Quote from: Kora on August 09, 2014, 07:25:34 AM

Quote from: DarkhorseofNxt on August 09, 2014, 06:12:21 AM

Quote from: Kora on August 09, 2014, 05:41:50 AM

Quote from: DarkhorseofNxt on August 09, 2014, 03:45:24 AM

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.

We could break the issue into smaller chunks. If we do give existing stakeholders a top-up then we need to decide:
- how much of the left-over stakes we give them
- who is eligible

IMO if someone was on the original list they were a stakeholder, and if they dumped that was their choice, and their right as an ORA stakeholder, and it's ok with me.

You're not a 'bad guy' if you dumped your stake, and if it let another guy buy ORA who valued them more, then that's the advantage & efficiency of a market mechanism, and I welcome that - it's a win win!

I'm not in favour of carrot & stick incentives to try and make people hold. I want voluntary hodl'ing, and the free market can give us that. If some people instantly dump the top-up, then some other people will buy it, no problem. just don't worry about the price.

I think if we try and exclude original stakeholders based on whether they sold or not we set a bad precedent and it will come back to haunt us. If I choose to go and live overseas should I relinquish my citizenship? No, of course not, my nationality was my birthright, and nobody can take it from me. NXT had 73 stakeholders, QORA had 137, and ORA had ~880! There aren't good stakeholders & bad stakeholders, just rational people making their own decision. That's freedom, and I like it!

It might sound silly, but our initial stakeholder list was based on an honest & fair process, and we should be proud of that, and we shouldn't discriminate against ANY stakeholders who exercised their free choice and sold.

Sockpuppets, if identified, are another story though, and we should eject them if the evidence is conclusive.

I support this. Once we are done with this, we can fully concentrate on the idea of new distribution via video submissions. Getting very impatient with the video idea. That will be a very fun process. Grin

Edit: current status as of now (not a confirmation) from nxtreporting, 701 is still holding. So rough calculation 125/825 has sold off. Now does that make a huge difference or impact?

It doesn't change my opinion, but that's just me.

If anybody strongly disagrees with me (you think dumpers should NOT get a top-up, or there should be some minimum hodl amount), SPEAK UP!

I might be wrong, and you might be right ... convince me

I totally disagree with this line of thinking!

1. I have explained here why there should be no additional stake for those that dumped their initial stake:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=620518.msg8114020#msg8114020

2. You said that this will be decided by voting. Obviously the stakeholders that vote will not vote to give stake to the dumpers. You must be fully aware of that.

3. I will tell you what I will do if you insist on this non-sense approach and try to convince everybody this is the way to go (even worst if you decide it without voting). I will sell my stake before all those dumpers. Why - I will get a better price if I sell before them. When they got their new stake they will dump driving the price even lower. Then I can re-evaluate, and decide if I want back in at those extra low prices, or if the decision was made from the top (i.e. no vote) - just stay out.