2 options, 1st by fundraising by donations if possible by all stakeholders, 2nd to sell a certain portion to raise the fund. Please share your thoughts on this.

2.) Amount of Nxt needed to lock into MS system to issue the coins on the platform. It will sorta give the coins a value. Need your opinion on this as well.

I will pay the 25,000 NXT for the 'ORA' name on the MS. I can afford it, and I think it's better that we don't sell any ORA for this purpose now that we're likely to change the original distribution. As for the Nxt used to lock into the MS, why not a peppercorn of 1 Nxt? If ORA gains community 'trust' and is fully decentralised as a Starfish, do we need to have any Nxt backing? Maybe not.

[DarkhorseofNxt]

The fact that ORA hasnt launched yet and the value of the asset on the exchange is so low makes this idea possible as it wont effect the existing stakholders of ORA negatively in the long run.

time is on our side.  

edit: i would like to bring attention to everyone. There is a high possibility we need to raise funds for 2 matters.

1.) To register the name on MS, a certain fee is charged. 25,000 nxt for 3 letter name and 1,000 nxt for 4 letter name. My personal opinion to register the 3 letter name for ORA. How we can do this, well there are 2 options, 1st by fundraising by donations if possible by all stakeholders, 2nd to sell a certain portion to raise the fund. Please share your thoughts on this.

2.) Amount of Nxt needed to lock into MS system to issue the coins on the platform. It will sorta give the coins a value. Need your opinion on this as well.

I will pay the 25,000 NXT for the 'ORA' name on the MS. I can afford it, and I think it's better that we don't sell any ORA for this purpose now that we're likely to change the original distribution. As for the Nxt used to lock into the MS, why not a peppercorn of 1 Nxt? If ORA gains community 'trust' and is fully decentralised as a Starfish, do we need to have any Nxt backing? Maybe not.

Noted. Boss has spoken. Actually i feel bad that you are paying for everything. Wish i could help you.

[fragORA]

The fact that ORA hasnt launched yet and the value of the asset on the exchange is so low makes this idea possible as it wont effect the existing stakholders of ORA negatively in the long run.

time is on our side.  

edit: i would like to bring attention to everyone. There is a high possibility we need to raise funds for 2 matters.

1.) To register the name on MS, a certain fee is charged. 25,000 nxt for 3 letter name and 1,000 nxt for 4 letter name. My personal opinion to register the 3 letter name for ORA. How we can do this, well there are 2 options, 1st by fundraising by donations if possible by all stakeholders, 2nd to sell a certain portion to raise the fund. Please share your thoughts on this.

2.) Amount of Nxt needed to lock into MS system to issue the coins on the platform. It will sorta give the coins a value. Need your opinion on this as well.

I will pay the 25,000 NXT for the 'ORA' name on the MS. I can afford it, and I think it's better that we don't sell any ORA for this purpose now that we're likely to change the original distribution. As for the Nxt used to lock into the MS, why not a peppercorn of 1 Nxt? If ORA gains community 'trust' and is fully decentralised as a Starfish, do we need to have any Nxt backing? Maybe not.

Noted. Boss has spoken. Actually i feel bad that you are paying for everything. Wish i could help you.

+1. Unemployed atmo and funds are tight

[Kora]

The fact that ORA hasnt launched yet and the value of the asset on the exchange is so low makes this idea possible as it wont effect the existing stakholders of ORA negatively in the long run.

time is on our side.  

edit: i would like to bring attention to everyone. There is a high possibility we need to raise funds for 2 matters.

1.) To register the name on MS, a certain fee is charged. 25,000 nxt for 3 letter name and 1,000 nxt for 4 letter name. My personal opinion to register the 3 letter name for ORA. How we can do this, well there are 2 options, 1st by fundraising by donations if possible by all stakeholders, 2nd to sell a certain portion to raise the fund. Please share your thoughts on this.

2.) Amount of Nxt needed to lock into MS system to issue the coins on the platform. It will sorta give the coins a value. Need your opinion on this as well.

I will pay the 25,000 NXT for the 'ORA' name on the MS. I can afford it, and I think it's better that we don't sell any ORA for this purpose now that we're likely to change the original distribution. As for the Nxt used to lock into the MS, why not a peppercorn of 1 Nxt? If ORA gains community 'trust' and is fully decentralised as a Starfish, do we need to have any Nxt backing? Maybe not.

Noted. Boss has spoken. Actually i feel bad that you are paying for everything. Wish i could help you.

