o  20% to a Maintenance Account.
   

The problem is that if there are too many bugs, not so many STEALTH transactions will happen, so 20% taken from about nothing will not be enough to pay for maintenance...no?
From the other side 20% is a steal when it gets... bug free... so I see some motivation for CNX to work on this further... (seems that STEEM has more priority now)

We would have preferred the premine + ICO route.  It would have been cleaner, lower risk (in terms of getting desired stake), etc.  Then we talked to lawyers and read the regulations and saw how Ripple was prosecuted.

Conclusion: premine + ICO could force us to register as MSB and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Furthermore, it would undermine the real use case for Steem.  ICO also carries
the risk of SEC violations.  I am not saying that a premine + ICO couldn't be done legally without becoming a MSB or violating SEC, I am merely stating that it is more challenging / risky.

Meanwhile Bitcoin, Litecoin, Dogecoin, and other mined coins appear to be accepted and explicitly accounted for in the regulations. 

When it comes to the law and regulations, how you do something is often more important than the result achieved.

So we released a coin with open code that fully documents the protocol for anyone willing to work for it and didn't mine anything before all information about the protocol was technically available to the public. In theory,
anyone could see the protocol and realize the new business opportunities it creates. There is no "insider" information when the protocol is open and anyone can build on it. 

Our only advantage is *information* about how we intend to use the platform. The irony is that there are legal risks in sharing information about what we intend to do for a
coin until after we have done it. That information could be interpreted as a promise that in turn would give the coin value derived from our future actions.  So we didn't promise anything, but we still
know what our plans are. End result, we valued the coin higher than anyone else.  We purchased it with our own miners. Speculators willing to take a risk competed with us even though they didn't
know exactly what we planned to do with the coin.

We also have learned from past experiences like ProtoShares that was used to launch BitShares. Invictus had intended to mine it and make money on the appreciation after BitShares
actually came out, but instead GPU miners and faster mining algorithms were developed within a week of launch. That left the BitShares team struggling for a solution. It is reasonable to
expect that anyone with a profiler and some programming skills could come up with a faster, more efficient, implementation of mining that we did. Higher performance could have been achieved
with just a hour of effort by a competent programmer. 

So, if you are OK with the concept of premine + ICO, and if you value having a development team funded by capital appreciation, and if you value having a team do the best it
can to insulate itself for burdensome regulations, then you can appreciate what was done with STEEM.  If you don't like 'games' then blame the government for their rules, don't blame the people who play by them.
   

You have an interesting coin, but everything about this execution has been from the mind of a 12 year old.

If it's just a new way to do PoW, it's basically going to be a niche coin. I'll probably mine it for 24 hours before the botnets get ahold of it and dump right away.

Your long term money supply idea is pretty dumb. Nothing is viable at 100% inflation. Again, the mind of a 12 year old.

Your shit with the first "launch" was bad enough, and a few of us figured out how to mine it. And your bullshit with only a 1 hour lead time for the second launch meant that we couldn't clear up our schedules to be ready for launch. Bad move.

After that you had a relaunch and took all our advantage away after we put in the time to figure out that your example mining commands were wrong, etc.

I'm a solid dev and I probably could have gotten involved if I thought I'd get enough to make it worth my while. But your approach is so childish that I doubt the "community" will ever be more than you and your sockpuppets. You take a wrong turn at every move and I don't expect that to stop.

You'll never get a credible team together. You are obviously one guy who thinks you know everything, but you don't. I was impressed that you got a new PoW scheme working on the first shot, but you blew that too and your integer overflow highlights that you are just an amateur.


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1410943.msg14305885#msg14305885

Friendly advise. If you believe in BM's new vision (as opposed to his ex-vision i.e. BTS) you better get on board with steem...

I personally find his early ideas far better and consider him more or less lost currently, so I have no interest in this STEEM, but it is just me.

So act accordingly to your take on things in that regard.

Would brownies value reflect the potential  success (or not) of his new vision  the next days?
Would they act like a... prediction market?   

Transfer   
marius666 sent 2,366,044 BTS to poloniexwallet
block 4,884,225 - yesterday - 2.79652 BTS

Since we're on the subject of an Exchange abusing its voting powers... why can we not create specialized "Exchange Wallets".  I've always thought Bitshares should have a "modular" approach when it comes to users. 
Not ALL users are the same.  Not ALL users have the same goals for using BitShares. 
With the complexity that BitShares offers (the points mentioned above) along with the current Yunbi debacle, we really, really, really should look at providing specialized wallets that are tailored to fit the needs of each unique user.

For example,

A registered wallet for “Exchanges” --- would allow them to vote but, at a reduced weight ( 1:20 ratio?).  This way the voting system isn’t being abused as we’re seeing now, while still allowing them to voice their position, like the rest of us.  The wallet could also allow them to create sub accounts to fit any needs for interfacing with their front/back end functions (maybe allow up to 50 sub accounts (to keep blockchain RAM/bloat in check)).  In some manor, we should also incentivize the exchange wallet so there’s no incentive/reason to game the system by creating “fictitious” non-exchange wallets to circumvent the voting restriction.  Maybe no DeX Tx fees and charge a little higher wallet-to-wallet Tx fee? Maybe we could incentivize their registered wallet with some “dividends” from the fee pool also??

A registered wallet for “Point-of-Sale” --- would allow them to vote at full 1:1 ratio since these wallets will more than likely not have a “large” quantity of user’s funds in them as activity of this wallet would really only take advantage of our quick 3sec user-to-user transfer time and not necessarily holding customer funds for long periods of time.  This wallet could also include sub account creation (up to 50?) to fit their business needs for BitShares integration, like the exchange wallet. The incentive of this registered wallet would be to have NO wallet-to-wallet Tx fees and below normal DeX Tx fees.  There really should be no need to incentivize this style wallet other than no Tx transfer fees.

A registered wallet for “Standard Users”--- this wallet would stay the same as what we have available today in our current wallet (obviously 1:1 voting).  I personally would like to see a “Lite” and “Advanced” option within the BitShares default wallet and have it default to open in “Lite” view (or an option to choose default).   Obviously this is GUI related but, would like to see this ability in our main wallet none the less.
I feel having this discussion regarding different wallet structures is very important and needed. We, as a community cannot keep going through these major conundrums. It not only hurts community moral but also businesses looking to adopt Bitshares technology.
BitShares is not structured as a One-Size-Fits all, so please let’s make some sensible changes that won’t financially hurt each other and beneficial to all.

My 2BTS 

 

I like the big picture of your idea. The details and the exact futures for each wallet is something that can be discussed ...

i personally think the prefixes has to been in the wallet displayed and when you make it METAEX.BTC and different colors like suggested could also help.

 

METAEX.BTC