Topic: [ANN] Ethereum: Welcome to the Beginning - page 1264. (Read 2007155 times)

I may be completely wrong here but I believe that the issuance model will be further tweaked and balanced before the IPO's new date is announced. Eventually no matter what the model is, it is not going to satisfy each and everyone of us. That I am pretty sure of. For sure as potential investors we would like more clarity and hopefully more balanced terms. Only time will tell but we must give them that opportunity before we start questioning their honesty. That's how I feel about it anyway.

I also feel that a lot of us look at this purely as profit and as commodity like much of the crypto currency universe and I think Ethereum has the potential to be more than that. Whether or not that potential is fulfilled is another debate. I am really excited about the possibility to incentivize p2p activities - whatever than might be - entirely up to the imagination of the independent developer who will built an application to leverage this platform. Since the advent of internet p2p has been a purely altruistic endevour which as has been pointed out serves the needs of the mainstream very well. Here is an opportunity and an incentive to do something beyond the mainstream in a truly decentralized fashion, a platform to leverage something other than a financial instrument. Its a really remarkable thought and if it is realized (lots of ifs and buts at this stage) it represents the next evolution of internet. Given such a lofty aim I am not sure how I can measure the worth the currency that will play an instrumental part of it. Maybe I am being too optimistic but I rather see this project succeed in its aims notwithstanding its inflationary tendencies and its effects on my investments. That's why I must invest only as much as I am prepared to risk and not a single satoshi more. Should you decide to invest I will give you the same advice.

I own some Mastercoin, Angel Protoshares and other cryptos and I wanted to get into this Ethereum also. If you check my posting history you'll see I was among the very first to learn about this venture during a forum spat between Invictus and Etherum founder, when project wasn't yet announced.

This financing model is ripping off people by putting huge chunk of risk on their back while taking none themselves. About the latter, one may ask how honest are these people involved if this issuance is so rip off like? Can you trust them delivering going further when they seem to care more about getting settled for life and becoming millionaires rather than other consideration?

You are mixing two different things here
 
Firstly with regards to dilution and speculation, its a valid concern but if you want to purely speculate then in the medium term you have time. Day 1 after the IPO only X is available, Day 2 is X + 0.4/365 * X (for the sake of simplicity) and a large portion of inflation happens on Day 366 when X + 0.4X + 30% of 0.5X is in circulation and available - assuming there are no hoarders and no long term view investors. You have at the very least months before you decide your exit strategy if you are in it only for speculation.

Secondly, no one ever said it is not a risk. I do not understand you plugging for Mastercoin at every given opportunity, its smacks of bias. Worse is to call this a model designed to rip off people. If you don't agree with the model that's perfectly fine, but to question the honesty of people associated with this project based on your dislike of issuance model without anything concrete is not cool.

Point is fresh currency keeps coming to the market by mining, devaluing the stake of existing holders and we're also talking pre-mine here, which excludes the community. So basically people buy into this IPO based on "proof of stake" and then devaluation comes with "proof of work". Cleverly designed model to rip off people.

People are also taking a huge chance of them delivering on some complicated Turing when coins like Mastercoin are already testing their distributed exchange, days away from launch. People are also taking the risk of giving up 1st mover advantage and we know what 1st mover advantage meant for Bitcoin. You don't see alt coin atms being installed everywhere in the world for example. Bitcoin is the superstar due to 1st mover advantage. Very often it's not a question of who has best tech but a question of adoption. This is why HD DVD lost the fight with Blueray, for eg, even though they've had better specs.

The fact that he might get it cheaper on the exchange than mining is actually pure speculation on your part. After having spent 1/1000 for an ether why would I want to sell it for lower.

Sorry but this is totally BS claim. Someone joining the network will mine hard for some currency he might buy cheaper from some exchange as he won't be able to compete with big corporate miners. The mining model means inflation and devaluation, which lowers potential profits for currency holders. It also creates unnecessary energy consumption which is also not required.

He is talking about first mover advantage which is a valid concern. With mining ethers especially on the algo they are claiming a CPU miner will still be able to get something even if he is late in adopting the platform and currency. This gives it a true decentralized (non-concentrated) advantage something neither Mastercoin nor Nxt can claim. What better way for a platform/currency to succeed than to be truly distributed. It's a long term view which may not match the view of speculative investment.

You mean if you buy something from someone in a voluntary exchange you're a slave? Really?

