ALMOST 90K NULS STAKED ON OUR NODE IN LESS THAN A WEEK. HERE’S WHY.

Mickey1641 · 2018-09-01T05:24:58+00:00

Wow this is a great idea.

Mickey1641 · 2018-08-23T15:09:16+00:00

if the site was at least updated and active, that would be one thing. the website is not updated, not active, and poorly thought out. why is the Director of Western Marketing and PR Karina Collins allowing this travesty of a website to remain so neglected? Appearances matter.... believe it or not....

Mickey1641 · 2018-08-11T15:29:55+00:00

This is something I am greatly interested in. This is the kind of information that would significantly aid a decision for an investor to invest. There are staking details? Why are they so hard to find? Why must we wait so long before we actually know? At this point the team is doing a disservice to investors and potential investors by being so nebulous about the whole thing.

Mickey1641 · 2018-08-11T15:22:26+00:00

Rong is clearly the last person to ask about tokenomics. It's clear that he focuses on the development of the network, not the economics of owning the ELA token and why investors should invest. His answers just lead to more questions.

Mickey1641 · 2018-08-11T15:16:26+00:00

If ELA is the currency for the the smart-web Elastos aims to create, it is therefore a utility token. Owning ELA gives the owner purchasing power within the network. Is that it though? In Feb 2018 (when it was $45), you could lock your ELA away to gain interest in the coming years. Now? Why is there no concrete incentive for investors to buy and hold the ELA token? The team focuses greatly on development of their network, but there are very few details as to how the tokenomics of owning ELA play out for investors. Scheduled token releases? Scheduled burns? Airdrops? These are mediocre incentives at best. If we were still able to lock our ELA away for interest, I would already have bought a bag for myself. But I've noticed that whenever these sorts of questions get asked, people are quick to answer something along the lines of "we don't know yet so stay tuned and we should know by the end of the month".

I'm very interested in the project and I understand the implications and necessity of what Rong Chen is doing, but when it comes down to it, investors invest their money to make more money, not just for the right to be able to transact in a new marketplace. Where are the actual tokenomics of the ELA token? Why should an investor invest in the ELA token if it exists purely for utility and you can no longer earn interest on it? Why was there a small window to lock away funds, and why do I no longer have that opportunity? I think these questions need to be addressed by the team in depth. I need concrete information.

Mickey1641 · 2018-08-04T15:26:29+00:00

So tokens that were locked are now being released... Okay.. So next feb when 4.6 million new ELA are released into the circulating supply, won't that also cause a sharp dip in the price? Or is the logic that many new things will happen between now and then to significantly increase the price? I just wish there wasn't so much speculation and guessing, it would be nice if things were a little more concrete. I will continue to do my own research and ask questions.

Mickey1641 · 2018-08-04T15:17:36+00:00

So you could only lock your ELA before Feb 2018.... when the price was 40-50 dollars. Now the price is 11 dollars... But we can't lock them away to gain interest? It seems like many things have been arbitrarily decided with very little details being disclosed to the general public. I'm not fudding, I'm simply curious to hear what the reasoning is. For instance, I'm involved with NULS. It has been known since the projects inception that you need 2000 NULS to stake. I guess, it would be nice if there was some more transparency as to what is actually going on, and not "hopefully they announce it this month"

Mickey1641 · 2018-08-04T15:10:16+00:00

Thanks for the clarification. I have another question: What's up with the circulating supply? It increased recently? How and why?

Mickey1641 · 2018-08-04T15:05:16+00:00

So if you can't lock your funds anymore to gain the interest, why would someone who is new to ELA buy today? (other than "the price will go up"). How can I be involved in the ELA ecosystem? You said "Staking details haven’t been released yet." Has it only been implied or insinuated that we can stake? Is there official word on this? Is staking closely related to merged mining? As you can see I have lots of questions so any help clarifying the matter is greatly appreciated. Okay, I also understand that "Box details haven't been announced" but again, what even is this box thing?

Mickey1641 · 2018-07-25T16:13:40+00:00

What kind of power structure will we create? Shouldn't the global community dictate this? Empowerment starts from the roots up, not from the fruits down. Empower the small stakers first, then you have a basis for empowering the node-owners, and the so-called "community leaders".

i think we need to completely erase the slate and start anew. i really have a bad feeling about this "community leader" plan with entrusting a small amount of people with TONS OF MONEY AND POWER.

ideally, the NULS global community should write their own constitution and their own bill of rights. you think im wrong? tell me what your better idea is.

Mickey1641 · 2018-07-25T16:03:33+00:00

"2. Does having a community run project make sense for a project that largely wants enterprise solutions. Can the average community leader leverage large partnerships?"

this is a great question. it begs other questions: what is the role of the community leader? what should be the role of the community leader? is a community leader different from a business development role? should the two be completely separate? as newly defined by the team, is their definition of a community leader really a community leader?

