spreadsheet locked. need permission
Oops, fixed.
Topic: [ANN] Swarm Fund 1.0 - [OFFLINE THREAD] - page 17. (Read 139876 times)
spreadsheet locked. need permission
btw, had a great long conversation with Swarmpath this afternoon. I actually didn't really appreciate the burning plan myself before, but he showed me some complicated pie charts with the various options and why that one might be the best. Looking forward to an open discussion about this once all the details are put together.
I think they should be distributed back to investors proportionally, as originally promised.
You're keeping eight million anyway, on top of the funding you received, right?
burning them is a better option than keeping them, but even you admitted you were eager to get to work. what more resources do you really need all that extra money for? i hope it's not to pay the lawyers who are advising you to shit on investors...
Actually, we've been considering burning the swarm reserves as well.
Here's what we have as far as various possibilities:
https://docs.google.com/a/swarmcorp.com/spreadsheets/d/17moCJBIDkIGyvnKGuU3coJkGPnoAL4Bb2eeysptTwfA/edit#gid=0
As can be seen in the spreadsheet, the actual value of the coins doesn't vary considerably in any proposal, but some of them create a considerably larger market cap for Swarm, which presumably benefits all Swarm coin holders.
btw, had a great long conversation with Swarmpath this afternoon. I actually didn't really appreciate the burning plan myself before, but he showed me some complicated pie charts with the various options and why that one might be the best. Looking forward to an open discussion about this once all the details are put together.
I think they should be distributed back to investors proportionally, as originally promised.
You're keeping eight million anyway, on top of the funding you received, right?
burning them is a better option than keeping them, but even you admitted you were eager to get to work. what more resources do you really need all that extra money for? i hope it's not to pay the lawyers who are advising you to shit on investors...
btw, had a great long conversation with Swarmpath this afternoon. I actually didn't really appreciate the burning plan myself before, but he showed me some complicated pie charts with the various options and why that one might be the best. Looking forward to an open discussion about this once all the details are put together.
That would need to be some pretty sweet pie to mitigate the bitter taste im feeling atmo
btw, had a great long conversation with Swarmpath this afternoon. I actually didn't really appreciate the burning plan myself before, but he showed me some complicated pie charts with the various options and why that one might be the best. Looking forward to an open discussion about this once all the details are put together.
Here's a suggestion:
Kick out the legal team. Sit down and code. Have fun.
TLDR version: We are crowd funding a vision and product, not investing in legal team of parasitic middle men, the gray men that steel your time and take the fun out of life. We are - all of us - a community of global network and local legalese can be bothersome if they send cops and lawyers to bother, but global crowd funding network is global and if local legalese middlemen get too bothersome, it's their loss, not ours, because as global network we are not tied to a single location. Especially don't worry about US or this or that local legalese beforehand, get worried and waste your time from coding and having fun, deal with situations as they occur. Distribute the swarmcoins as the deal was, get it done and get over it, sit down and start coding awesome code, have fun, and be legen... wait for it...
PS: another suggestion: open community discussion forum for Swarm community. A thread on this less that well functioning forum and channel on software whose name I dare not mention is not nearly good enough for communicative needs of Swarm community.
Kick out the legal team. Sit down and code. Have fun.
TLDR version: We are crowd funding a vision and product, not investing in legal team of parasitic middle men, the gray men that steel your time and take the fun out of life. We are - all of us - a community of global network and local legalese can be bothersome if they send cops and lawyers to bother, but global crowd funding network is global and if local legalese middlemen get too bothersome, it's their loss, not ours, because as global network we are not tied to a single location. Especially don't worry about US or this or that local legalese beforehand, get worried and waste your time from coding and having fun, deal with situations as they occur. Distribute the swarmcoins as the deal was, get it done and get over it, sit down and start coding awesome code, have fun, and be legen... wait for it...
PS: another suggestion: open community discussion forum for Swarm community. A thread on this less that well functioning forum and channel on software whose name I dare not mention is not nearly good enough for communicative needs of Swarm community.
If phase 1 is filled. 1 btc = 5333 average swarmcoin. Swarmcoin goes onto an exchange and coins are bought and sold.
Then at some stage in the future, phase 2 starts with 68 million swarmcoin up for grabs. What if it is not filled and after dividing out the 68 million, it works out as 1 btc = 20,000 swarmcoin?? Are the initial investors getting a raw deal and will the price collapse at the exchange?
Im sure i am getting this wrong but pls help me understand whats going to happen.
Then at some stage in the future, phase 2 starts with 68 million swarmcoin up for grabs. What if it is not filled and after dividing out the 68 million, it works out as 1 btc = 20,000 swarmcoin?? Are the initial investors getting a raw deal and will the price collapse at the exchange?
