its insane. if u invest you admit that right now you think this idea costs $24m + 50% of what it will worth in the future.
venture capitalists in the states do rounds of investments and no company ever before took that much money to build something from an abstract idea.
this is not funding to fund developers needs (im also a developer). 1k BTC should be enough to fund all of these needs without the premine and pr costs for a year.
even the best google programmers don't get more than 200k/year, and i doubt this is the absolute dream team of programmers in the world.
get serious.
While I understand your points and share some criticism and concerns (I myself decided to probably invest less than initially planned on the IPO), I don't get why everyone seems to be so fixed on the 30k BTC. Vitalik mentioned that they would be happy and able to finish development with 500 BTC (less than your 1k estimate), and the 30k is just an
upper bound on the fundraiser. Thus,
they limit the maximal amount taken in! (Which is exactly what many here seem to miss.) Although, I have to admit that
if they get so much funding, then they are really obliged to deliver a very good product in the end.
Also, what I don't quite get is why here's so much criticism, while I don't recall the same for Mastercoin (they got 5k BTC, remember?). They as well as Invictus also still have to live up to their promises of a distributed exchange / DACs, as far as I know, and no one complains about the money they made. So what's the thing here? After all, it is each one's own decision to invest or not invest, and I have to admit that I find the idea behind Ethereum much more promising than those others.
