Re: [ANN] ORA::100% POS|Qora Clone|Free & Fair distribution|issued NXT AE ASAP
Some great community discussion going on here, well done! I've made my preferences known before, so I'll stay out of the discussion for now. What I would suggest is we start trying to establish what the different 'options' we'll have for the vote.
If you have a strong opinion on how we should distribute the remaining ORA assets (i.e. the left over stakes from the initial distribution) then consider presenting a brief summary of the option for other people to consider. Maybe if everyone uses a common format it'll be easier for the 'collective' to hone in on the proposals with the most consensus. Some people are making general suggestions which are very useful, but some are offering a complete plan.
Maybe present options like this:
ORA distribution option:[YOUR USERNAME] - version X
- blah blah
- blah blah
etc
If you modify your 'option' after getting feedback, repost the modified version with a different version number. Once you're happy change the version number to FINAL
If we follow a process like this it might help. Some of us have a complete plan in mind, but others might choose to support someone else's plan, but suggest a modification.
If ORA is to succeed, and we end up using some form of 'voting' system then we'll need to develop our own processes, similar to how a parliament works I guess.
In most parliamentary systems new 'bills' are submitted for debate, and some will choose to support the bill, some will try and amend it slightly, and some will reject it completely and put up a rival 'bill'. As ORA is leaderless we don't have a government or a President/Prime minister, but we do have a parliament of sorts (i.e. this forum), and so all our 'bills' would be known as a 'private members bill', at least in my country.
If we're to work effectively together then there'll obviously be many different opinions, and if we end up having as many options to vote on as interested people it'll become very difficult to move forward. We need a process that listens to everyone's opinions, and then forms those into a few basic 'options' which can be amended slightly, and then when supporters of the different options are satisfied with their amended final version, we vote.
Let's not fool ourselves, this process WILL be very difficult at times. If the process completely breaks down you can end up with people rejecting the process, and you have a civil war, and maybe a dissolution of your community, or some form of break up, or maybe even a dictator steps in to tell everyone what to do.
It's still worth doing even if it's hard
If you have a strong opinion on how we should distribute the remaining ORA assets (i.e. the left over stakes from the initial distribution) then consider presenting a brief summary of the option for other people to consider. Maybe if everyone uses a common format it'll be easier for the 'collective' to hone in on the proposals with the most consensus. Some people are making general suggestions which are very useful, but some are offering a complete plan.
Maybe present options like this:
ORA distribution option:[YOUR USERNAME] - version X
- blah blah
- blah blah
etc
If you modify your 'option' after getting feedback, repost the modified version with a different version number. Once you're happy change the version number to FINAL
If we follow a process like this it might help. Some of us have a complete plan in mind, but others might choose to support someone else's plan, but suggest a modification.
If ORA is to succeed, and we end up using some form of 'voting' system then we'll need to develop our own processes, similar to how a parliament works I guess.
In most parliamentary systems new 'bills' are submitted for debate, and some will choose to support the bill, some will try and amend it slightly, and some will reject it completely and put up a rival 'bill'. As ORA is leaderless we don't have a government or a President/Prime minister, but we do have a parliament of sorts (i.e. this forum), and so all our 'bills' would be known as a 'private members bill', at least in my country.
If we're to work effectively together then there'll obviously be many different opinions, and if we end up having as many options to vote on as interested people it'll become very difficult to move forward. We need a process that listens to everyone's opinions, and then forms those into a few basic 'options' which can be amended slightly, and then when supporters of the different options are satisfied with their amended final version, we vote.
Let's not fool ourselves, this process WILL be very difficult at times. If the process completely breaks down you can end up with people rejecting the process, and you have a civil war, and maybe a dissolution of your community, or some form of break up, or maybe even a dictator steps in to tell everyone what to do.
It's still worth doing even if it's hard
Form a small community committee. It will be then well organised.
Also a suggestion. If we are definitely going to give some extra ora to 1st stake holders, why dont we just concentrate on that first, make a decision and distribute away. Putting everything in 1 plate will cause a mess. My honest opinion.
A committee that samples community attitudes & opinions and then comes up with the voting options could work. It's worth exploring. The danger is most crypto people are libertarians in favour of decentralisation, and lots of people will see a red flag when someone starts talking about forming committees. I'd be open to exploring that option, as a smaller decision making unit has many advantages. We can learn from NXT experience a lot on this topic.
In business the most effective decision making system is often a dictatorship, but ORA isn't a business. I think a guy like Richard Branson is very successful because he's a smart dictator who knows how to delegate effectively, and he gives his people lots of autonomy. ORA can't use that model because we have no leader, so the 'benevolent dictator' setup is not an option for us. eMunie is a benevolent dictatorship, and It'll be interesting to see how that plays out once it launches.
It's a critical issue for all crypto projects - what organisational setup can best bootstrap a decentralised P2P financial network? It all ties in with the distribution and the tech too, PoW vs PoS, IPO vs FREE stakes vs mining.
Doge shows that identical tech with different 'organisation' can make a big difference, at least in the short term. The tech is important, but it's not the only factor, and if crypto gets hit by onerous regulations from government, then being able to function as a community and make decisions without making individual people targets could be critical to success.