+1. Unemployed atmo and funds are tight

No problem, you guys are doing plenty which I'm very grateful for!! But 'Boss' ... I think the 'Starfish' prefers 'comrade' or 'brother' 

Also, I like the look of those numbers Mark suggested for burning in the coins that choose to migrate over to ORA. Can we add a few % for CryptoFest though? I plan to ramp up some promo effort on CryptoFest to coincide with MS and all these exciting plans.

[Kora]

Only giving 0.9-0.09% of total supply to a project merging in which has potentially had years of work, vs 50%+ to stake holder of one still establishing project, doesn't feel too fair.

Suggestion 5:  Give 10% of remaining MS supply to each project.

Project 1: ORA
Allocated 100,000,000 MS (apportioned 50% / 9% / 25% / remainder as described)
MS Pot: 900,000,000 MS

Project 2: ??
Allocated 90,000,000 MS
MS Pot: 810,000,000 MS

Project 3: ??
Allocated 81,000,000 MS
MS Pot: 729,000,000 MS

Rule 2: 10% as a cap, one project may be a single coin, another may be half of three communities joining, another may be four people working on an app for one dead coin. Apportioning the assigned ms should be easy as already discussed.  Choosing what percentage up to 10 to apply to a project could be hard, perhaps just a social voting process?

Lot's to think about, I must bow out of the conversation for now, as much to do.

Small note, If you could issue 100m instead of 1b instead as a total supply, it may help in the long term, a single unit of currency should perceived as having value by itself, if you have 100m of them that's possible, if you have a billion you may always be stuck with it being fractions of a cent / a few satoshi.  Consider the gift of 1 DOGE vs 1 NXT vs 1 LTC.  Parity with other currencies is an important measure for community members, to go 1:1 with cent, nxt, 10 cents, dollar can give a substantial feeling of worth/merit.

Thanks for the input Mark!! I think this new trajectory is really exciting, and should be very effective at helping ORA grow into something pretty cool

[1688]

Thanks for the update . Dev!

[Breasal]

Is it too late to get in on Ora distribution? How to get a stake?

[josegines]

Is it too late to get in on Ora distribution? How to get a stake?

https://nxtblocks.info/#section/assets_exchange/market/16194910134118257692

[Kora]

For those not familiar with the details of how the NXT monetary system works, here are a couple of great sources of information

http://nxter.org/nxt-for-financial-experts-local-groups-and-cryptofans/

https://bitbucket.org/JeanLucPicard/nxt/issue/136/monetary-system

The more people who know how the MS works the better are our chances of designing a great system (there are plenty of options we can use, and once created the ORA MS currency can't be changed). Also, if we're going to pursue coinsolidations's suggestion of letting other coins burn into ORA, then we need to understand all the implications of that, and it's critical we do this in the most efficient and optimal way. I think we should start creating some MS ORA simulations on the testnet so we can start experimenting.

The NXT MS is incredibly powerful! Did you know that MS currencies can 'mint' new coins using PoW, just like a regular PoW crypto like bitcoin!

That got me thinking about PoW coins that do 'useful' computations, like Gridcoin does with Boinc. Could ORA use 'meaningful' PoW to mint new coins? Would that let us add new 'migrant' coins into the future via burning (i.e. the option to add new 'migrant' coins is open ended for a while), expanding the ORA supply via PoW minted ORA in some way? If we increased the ORA coin supply at the same time we increased the number of ORA users (and so ORA demand) would that still cause 'inflation' that reduced the purchasing power of ORA (i,e, the price dropped)? In the long-term probably yes, but what about just over the bootstrapping period we're trying to attract 'refugees' from dead & dying coins? I don't know the answer, but I'm willing to explore possibilities. Maybe we set a deadline for adding migrant coins. I do strongly believe that the bedrock of crypto currency success is people, and the more people using ORA, the better our chances of adoption and long-term success!

Could the ORA app perform PoW minting to do 'useful' computational work, something that creates real economic value?

Possibilities are very exciting to ponder, and I encourage everyone to get their thinking hats on, and share their thoughts!!

