yes, still makes sense to me +1
Simply…
Yes! 
I vote yes to!
I vote a yes to
- OmniWallet - 5,092.60
- PeercoinArmory - 3,574.35
- Fork SkyHook ATM - 1,048.96
- PeerMagazine.com - 343.49
Except I had not seen this one on the list originally and would like to see remain:
PeercoinBlockExplorer - 1,781.94
Again this is the early BE i used for peercoin and still run it so would like to see this remain.
Many thanks
Fuzzybear
[quote=“FuzzyBear, post:15, topic:4082”]Be my guest. The way to do that is to buy PPC, and donate direct to those projects you want to see keep momentum.
Fuzzybear[/quote]
Probably not as easy now to get donations than during the hype of 2013/2014. There is just not the same level of attention.
I would be in favour of moving the funds.
[quote=“FuzzyBear, post:44, topic:4082”]Except I had not seen this one on the list originally and would like to see remain:
PeercoinBlockExplorer - 1,781.94
Again this is the early BE i used for peercoin and still run it so would like to see this remain.[/quote]
Fuzzy, are you aware of Peerchemist’s plans to build a Peercoin block explorer with PeerAssets support built-in?
Hey Sent,
Nope I was not aware but I still do not feel funds should be moved from this project as it actually works and might want development in the future. It is the most lightweight BE for any fork of peercoin / peershares I know of that gives it actual use.
Fuzzybear
[quote=“Sentinelrv, post:46, topic:4082”][quote=“FuzzyBear, post:44, topic:4082”]Except I had not seen this one on the list originally and would like to see remain:
PeercoinBlockExplorer - 1,781.94
Again this is the early BE i used for peercoin and still run it so would like to see this remain.[/quote]
Fuzzy, are you aware of Peerchemist’s plans to build a Peercoin block explorer with PeerAssets support built-in?[/quote]
I give up on this idea due to continual disagreement over what is to be done and persistence of some community member to see the point.
There is one more day left for voting. After removing the block explorer funds from consideration, only 10,059.40 PPC remains, which is almost $2,500. Hopefully the community will be able to step up donations after this is gone.
Continual disagreement is an inherent nature of the crypto space.
Getting agreements and consensus is near impossible on most issues.
I also disagree with what FuzzyBear stated:
When I pulled off the 4th Celebration for Peercoin, I tried to drum up enough support and I decided to organize it in private chat forums amongst ourselves. It was these two creative methods that made it happen a lot easier.
What FuzzyBear must be advocating, is centralized community consensus for a decentralized coin that has no centralized ownership.
I love and respect FuzzyBear for he what normally does for Peercoin, but it is this instance, that yes, whoever shouts the loudest, or drums up enough support to get their way is deserving of such. That’s the only way to get things done most of the time.
The opposite, is people who give up, or get tired of the complaining. That’s even WORSE.
During high times, and happy times, people tend to work together a lot more actively, and in unison.
During low times, and frustrating times, people tend to go at each others throats and alienate each other. That’s frustrating, but let’s keep it in perspective.
Don’t quit on any issue Peerchemist. If you feel something is right, do it, regardless of trying to please every body all of the time.
With every person that grumbles, there is another person that is applauding your efforts.
As far as voting goes, my vote is “no”. I’d rather see the funds sit there, and collect dust, and be unspendable if there is no activity for the project, so they don’t get sold and distributed.
What I do think though, is that Peer4Commit needs to have time lines on projects, so that if they don’t happen within a reasonable time frame (pre-defined during the project fundraising specification) they will instead be reallocated into newer projects.
“Ie: Donate to the XYZ Peer4Commit project. Funds unallocated after 2 years automatically go into the “general” consolidated revenue fund to be re-assessed and re-allocated by consensus of the 5 board members who are in charge of the consolidated revenue fund.”
Some thing like this… Let’s use this as a learning experience, so this doesn’t continue to happen on a project-by-project basis. Time IS of the essence in these things, and we need to have a contingency plan in place (obviously).
*yawn
vote yes.
Voting is over. This received enough votes to pass. Peerchemist and hrobeers will need to post donation addresses for their projects. 75% goes to PeerAssets and 25% goes to PeerKeeper. Only funds from the projects listed in the original post will be used.
Great news. Make Peercoin Great Again!
The PeerKeeper donation addresses
Preferred: PKEEPRnAZCyjC48a4SYH4u4YiPnqt1qoud
Peer4commit: https://peer4commit.com/projects/179
sorry, totally missed the voting deadline, but just wanted to state for the record what I think:
each donation that any p4c project received was donated for helping certain cause, I do think that it’s unfair to move funds anywhere but sender address if project fails to deliver.
if person wants to contribute it to the other project, it should be his decision alone.
moving these coins to new projects considering how little value they still contain is silly, what will you be able to fund with 1000USD? a new logo? is it really worth it to wait until one of donators gets vocal about his donation going to something he didn’t advocate?
just my 0.1 PPC, you do what you think best.
PeerAssets donation:
P4C: P9uB2bCcbdbzRngJMMAu6aU1XYrdJuQMC3
Just out of interest… Who is responsible for moving the funds?
many thanks
Fuzzybear
[quote=“FuzzyBear, post:58, topic:4082”]Just out of interest… Who is responsible for moving the funds?
many thanks
Fuzzybear[/quote]
I believe you are the projects maintainer for all the projects that are listed, so it’s up to you.
It was. And it was understood that the fund was to be managed by the project manager. Most managers haven’t shown any progress for a long time. Some of the project are technically obsolete. So maybe we should give every manager two weeks to present a credible evidence of project activity otherwise the potential boost of Peercoin by new projects should be assumed to be of greater interest to the donator than an inactive project.
Are contact info for every manager available?