Actually, I expected for some excuses for not warning the community that you financial model is just an example and the real model will be different. You wrote that your exchanges list is an example in 30 days after the post was published. No warnings in the blog text.
Would you show this financial model to a venture investor? I doubt. Even if you did you wouldn't get the money.
So why do you show it to the community? Because you think they won't read it or will just trust you without any verifications.
If you say I'm wrong please tell me where I'm wrong.
All the numbers from your financial model are not real and will be different in the real product.
Number of exchanges - not real.
Each exchange share - not real.
Insurance premium - not real.
Coupon rate - not real.
Total amount insured - not real.
Thank you for mentioning about your survey and saying that conditions are 'editable'.
So if all the above numbers are just an example why do finalize your post with words 'As you can see Inchain earns in each case'? The conclusion is based on the example numbers that are far from reality. So you should write 'As you can see from our example InChain can be profitable but only with the numbers we gave you. They will be different in reality'. That would be fare at least.
Are you sure there will be bonds in your real financial model?
Are you ready to give me 100 BTC if there will be no bonds in your real financial model?
Well, we have never said that the list of the exchanges is the one we will be working with. We conducted a survey among those who are interested in the project and created a model based on their expectations.
Obviously, the platform is not not even in the development stage yet. All we can publish for now is our projections based on inputs and assumptions.
Regarding the blog post you refer to, it looks quite reasonable. However, it is not clear why you think that 15% of the market you estimated (1M BTC) is that much unrealistic, given the total absence of any competition.
Moreover, we have never claimed that we are going to stay away from the Chinese market.
1.
Exchanges list. The fact that the exchanges list is not final is quite understandable and acceptable. What is not acceptable is to include the exchanges/wallets that CAN'T be insured by InChain technically according to the insurance strategy announced by InChain itself. It's a sign of disparaging and unprofessional approach to the business.
For example, the aforementioned Bitsquare. InChain claims it will insure centralized web wallets/exchanges only.
Bitsquare is a dectntralized exchange and will never store users private keys. It can't be hacked in a way that allows InChain insure it.
Coinbase is questionable too. Not for technical reasons but because their wallets are insured already and there will be no many clients willing to insure them twice.
Coinomi - private keys are stored on users devices only. Questionable. Not a web wallet.
Mycelium - not a web wallet. Questionable.
Electrum - not a web wallet. Private keys never leave clients device. Questionable.
Almost a half of the table is wallets/exhcanges that probably won't be insured by InChain due to its own policy.
I have an example for you. Let's assume I'm trying to open a
vegetarian shop and need some money to start this business. You are my potential investor. I have prepared a presentation for you. One of my presentation part is a list of the basic products I'm going to sell. It looks like this:
- beef
- chicken
- lamb
- potatoes
- rice
- apples
- peaches
You are asking me: 'What does it mean, isn't it a vegetaian shop?'
I answer: 'Oh, it's just an example'
- Example of what?
- ...
Would you give your hard earned money to the applicant who doesn't even care to compose a realistic presentation?
I understand word 'example' as an event that can really happen in future and has a probability of more than 0. Unfortunately, the table from your financial model doesn't fit my definition because several exchanges/wallets will not be even considered for insurance.
2.
Financial modelNot only the list of exchanges but the whole financial model will be different in the real product.
The blog post doesn't tell us anything about the start phase of the project and initial funding. But some forum posts give us more information.
In Russian thread Sergey mentions that $0.9-1.05M from $1.75M will go to the Insurance Fund.
This fact changes the financial model significantly.
One million dollars is just omitted in your financial model example. At the start of the project ICO participants
will take insurance risks too, there will be no bond holders from the start.
How do you think, one million dollars is worth mentioning in the financial model?
3.
Your question.
However, it is not clear why you think that 15% of the market you estimated (1M BTC) is that much unrealistic, given the total absence of any competition.
I never said it is unrealistic. It is my estimation of the potential market. So I agree it is realistic. But with the existing financial model the ROI for ICO participants will be about
10% and is fully dependent on the insurance fund performance. The insurance fund will be composed of different crypto assets. So I don't understand an ICO investor motivation. He can just invest his funds into one of Iconomi funds or create his own portfolio with the same assets as your insurance fund. Adding the risk of losing all the profits (or even more if several hacks will happen during the first year, please remember that ICO investors will take the risks at the start of the project) is not worth of gaining additional 3% ROI. Moreover, there can be
no dividends at all if the DAO votes accordingly.
As I mentioned before just holding your funds in BTC is a more safe and profitable strategy.
Hope to see the target 5M will be achieved in 4 weeks.