Monetary System
Disclaimer: this documentation reflects the actual code implemented as of this date. In case you are missing your favorite feature or have an improvement idea, please let us know. Note that this documentation may change without notice.
Updated: Nov. 17th, 2014

Overview
The "Currency" entity is the basic building block of the NXT Monetary System, currency has a unique name and code and uniqueness is guaranteed by the protocol, currencies can be deleted and their code can be reused under certain conditions.
The total currency supply is divisible into currency units. Like assets, currency units supports decimal position implemented as a client side feature. The maximum number of currency units which can be issued per currency is similar to NXT i.e. 10^9 * 10^8. The actual maximum units supply is set by the currency issuer. The currency issuer is the account which issues the currency and pays the issuance fee. The issuer is responsible for setting the currency properties and in some configurations has additional control over the currency usage. Like asset balance, currency units can be transferred between accounts.

Currency Properties
The currency entity supports several properties. Properties can be mixed and matched in various ways to compose the currency type. The currency type then controls the inner workings of the currency. The list of available currency properties is as follows:

EXCHANGEABLE - the currency can be exchanged with NXT. Holders of the currency can publish an exchange offer specifying the buy and sell rate of the currency much the same as banks or currency exchanges publish their exchange rates . Each account can publish only a single exchange offer at any given time. Buyers and sellers can issue buy offer and sell offer to match published exchange offers. Unlike asset orders, offers are not saved, they are either executed immediately (fully or partially) or not executed at all. A match of exchange offer with a buy or sell offer creates an exchange entity which represents the transfer of currency units in return to NXT balance and causes the relevant account balances to update.

CONTROLLABLE - currency property suitable for currencies which needs to track an external entity. It imposes the following limitations on the currency (1) Currency can be transferred only to/from the issuer account (2) only the issuer account can publish exchange offers. The idea is that the issuer account can issue a large (practically infinite) supply of units in advance, then transfer units to accounts or exchange units to reflect actual transactions which takes place in an external system. The large supply of units in the issuer account can be used for creating units out of nowhere to support features such as interest payments, dividends or other inflationary practices.

RESERVABLE - means that the currency units are not issued immediately. Instead the currency issuer sets a block height at which the currency will be issued and a limit of NXT needed in order to issue the currency. Currency "founders" then spend their NXT to reserve their currency stake. If the amount of NXT needed in order to issue the currency is not reserved before reaching the block height the issuance is cancelled and funds are returned minus fees. If the required reserve is allocated, the currency is issued and units are split between founders according to their proportional stake of invested NXT. In case of rounding, leftovers are sent to the issuer account. See below discussion of usage scenarios for Reservable currency.

CLAIMABLE - currency units of resereable currency can later be claimed at the same exchange rate used when reserving the currency. The ability to claim a currency at a certain rate imposes some practical limits on the rates in which users would want to exchange it. However claimable currency can also be exchanged if only for the purpose of exchanging the whole currency supply so that the currency can be deleted.

MINTABLE - currency can be minted using proof of work algorithms much the same as Bitcoin. Unlike Bitcoin mining, minting currency does not secure the network (this is done by NXT). Minting is used solely for creating new currency units and serve as the only mechanism to inflate the number of available units after the currency issuance.

NON_SHUFFLEABLE - this property indicates that in the future this currency cannot participate in coin shuffling. By default currencies are allowed to be used for shuffling.
Properties are combined into an Integer bit mask designated as the Currency type.
The specific currency APIs are documented using javadoc and will be available once the code is released.

Currency Exchange
For exchangeable currency, each currency holder account, can publish a single exchange offer specifying the buy rate and sell rate vs NXT and the number of units she is willing to trade (which cannot exceed her available currency units and NXT balance). Users can observe all currency exchange offers (intuitively similar to fiat exchange offices) and try to match them with buy/sell offers. An exchange offer has an expiration height as well as a limit on the total number of units which can be exchanged. When units are bought from an exchange offer the number of units to sell increases automatically and vise versa. The publisher can also limit the total transaction volume of currency units traded for a specific exchange offer.

Deleting a Currency
Since currency codes are limited to 3, 4 or 5 uppercase letters, the total number of codes is limited to 26^3 + 26^4 + 26^5 - 1 = 12355927 possibilities (The code "NXT" is reserved) it is likely that some of these codes will have value by themselves. Therefore deleting a currency is possible under certain conditions depending on the currency type. Users may delete a currency and then issue a new currency with the same code but with different properties. In order to delete a currency an account must poses all the currency units (and additional conditions apply based on the currency type)

Creating new Currency Units
The only way to create new currency units after issuing a currency is using proof of work minting. Other methods of creating units are susceptible to denial of service attacks and/or sock puppets and are therefore not allowed. However, we are actively looking for good ideas how to allow creating new units in a safe manner and this can be further discussed. The controlable currency type provides a partial solution by allowing the currency issuer account to treat her supply as a treasury and only consider units outside of this account as the total currency supply. This approach requires users to trust the currency issuer which can inflate the currency supply at any time.