Surely if we are raising X ether in IPO the starting mining difficulty will correspondingly have to be adjusted. Whatever the number of hashes your rig produce, if you can mine the basic minimum of 1000 ether faster than you can scrypt mine alt-coins worth 1 BTC this will be unfair to IPO investors. I don't think I have read anything about this but I also think that mining 1000-2000 ethers will not be that quick. If that happens than ether will fall below its starting price because of P&D tactics. The only logical conclusion the project developers will not be unfair to the IPO investors (with their 0.5X vested interest) ergo inflation created by mining will not have as large an impact as we think.

In that case, Mastercoin is an apt name because anyone who enters the market after someone else is a slave to the person before them. Inflation, if understood and used correctly, is important because it can serve new generations who don't want to be slaves.

Yeah, they want to raise a fat chunk in initial IPO followed by crap dilution afterwards and inflation.

Mining = inflation

There's no inflation or dilution in Mastercoin for example. They've released a fixed number and that's it. No more pumping into the market. Also, the fat % allocated to themselves is really shameful. Taking 0% of the risk while being this shamefully greedy is also lame.

I think a more accurate statement is that they've been overwhelmed. They did not expect to receive this much attention prior to the fundraiser. They need to get proper infrastructure in place and get people to engage the community. That's my take. It's not an easy task.

There's no doubt this is what most of the community seem to think on here. I like the issuance model too. However, I do think gutshot5820 finally articulates important points on the idea of risk. It's great to empower everyone and allow all of us to get a piece of the pie, but people who contribute early are asked to carry significantly greater risk than those who get in on the project when it's been built and is ready.

I think the bigger issue is that people feel they don't get enough in return for the risk they have to carry, which is turning people off and is echoed throughout the thread, given that the perception is 1000-2000 Ether isn't that much per Bitcoin if coupled with dilution and very little risk for the creators. Whether this is an accurate perception, I don't know.

Because it would have been a failure given this cold negative reception. Dev's statement says something else about mining algo or some BS like that but it's nonsense. That wasn't the real reason, just some announcement to save face.

why IPO cancel?

If you read Vitalik's original post on Ethereum (I think on the unofficial thread) he talks about empowering all different categories of people involved in cryptocurrencies, the miners, investors and the development community. I think in terms of fairness it allows everyone to access piece of the pie. If IPO is too risky for instance you can either mine or participate in the project or simply buy once the IPO is over. I actually like this issuance model.

0.5X going to founders, early stakeholders and developers along with the BTC raised is a legitimate concern that I think is shared by a large number of people and I hope before or by the next announcement for the IPO this is revised and explained in greater detail.

I think for the sake of transparency if they open up and say how they plan to spend the minimum 500 BTC they want to raise it might put to rest some of the concerns. Does it automatically scale if the IPO raises 5000 BTC? Is there a reserve fund for excess money raised beyond what is required? Do the original stakeholders (i.e. the founders) also get remunerated?

I don't think some of the answers will be forthcoming immediately because it looks like these points are being debated behind the scene and are evolving. As long as I know these answers before the IPO I can make an informed decision.

The Goldman Sachs issue is relevant in the stupid context of this overly greedy structured IPO, of leaving nothing on the table for investors. It's about those ex Goldman guys being behind this lame IPO structure. Doesn't matter if they work or don't work for Goldman Sachs anymore.

Funny how devs here are making 180 degree turn saying they won't allow Goldman Sachs to invest, yet they've bragged about their team members working for Goldman Sachs as being a good thing. This pretty much shows a duplicitous nature.

Give them a chance? Demand?

Then dont invest.

Well I am glad you have some concerns and will at least weigh pros and cons before investing.  Just look at the risk/reward ratio and it is way out of line, bordering on insanity.  If you were the world's greatest cook and asked a venture capitalist or businessman to fund your new restaurant,  Guess who makes the most money?  Whoever takes the most risk.  That's the guy who is paying for the risk out of his own pocket.  It's been that way since the beginning of time.  Granted, if you have risked a lot of your time and mental energy, you deserve payment for assuming that risk of your time and potential energy as sweat equity.

This is the only project that I have ever heard of that the founders have no sweat equity, no equity in capital and want all the rewards before the business even opens and then will ask the investment community to fund the entire project before it even starts and assume all of the risk.

I have been appalled at that concept from day one, it is borderline insane and downright thievery of the bitcoin community in my opinion.

Indeed, that is your prerogative