Topic: [ANN] Ethereum: Welcome to the Beginning - page 1265. (Read 2004026 times)

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

That's going to take sometime judging by the timelines we have seen already. Previously it was a 2 months IPO (between 1st Feb and March end) after which mining could be done and coins could be exchanged etc. Now that the IPO has been delayed we will have the see the new terms of the IPO when it is announced.

Hmmm - I'm reminded a little of Dragon's Den - The entrepreneur asks for a big investment. The dragons ask what it will be used for. The entrepreneur says 'to pay myself a big salary'. The dragon says 'I'm out'.

I want to see the devs with skin in the game - if their project fails, they shouldn't be sitting on a big BTC cushion.

Thanks for the answer!
But how about the other one: When will this coin be released (not the Test stuff)?

The sentence you are quoting from me refers to the status quo before Charles' recent statement here on this forum about no GS-connection. I will probably invest in ETH, but not before asking hard questions and not letting been shut up before I get satisfactory answers to them.  

Do I understand correctly that there is a 75% premine on Ethereum?

25% for devs that can't be spent for a year
50% for a foundation

Do I understand furthermore that the Bitcoin raised is going to pay Dev salaries, so if the whole thing blows up - the devs and staff still get paid?

Personal attacks won't shut me up, so you might want to reconsider your communication strategy.

This really cracks me up


What don't you believe? Charles telling in the video that a couple of guys working on the project used to work for GS in the past or Charles categorically stating on the thread that GS has nothing to do with Ethereum or both?

What this proves is that there is a little bit of trust deficit especially as you are evaluating whether or not to invest your hard earned money. Ultimately nothing anyone is going to say to you is going to make any difference because there will always be a lingering doubt. You have had explicit clarifications from the man in the video himself. There is no real way to solve this other than accepting that the man is telling the truth. If you don't believe and GS bothers you so much then there is only one recourse - don't risk it man.

Oh my God, are you kidding me? Can we just put the Goldman Sachs logo on the back of one of those t-shirt designs? If this is the average Bitcointalk user's reasoning, we are doomed. GMO got to you.

Cool down man! Please don't try to suggest that we were the ones who brought up the GS connection. If Charles hadn't mention it in the introductory video, we wouldn't be speaking about it. And because somebody says something this doesn't make it true. You should know that. We need convincing, open and honest communication.

It's kind of like a hostage situation when people are unhappy with terms. They won't commit their ideas to the actual project until the demands on both sides can find balance. For some people that balance never comes, but there's obviously a large percentage of people who post here who are unhappy with what's been proposed in exchange for their Bitcoin and won't release their thoughts to Ethereum even though they're interested (therefore holding their energy hostage before spending it on the project constructively).

The delayed fundraiser has put the thought in their minds that the terms may be under review, so they've cooled it a bit. I don't know if that's actually the case, so we wait and see.

Testnet means we can mess around with Ethereum (incomplete) without any of it being "real". So you can download the code, do stuff, possibly even mine, but none of it has any "value". That's on mainnet.

I like you a lot more when you don't tell me to kill myself. I'm quoting you because this is the essence of what you've been getting at in all your ramblings, and I think these are fair concerns.

Lets put the fundraiser in simple terms that everyone can understand.  Everyone should agree agree that all investments should have a proper risk/reward ratio. This project itself has a lot of risk and potentially a lot of reward, so neither can outweigh the other.  Now lets look at this objectively from that perspective.

Ethereum project;
Risk = Very High
Reward = Very High

Founders;
Risk = 0%
Reward=100%

Early adopters;
Risk = 100%
Reward = ?

Put that on a graph.  Does that seem like a fair transaction to you?  

When will they release this coin? What does "Test Release" means?