Minting
Users can issue minting requests in order to mint additional currency units. Each minting request triggers a hash calculation based on the submitted data and the currency hash algorithm. The resulting hash code is compared to the target value derived from the current currency difficulty. Minimal and maximal currency difficulty values and minting algorithm are specified when issuing the currency and cannot be changed later. Difficulty of minting the first unit is based on 2^minDifficulty while difficulty of minting the last unit is based on 2^maxDifficulty. Difficulty increases linearly from min to max based on the ratio between the current number of units and the total supply. Difficulty increases linearly with the number of units minted per CurrencyMint request, so that small minters can mint only a few units per request while large minters can mint large number of units per request. The number of units per minting request is limited to 1/10000 of the total unit supply. Currency issuers can specify initial supply of units as a "pre-mint" supply assigned to the issuer account and can also use crowd funding by making the currency RESERVABLE and EXCHANGEABLE. Once the currency becomes active the delta between the current supply (pre-minted and reserved) and total supply can be minted. In practice we expect users to calculate hash codes using their Asic or GPU offline, trying to match the current target, and once solving a hash, submit a currency mint transaction (thus paying a fee).
If indeed the hash code is smaller than the target the currency units are credited to the sender account.

Store of Value
The combination of RESERVABLE and CLAIMABLE properties can be used to allocate initial value for a currency. Once the currency is issued the reserved NXT are locked and the only way to release them is to claim back the currency units for NXT. This provides the currency a value based on the locked NXT balance. Note: locked NXT do not participate in forging, therefore, in theory its possible that large amount of NXT becomes locked as currency store of value thus reducing the amount of NXT used for securing the network, we are aware of this problem and we'll monitor it closely. We do not expect this to become a major problem any time soon.

Crowd Funding
The combination of RESERVABLE and (not CLAIMABLE) properties can be used for crowd funding, in this configuration the NXT balance reserved by founders, is not locked, instead it is sent to the currency issuer once the currency becomes active. The issuer can use these NXT for its operations and the founders cannot claim back their currency units, only exchange it according to market value.

Fees
Currency issuance fee is based on the length of the currency code. 3 Letters - 25000 NXT, 4 Letters - 1000 NXT, 5 Letters - 40 NXT. Re-issuing an existing currency with different properties costs 40 NXT.

Disclaimer
Before issuing a currency we recommend issuing a currency with the same properties on the testnet and experimenting with all parameters since these cannot be changed without deleting the currency.
2014-10-26

source: https://bitbucket.org/JeanLucPicard/nxt/issue/136/monetary-system

[DarkhorseofNxt]

Dear Mark, thank you for the suggestion on the re-structure,

we may use solution 5, the "radical change" as a base with modification. Modifications will be as below:

1.) ora development should come out from overall portion - 1,000,000,000 - (allocated development fund) = MS Pot. This is to develop the overall ORA not just a certain community. Makes sense? Suggested amount around 25,000,000 overall. So the balance MS pot = 975,000,000.

2.) 1st percentage will be allocated to the ORA stake holders. Percentage will be confirmed after discussion with the team members.

Dear all, the above will be a total restructure to the previous known distribution. I suggest to those that believe in the ORA and its team (the whole Ora community) to add to your stakes with at least 200,000 ora coins minimum in your account. The above structure will reduce the percentage of your holding drastically and we feel it is needed to give value to the coins of your holding. Holding hundreds of coin with less value vs holding small portion of high value coins is your decision making process here.

With this move, we are expecting to bring in more techs and community into the ORA structure with more case uses for its users. More updates will be coming soon.  

P.S We are expecting to test the MS system next week in the testnet.

[Kora]

Dear Mark, thank you for the suggestion on the re-structure,

we may use solution 5, the "radical change" as a base with modification. Modifications will be as below:

1.) ora development should come out from overall portion - 1,000,000,000 - (allocated development fund) = MS Pot. This is to develop the overall ORA not just a certain community. Makes sense? Suggested amount around 25,000,000 overall. So the balance MS pot = 975,000,000.

2.) 1st percentage will be allocated to the ORA stake holders. Percentage will be confirmed after discussion with the team members.