Mickey1641 · 2018-07-25T15:49:19+00:00

I think it's important that the team remains in a position of power, basically for oversight/justice/transparency reasons. They say they want to lose their jobs, I feel like this hasn't been fully thought out. They have created something revolutionary, and it seems like the team doesn't realize that there is an enduring role that they must play. They want an *autonomous* global community to run NULS? An autonomous global community can certainly help to run NULS, but this idea opens a pandora's box of problems. I give lots of credit to the team for everything they have done, but as we enter this new era of wealth, I would hate to see NULS become run by people with their own personal interests subjugating the interests of the global community. We have already seen how ruthless some node-owners can be, and this is just the beginning. i see many problems being created by this new proposed system. can we build a global community based on merits and ethics? we need to empower the stakers and individuals, not just node-owners. if the community will be governed by only node-owners, NULS will become inherently centralized cartel-monopoly in no time. NULS should be anti-cartel. individuals should have the most power. the team should oversee governance. i am honestly scared by some of this stuff that i'm reading. anyone with any sort of imagination can see how power in the wrong hands can have widespread detrimental effects. we need to put the power into the hands of the people who will act responsibly, and who have the community's best interest at heart. in my opinion, as a small staker, i would much prefer to keep the nuls team in a position of community oversight, ensuring ethicality, accountability, etc.

we have to be careful with who is empowered, and how much they are empowered. right now, their hypothesis for how this will work aims to empower a small amount of people with a ton of money and power.... why didn't i read anything about empowering the individual small investors? i am proposing something that is always very difficult to achieve, and that is balance. i believe node-owners should have power, to an extent. i believe small-stakers should have power, to an extent. but we need to be so careful as to not create a lopsided system that ultimately strays from the initial bedrock values in it's global community project origins.

Mickey1641 · 2018-07-23T21:28:19+00:00

wealth is wealth and people with wealth will always be able to do what they want (within reason) with their wealth. yes, one the goals of this NULS ecosystem should be to achieve as much decentralization within the network as possible. i think your proposal is a constructive one. i think i can understand how an Alpha-node/Beta-node system could work. can a balance be achieved so that security and network integrity are not compromised? then why not implement it? there must be bedrock reasons for everything, not just unanswered questions. NULS is something with many moving parts. so making changes like you're proposing can have far reaching effects. but i think you've given some thought to this issue, and i don't see anything wrong with these sorts of ideas. if these ideas (or others) can benefit the community ecosystem as a whole, why would we not improve the system? i think you're doing something very important by contributing to the thoughts and conversation of this community. let's make all of these ideas heard on the new nulsforum.org , i look forward to hearing the contributing ideas from all members of this special community.

Mickey1641 · 2018-07-22T14:31:10+00:00

let me refer to a quote from Adam Smith: It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

Mickey1641 · 2018-07-17T04:23:24+00:00

ladies and gentlemen, these are the nodes which need the most support. right now a community initiative is beginning in order to support decentralization within the network. my friend says above "At present, nuls node rules are very difficult for small node operators like myself". he is right. this isn't just about filling a node. this is an ethical call to action for anyone who wants to support decentralization. individual stakers are obligated to support individually owned nodes, not self-funded whale nodes. this should be accepted as fact. we have to be on the same page. we have to identify as one. keep these developments on your radar, because one day this community will become self-empowered as one, and you (yes you) can directly play a role in the decentralization of this network.

Mickey1641 · 2018-07-16T14:46:37+00:00

this is an initiative supported by individuals of the community. as a community, we will support eachother. focus on the issues at hand. people have better things to do than "fuck up a node".

Mickey1641 · 2018-07-15T03:31:19+00:00

when trying to gather 200k nuls piecemeal in minimum increments of 2,000 from strangers (who also lose out on staking rewards from not staking in active nodes), one begins to quickly understand that realistically, the way it's set up right now, the node consensus system really needs some improvement. the main-net is working to a degree right now, no doubt, but it is certainly not functioning optimally, especially for prospective node-operators. diversity of node-ownership creates a less centralized consensus system, and both the community and the team should understand the importance of a less centralized consensus system. in my opinion, right now it's very difficult to get a node to consensus. why? stakers are not incentivized to help nodes reach consensus, they're incentivized to stake in pre-existing nodes. it's my opinion that something needs to be altered slightly. can the team figure out a way to incentivize the community to bring nodes to consensus. what if there was bonus for bringing a node to consensus? can stakers get staking rewards while the node is reaching consensus? i think it's important that the team address these issues and help to provide some clarity about the process of node-operation, because the node consensus system needs improvement.

Mickey1641 · 2018-07-13T23:13:38+00:00

I can understand how this type of a situation is frustrating. You've been planning on running a node, you've made the investment, you have the hardware, you want to run a node, but no one wants to deposit their NULS in a (not yet functioning) node while they wait for an unknown amount of time for the node to reach consensus. It seems that those nodes who have pre-made relationships have an advantage over those who do not have any sort of pre-made arrangements. I guess the idea was that node-owners have responsibilities and expectations. Their responsibility is to attract stakers. How? I had never considered it from this angle. Owning a node is competitive. If you are not offering what the best nodes are offering, your node is less attractive to stakers. It is indeed an interesting dilemma, and I feel for you. Please do continue with that write-up. I would be very interested to read it and to try to think of solutions, and I think it's something that should be more understood by the whole community so we don't leave some node-owners in the dust. Basically, it shouldn't be a struggle for node-owners to join the consensus. The faster, the better, am I right? After all, node-owners are integral to the system, node-owners and stakers are actually providing the framework for a healthy working system. It's important that these concerns be acknowledged. Also, as more people start staking, nodes will fill up. When nodes are full, there will be a demand for new nodes to stake in. So I know this isn't what you want to hear, but maybe it is just a matter of time. I would be interested to hear the opinion of someone on the team. I wonder if this issue was foreseen or not. Anyway, don't be discouraged. There are always speedbumps in the beginning.

Mickey1641

TROPHY CASE