Quote from: quarkfx on July 21, 2014, 08:16:48 PM

Quote from: cryptohunter on July 20, 2014, 03:28:07 PM

Quote from: mcphervi on July 20, 2014, 02:02:30 PM

Quote from: cryptohunter on July 19, 2014, 02:32:37 PM

the thread died now we are not discussing anything related to the superblock and companion coin?

The number 1 issue is we have no developer. I think that needs to sink in with the community. There is no active developer. I don't think people grasp the full implications of a coin with no captain. I am invested in many coins and all that have had no clear leadership just die. QRK will be no different.

Qrk has no way of attracting any development team, any marketing team or any project management teams without funds.

The small teams we have doing things for qrk will have zero chance against fully motivated and funded teams other coins have.

The game looks interesting of course i will buy some shares.

A full gaming arcarde with credits bought in qrk and winnings paid out in qrk with a small 2-5% running costs charge for ROI investors would be a good start. However now qrk is not worth much it would take a huge number of qrks to finance this.

I agree CH - I was and am a strong proponent of a companion coin for exactly these reasons - we need a development fund, a real stake for the developer and development team to keep people motivated, and merge mining to secure the blockchains. The companion coin can be set up so it is not in direct competition with Quark proper - my idea was to give the coin a personal/business finance slant, and to see if we could give it ring signatures for anon features. I would've liked to see a dual wallet with in wallet trading set up so that you could convert between the two coins. Quark would then be the day to day transparent transaction currency, while the partner was the
personal bank account/back end that had anon features. In this manner, we could advocate for merchant adoption of Quark proper, and then perhaps set up banking services for the companion.

Its all just a matter of figuring out scenarios where you have clear product differentiation.

But I agree - we absolutely need a development fund to compete. If we had one, we wouldn't need to be selling shares of the game, etc - it would just be getting done.

Vic

Great to hear you say that Vic. I still have yet to hear 1 solid specific negative of the companion coin sold via QRK IPO only.

The thing is we don't actually need the full involvement of the current qrk development team. If they wish to remain apart from the idea actually they are free to do this. Of course if would be great to have a dual wallet etc and complete co-operation and unity between the 2 coins with the same governance. The features you mention would really work nicely under one team.

QRK needs a development pot, price boost that can be maintained, renewed forced interest from the outside investors that have forgotten qrk, new blood with their energy and BTC that will come if you give them a reason, new features bring new BTC, but so do many other things like seeing an active community, seeing future projects discussed and projects that are currently being actioned etc. I do accept it is possible that the companion coin would in the long term big picture possibly have little positive effect on QRK. BUT that is only a possibility, i think it is likely that if smart managed it will bring a lot of great things qrks way and solve a lot of the current issues.

The worst case is that it turns into competition with QRK like the other 400 alts. In reality the worst case looks like tomorrow if only one new alt is released.

In the premined scenario there are no real stretches of trust being asked. There can be public wallets fully transparent transactions. I mean only cryptsy has any kind of qrk turnover. That can be slammed shut if the pot started moving without community knowledge.

It's seems the wanting to let things playout and wanting to make some radical changes will split the qrk community. However, let's be honest. There is no community without leadership and clear signs of future development. QRK died with the last wave of coins. The difference is qrk has still a lot of potential if used correctly. Some of the CORE members are very talented and skillful with great ideas but zero funding. We have Bill this is HUGE, but next time we need to engage him only when we have 100% ROI projects that WILL make good returns or even one HUGE ROI project that the entire community could get behind and invest in. Quarks name is still something people know about and we have some nice things coming in the future like shaqfu and QRKfx has some nice ideas too. QRK is possibly being held down artificially, but i don't see it like that. It just looks like there is not enough buy interest in the coin. There are more attractive looking coins for the future, this is mainly because they have the funding and active development/marketing teams behind them.

The first part is

1. set out the qrk leadership so we have a captain and supporting team to get behind.
2. set out a clear plan for the development fund
3. find a development team that would become involved for a potential 5%? of total minting released over a long time frame

Yes, some have said why would qrk be needed for this, why not make a entirely new coin and not help qrk at all.

Well i see the reason would be a symbiotic relationship. This new development team or current team with new vigour would get

1. association with the qrk foundation - so legitimacy
2. the qrk core of talent that has done so much for nothing will be working alongside with funding also. If they can get us on the shaqfu game with no funding imagine with some funding.
I see quite a few talented and motivated people at the core. This i think is worth a lot.
3. we have BIll for releasing legitimate investment opportunities to investors when we have some ROI projects ready and thrashed out.
4. Large % of minting available and agreed upon already. To be released to them in a responsible way. Most devs get flack for 1% premine and rightly so if they are able to dump it first day on exchange.

@Vic & CH

I know I am repeating this on and on but the same as CH didn´t hear any specific argument against the companion coin I don´t see how a companion coin wouldn´t damage the Quark brand. Money is not a product, it is a medium. If it was a product I can see the argument to market it to different groups but as it is a medium I think we should focus on making the medium better instead of launching a better medium that is suppose to replenish Quarks purpose.

Now, I want to get the arguments straight as there seem to be a lot of different directions in this discussion. I try to list the arguments why we went into this discussion in first place. I believe them to be very different and so are the conclusions we can draw from them. I list them with the contra arguments:

1. Hashrate is too low >> "Companion" coin with merge mining - however: people (e.g. mako, who is a developer) argued that this is in fact not a real issue because of automated checkpointing, which is why the companion coin is not necessary from a technical side.
2. Value is too low >> making the coin more attractive (more features, more projects, more prospects) - People argued that the main issue is that we have no money to finance projects.
3. No Community Funds >> "companion" coin as a "product" we sell for QRK, proof of burn, donations, superblock
4. Dev is inactive >> involve developer stronger (talk to developer) / find other coop developers

@1 I was bit astonished that the hashrate in fact is no real issue, I would like to hear more about that from another developer.
@2 I personally think that is not the case in terms of exchange rate, however we need to raise a substantial share of the whole distributed money to use for future projects. I am against a companion coin as I don´t see any way to create real distinguishing features. Also if merge mining isn´t that important (which may not be the case) the main reason seems to be raising money.
@3 If this is only about raising money I would prefer sidechain solutions (proof of burn etc.) or donations.
@4 As I argued before, I think paying a Dev in QRK is the best solution to get a dev involved in Quark. With regard to latest coops I am positive about including other devs ( than Max)

3 If this is only about raising money I would prefer sidechain solutions (proof of burn etc.) or donations.

This is about putting in place development/marketing/project managing teams.
However first you need to raise funds to get that going. We have some talented individuals with a lof of good ideas. These people are held back by zero funds, and most of the qrk holders sitting outside the reach of this board.

Proof of burn is the same as a QRK only IPO but the QRK is not destroyed or locked away. It is too held by the foundation for future payments of the teams that are put in place. I see no point burning it? burning it reduces minting and pushes up value i guess. However, it is better to use the teams developments/services/marketing and planned ipo projects to increase qrk uptake and use the qrks that were not burned to give incentive/payment for the qkr teams we want to put in place. I mean it is almost the same thing but burning yes pushes the price up, but the foundation still needs to get their hands on the QRK to pay the teams out this will require donations again.

I see no advatage of burn over qrk only ipo.

Fund raising is merely the fuel. The important part is organising and planning the journey correctly.

A side chain was more or less what i wanted at the start but thinking it through the qrk only ipo works a lot better.