Dear all, the above will be a total restructure to the previous known distribution. I suggest to those that believe in the ORA and its team (the whole Ora community) to add to your stakes with at least 200,000 ora coins minimum in your account. The above structure will reduce the percentage of your holding drastically and we feel it is needed to give value to the coins of your holding. Holding hundreds of coin with less value vs holding small portion of high value coins is your decision making process here.

With this move, we are expecting to bring in more techs and community into the ORA structure with more case uses for its users. More updates will be coming soon.  

P.S We are expecting to test the MS system next week in the testnet.

Thanks Darkhorse! The changes we are proposing WILL reduce each original ORA stakeholders share of the final MS currency we launch. IMO the change (letting people 'burn' coins currently on crypto 'life-support' in exchange for coins in ORA2) should increase the ORA community and user-base significantly, and thus the potential & viability of ORA. While the original ORA1 stakeholders will obviously end up with a smaller % of the ORA2 'pie', bringing in extra people and talent from other coins on the brink of failure will INCREASE the size of the ORA2 'pie' significantly, so I'm confident the original ORA stakeholders will end up being a LOT better off.

Which would you rather - X% of AltaVista, or 0.X% of Google -  Y% of MySpace, or 0.Y% of Facebook?

I like the change in direction suggested by coinsolidation (Mark), and I think it can make ORA a lot stronger, and help us reach 'critical mass' in terms of adoption a lot quicker than expected, but maybe some ORA stakeholders don't ...  if you don't like this plan, or you have some suggestions for modifications to the basic idea we're proposing, SPEAK NOW! We're listening

[DarkhorseofNxt]

Kora,

Would you consider an addition to the modification,

Distribute x% of coins to stakeholders per annum if there is no project added to that particular year? Say 1% to 2%?

[th4o]

I like the proposed changes and having more people involved in ORA by burning other coins, but I don't like having too much of the pie in a treasury account for a very long time. (And even a year is much in crypto right now)
It's not that I don't trust you... people in contact with ora the first time wouldn't. It's a too centralised idea.
Maybe smart contracts can solve this issue in future, but I think for now it's better to reduce the time having a high amount in a treasury account.

[coinsolidation]

Maybe smart contracts can solve this issue in future, but I think for now it's better to reduce the time having a high amount in a treasury account.

Notice there is a "Minting" section under MS, coins could be added as required.  The effect on the economy is identical, the only difference is that whilst price stays the same, market capitalization instantly jumps (as you see with ripple) when a new chunk is minted.

Of course you could all proactively start looking at projects to fold in immediately, the more you have joining forces the quicker supply will deplete, and the more momentum you will gain.

Great news, very excited for you guys, so much potential.

[DarkhorseofNxt]

I like the proposed changes and having more people involved in ORA by burning other coins, but I don't like having too much of the pie in a treasury account for a very long time. (And even a year is much in crypto right now)
It's not that I don't trust you... people in contact with ora the first time wouldn't. It's a too centralised idea.
Maybe smart contracts can solve this issue in future, but I think for now it's better to reduce the time having a high amount in a treasury account.

Something definitely worth to look at. Will do so. But the structure may "force" us to do so thetefore please advice what are the projects that you think is worth adopting so we can proceed with talks.

Edit: i think we should focus more what techs we need to adopt that gives real value. Projects like someone has an idea to integrate fiat to crypto, LETS, gamecoins etc. Something people will have usefulness. Randomly adding projects and adding valuable projects has its benefits. I would go for the latter, adding more value to the coin. What do you think? It's like direction.

[Kora]

Kora,

Would you consider an addition to the modification,

Distribute x% of coins to stakeholders per annum if there is no project added to that particular year? Say 1% to 2%?

Yes, I like to consider all options So we would keep these coins in the treasury account, or would they possibly come from a community 'minting' effort of some kind? Some form of 'bonus' or dividend always adds a good psychological & financial boost to holding a coin.

I've been thinking a lot about the option to have PoW minting today, it's a very interesting option to increase coin supply, and the possibility to have the 'work' be something useful really appeals to me. As a non-dev I'm not sure of the options for 'work' we can deploy in an app designed to run on a smart-phone, but it is an intriguing option.

[Kora]

Maybe smart contracts can solve this issue in future, but I think for now it's better to reduce the time having a high amount in a treasury account.

Notice there is a "Minting" section under MS, coins could be added as required.  The effect on the economy is identical, the only difference is that whilst price stays the same, market capitalization instantly jumps (as you see with ripple) when a new chunk is minted.

