bahahahahha no no wait...........bahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahbahahahhahahahah!!! Good pump group so invested in vrc ,didn't even know the 10% is ours .... bahahahahhahaha go back to bed lol

Maybe its something to do with the fact there has been a change to the vrc escrow fund with supernet apparently I now own some sort of unity nxt vrc asset ?. And cant seem to figure out what its about any Dev got a few to explain this move. Was anything posted about this here cant see anything?.  Thanks in advance.

CONCERNING THE RECENT S/N-UNITY 100-1 swap



As I said in my intial response to the swap proffered by James I do NOT have a problem with the donors swapping their 20%

for SN/UNITY. They'll be getting that back at some time anyway.

The other 80% is the communitties and the community should be made aware what the status of the fund is and get a say in

how it's dealings. James is ONE member of the VRC community. He can set his terms and the community can accept them or

not.
 
This SuperNET Committee ? It's the first I've heard of it and my request for when it was formed? Who's on it? and What is

it's charter? Have not been answered. Why not??

If the Dev's just went ahead and decided to do the deal without discussing it with the community  any semblence of the

Democratazation of the money system went out the window. Calling it Community is reduced to Lip Service.

I see the disposition of 80% of the VEF as something the Community has a say in. Only the Donors Voted. This is (as I've

stated previously)  precisley the issue this thread was started for; to get the rights of the Community and  the voting protocol 

straight so when things like this (The Swap Deal) come along it could proceed in an orderly, transparent manner.

Pnosker states there isn't a way to insure a fair vote. That's his opinion. This isn't a new issue. Solutions are being develop

utilising Block Chain Tech.  Someone in the NXT community has been working on a "voting" procedure. It's at or near end

stage for useage. In either case the communitty should be consulted before any "deal" is signed off on.

The "Shell Game", fast shuffle, of "Here's the Deal.", "But this is the deal", "What is the Deal?" with no clear answer and

the next day the "Deal" is something else are a huge problem for crypto.

People will do what they do.

The Block Chain is "Math". It's uncorruptible.

If you want to Develop a Coin (or anything else for that matter) and be the "Sole Decsion Maker" or have a board or

committee which makes the calls fine.

But don't say it's a community where everyone has a say and then run it with a few, influencial, well placed, or monied

individuals dicating to the community as a whole.

Do what you Say you are going to.  This is Integrity. Anything less isn't moving society forward. 

I find it hilarious that Kevondo, who refused to contribute a dime in massive 20 point font when asked, but now it seems he feels has the right to claim my money and spend it as he wishes in spite of the votes and wishes of the actual people who escrowed the funds and in spite of the wishes of the person we sent the funds to. 
People sent those funds to James, not you.  And James gave them back to the original donators to vote (via how much they donated) and so far 100% of the people voting with their own coins (via the blockchain) have voted to purchase the SuperNET asset UNITY, and yet you still complain.....Kinda shocking actually.

You are just unintentionally funny... sigh....

I may have the bull by the horns here but as a investor in SuperNET my understanding is that SuperNET will buy 10% of what ever coin makes it into SuperNET. I have never seen anything about any coin donating

10% of there coin supply. As SuperNET is a work in progress and not a completed project no coins have been purchased as yet. When SuperNET is sorted and running the 10% will be purchased at market rates.

The coins raised already where for the purchase of the Unity/SuperNET asset (at discounted rate). If this is the case then what's the problem.

Jon 

I haven't seen anything about accepted coins in SuperNET having to invest back into SuperNET, as for James bonus he put assets into SuperNET and SuperNET owners voted on the whole Bonus issue, no one else.

As you have stated getting the price that far north in the present climate is a tall order, I wish him all the best, as if he does achieve it we will be looking rather good or at least the bottom line will.

Jon 

It was never a question that James knows what he is doing terms of software development and he knows how to collect money.

The issues are
a) SuperNet is a vaporware (and most likely it will be nothing more than a great idea, good looking software development initiative and money collection instrument for James)
b) SuperNet has no effect whatsoever on the price of VRC
c) James lost his interest in VRC as he realised that the FIAT feature means very little, he knows that SuperNet will gain as much from the FIAT feature as much VRC gained from the FIAT wallet integration (which was zero gain) and the whole VRC association does not worth his time
d) The VRC devs do even less work than they did in the summer - which is a quite amazing as they managed to deliver absolutely nothing during the summer
e) VRC is a hopeless, stagnating, zero progress coin, nothing more than a fork, one from the 500 BTC/LTC clones, which is quite disappointing as we expected a lot more from the PhD students and MS developer

Apart from a-e everything is cool.
 

I guess Barabus is me, Loon? I haven't EVER flip/flopped, whatever your perception is. MY perception of what Kevondo does is just a self-serving hobby that in no way whatsoever benefits VRC. He does it for himself, no practical result, either way, for VRC. And I don't believe anyone cares who and what Kevondo is/has been in his personal life.

As for James, I have been a staunch supporter of his connection to VRC since minute one. Not for any other reason, initially, that ANYTHING at all whatsoever could only be beneficial for VRC which was doomed to go straight to the ground in view of the nil ability of the stooges to bring any progress at all to the project. AFTER researching James and kind of understanding his future use of VRC, I remained completely supportive because, frankly, he's the only engine behind VRC and he's the only possibility, whatever remote, of the valuation increasing at some point. I was proven right and his initial implication almost instantly doubled the price... in spite of what I was astounded by the incredible lack of brains/will of the community at large to give (to themselves, mind you) 10% of their coins... They have just doubled the price and value of their wallets instantly and yet wouldn't anticipate a donation which was guaranteed to bring them almost 30% more than the price was before James came in. That told me that the large community here, like in many other coins, is just a shitty, very shitty one. Kudos to the ones that gave, very few but, in some cases, above the 10% threshold. That is the ONLY comunity worth speaking of here; the rest, leeches.

As for James' reputation, the guy has to be a veritable saint to be able to keep the reputation that he has in the cesspool of vipers that the digital currency. That, besides the fact that he is as capable as anyone on the tech side and probably the most envied person in crypto. Again, that he retains almost pristine reputation in the world of crypto, is simply unbelievable.

Taking all this into consideration, I fully support James in and out of VRC but not fully supporting him within VRC, with no reservations whatsoever, is, in my opinion, simply dumb.