Quote from: jumperjump on August 10, 2018, 07:03:15 AM

Quote from: jumperjump on August 09, 2018, 10:01:05 PM

Quote from: Lauda on August 06, 2018, 10:17:18 AM

Note that this was a suggestion by some community member. All options considered, it seems to be the best one.

I've been thinking a lot about this.

Would it be more appropriate to allow an exit window for those who want out? e.g. the escrows setup a buy back for a limited period of time where people can voluntarily choose to stay or go. The remaining holders can then follow Imed or Ton by vote.

As has been pointed out the powerful hand of a single individual could force everyone involuntarily down a blind alley and subsequently into something they did not sign up for. Pure democracies have historically been suicidal and it's one of the reasons the US was setup as a republic with some hybrid functions of a democracy. I feel that's worth mentioning if for no other reason than to point out that pure democratic vote (especially one that would force everyone onto or off of something) isn't always the best way.

I wanted to follow up on this.

So...

I've talked to people that support Imed and they want a refund & freedom to reinvest.
I've talked to the people that support Ton and they want a refund & freedom to reinvest.
And naturally there are the people that want out completely.

This is so much so that it appears (I'm getting information second hand) Ton is actively working on a mechanism to help the escrows perform the refunds.

I have yet to meet a vested person that wants to be forced into an unpredictable direction on this... including both of the founders.

So my question would be: Why are we voting?

Wouldn't a vote only add some unpredictable risk to everyone? e.g. a person with a large holding forces everyone to support one founder who subsequently backs out of their "refund but continue" narrative.

What's worse is there were murmurs of airdropping new tokens to people who show their support in the vote. I haven't heard as much about it anymore... but this casts a shadow of doubt over the legitimacy of deciding this with a vote. If people are voting one way or the other out of a fear of missing out on airdropped tokens it amounts to voter manipulation. Further... it also casts some concern into the mind of voters of if their investment addresses will be singled out in the future should either co-founder be privy to which address voted for what.

It looks like even coinpayments (post on NVO reddit by Ton) has backed the idea that the only right course of action is a refund of remaining escrow.

And if all paths/parties agree on the correctness of a refund I'm unclear as to why we're bothering with a vote. It would seem to me that this would only cause unnecessary risk, confusion, and voter doubt (i.e. the risks associated with voting that I mentioned above). If there were disputes over whether refunds should happen or not I could see some sort of consensus mechanism being needed (e.g. voting) but that doesn't appear to be the case here.

Because I believe this refund will go different than people are expecting it to. Just give it time.