Of course you could all proactively start looking at projects to fold in immediately, the more you have joining forces the quicker supply will deplete, and the more momentum you will gain.

Great news, very excited for you guys, so much potential.

Thanks Mark! I agree, we need to start reaching out to coin communities with this idea, especially ones where the community was reasonably 'together' for an extended period of time.

@everyone reading, please make suggestions on coins you think might be suitable to 'burn' into ORA. There's no rules here, so if you want to get pro-active and post about this new direction for ORA in other coin threads, then go for it! There are so many alt coins around now that it's unlikely any single person has a knowledge of all the possible coin communities that might be open to joining ORA, so we really need INPUT and suggestions from everyone. My only request is that we show respect in other threads, and don't get overly spammy.

@th4o, I agree that it's a community goal to draw down the treasury funds asap, but in saying that I think we still have to take sufficient time to 'execute' the distributions without making too many mistakes, and there are ways to mitigate the obvious downside of having large amounts of funds centralised. NXT will have multi-sig implemented soon (I think), and once that's in place we can use a similar process to the SuperNET with multiple treasurers needing to sign off on any distributions from the community funds.

It obviously wont sit well with everyone, and that concern 'in principle' (i.e. centralisation is dangerous) is well founded IMO, and that helps to keep everyone on their game. I would like to say that our two community treasurers (Darkhorse & fragORA) are doing a magnificant job, and both have my full support. Darkhorse in particular has established himself as a trusted and respected member of the NXT community, and as he is currently in control of the majority of ORA's community funds, that should give us ALL a good measure of confidence, but yes, it'll be a good day when the bulk of the coins are mostly distributed with the remainder held in mult-sig accounts controlled by multiple people.

[th4o]

Maybe smart contracts can solve this issue in future, but I think for now it's better to reduce the time having a high amount in a treasury account.

Notice there is a "Minting" section under MS, coins could be added as required.  The effect on the economy is identical, the only difference is that whilst price stays the same, market capitalization instantly jumps (as you see with ripple) when a new chunk is minted.

Yes, I did already noticed the mining feature. This will be the only way to create new ORA units. With this feature people recognizing ORA later will still have a chance to get their stake. I´ve never mined a single coin, but I´m a supporter of having some PoW integration into ORA, as there are so many miners with specialised equipment.

@th4o, I agree that it's a community goal to draw down the treasury funds asap, but in saying that I think we still have to take sufficient time to 'execute' the distributions without making too many mistakes, and there are ways to mitigate the obvious downside of having large amounts of funds centralised. NXT will have multi-sig implemented soon (I think), and once that's in place we can use a similar process to the SuperNET with multiple treasurers needing to sign off on any distributions from the community funds.

It obviously wont sit well with everyone, and that concern 'in principle' (i.e. centralisation is dangerous) is well founded IMO, and that helps to keep everyone on their game. I would like to say that our two community treasurers (Darkhorse & fragORA) are doing a magnificant job, and both have my full support. Darkhorse in particular has established himself as a trusted and respected member of the NXT community, and as he is currently in control of the majority of ORA's community funds, that should give us ALL a good measure of confidence, but yes, it'll be a good day when the bulk of the coins are mostly distributed with the remainder held in mult-sig accounts controlled by multiple people.

According to the development roadmap multisig won´t be implemented soon, I don´t even think it will be released inside the first half of the next year.
I would recommend to distribute at least ~90% as soon as possible. It´s analog to altcoins with a high premine, most people hearing of them the first time aren´t interested because of this issue.

[th4o]

BTW: The documentation got updated: https://bitbucket.org/JeanLucPicard/nxt/issue/205/monetary-system-documenation

Let´s discuss the ORA currency properties. I´m thinking of the following:

Code:

EXCHANGEABLE = 1
CONTROLLABLE = 0
RESERVABLE = 0
CLAIMABLE = 0
MINTABLE= 1
NON_SHUFFLEABLE = 0

To be able to exchange the currency to NXT and maybe even other currencies later is a must have. Controllable, Reservable, Claimable aren´t any features for ORA, as all stakes are distributed initially. Shuffling will be one of the big features in my eyes.
For the Mining feature there must be minimal and maximal difficulty values. There will be little to no miners at the beginning, so the diff shouldn´t be too low?? How many units should be allocated to mining, if any?
What´s your opinion on all this?


Of course the final setup should be tested completely on NXT testnet once 1.4e is ready, as it isn´t possible to change something after issuing ORA.