Im sure i am getting this wrong but pls help me understand whats going to happen.
Here's one possible scenario. We issue a SWARMPRE2 for the second round. 34 million out of 68 million are sold. This makes 24 million SWARMPRE and 34 million of SWARMPRE2. SWARMPRE holders each get 1 SWARM per SWARMPRE, then SWARMPRE2 holders each get 1 SWARM per SWARMPRE2. Then the remaining 34 million are distributed proportionally to the holders of SWARMPRE and SWARMPRE2.
That's a bit complicated but it would avoid the problem you mention. Keep in mind that any proposal like this would be put to a vote for SWARMPRE holders to decide.
Even your "new" FAQ stats that the DEV team gets 8% of the TOTAL swarm which is 100 million. No burnt coins there. You need to divide out the coins the way you advertised the sale. I also have emails which confirmed what was planned for the sale before I invested.
This is not the way to treat your investors. You know the people that that made this project even possible in the first place .
Correct. We haven't made any specific promises with respect to our giveback model since, among other things, it is legally problematic. Generally speaking we encourage people to think of the first iteration of Swarm as a crypto-kickstarter with some cool perks of not particularly clear monetary value rather than an investment.
Isn't the whole point of Swarm to solve the problem of unfairness that occurs with the kickstarter model of fundraising?
You might want to rethink this statement..
I hate to seem pessimistic, but the real problem as I see it is that the more value we provide to people who have swarm coins the more likely we are to be sued by the U.S. government and shut down. So in order to provide the most value long term, we actually have to provide less value in the short term.
I don't blame anyone for thinking this is a bit ridiculous...
I thought you are based in London, UK. So what's US government had to do with this There was no mention of US government in this when you were showing us big dreams referencing Occulus and what not. Basically, you are saying that "It's great that you have invested in our company but don't expect any profits" I do not want to be seen as spreading FUD. I believed in a plan where everybody was treated fairly. Now, I'm seriously concerned about my investment. Please don't break the trust for we have believed in this project since the beginning. I think the 24 million should be proportionally distributed among the investors and you guys can have 8% of 24 Million=1.92 Million. Straight and simple.
Yes, I think it's ridiculous, and I think you should definitely ellaborate on this.
It's going to be a major focus of ours over the next months.
I just really don't like the idea of having millions of swarm looming, ready to potentially plummet the price at any time if those swarm ever get dumped. it's not fair to early supporters, if you were afraid that providing value to early supporters would attract government attention then you may as well have kickstarted the project.
One thing we've discussed but not yet implemented is a multisig lock on the founder shares and future funds so that they are only released via a vote of swarm coin holders. Although it's unlikely that this will implemented any time in the near future, its' an interesting way to prevent anyone from running away with funds and/or flooding the market with coins.
Investors you gave over $1m to a web designer(s) to design a website in exchange for no equity in the business on clearly laid down terms.
In other news during the last couple of weeks up to 300 Bitcoin a day has been traded on URO coin, a coin backed by a bankrupt CCTV salesman who promises to fund shipments of Urea (min order $3.5m) in exchange for worthless tokens!
I don't mean to sound harsh to people who've invested in this, but I only stay on this forum out of a perverse curiosity to the madness that's taken hold here.
In other news during the last couple of weeks up to 300 Bitcoin a day has been traded on URO coin, a coin backed by a bankrupt CCTV salesman who promises to fund shipments of Urea (min order $3.5m) in exchange for worthless tokens!
I don't mean to sound harsh to people who've invested in this, but I only stay on this forum out of a perverse curiosity to the madness that's taken hold here.
Correct. We haven't made any specific promises with respect to our giveback model since, among other things, it is legally problematic. Generally speaking we encourage people to think of the first iteration of Swarm as a crypto-kickstarter with some cool perks of not particularly clear monetary value rather than an investment.
Isn't the whole point of Swarm to solve the problem of unfairness that occurs with the kickstarter model of fundraising?
You might want to rethink this statement..
I hate to seem pessimistic, but the real problem as I see it is that the more value we provide to people who have swarm coins the more likely we are to be sued by the U.S. government and shut down. So in order to provide the most value long term, we actually have to provide less value in the short term.
I don't blame anyone for thinking this is a bit ridiculous...
Yes, I think it's ridiculous, and I think you should definitely ellaborate on this.
saw this coming.
that's why I voted "no."
One thing that I think is worth some open discussion about is how we can engage folks on a continual basis. As many people noted, there's a fair bit of overhead and lag time in doing a vote, so it's basically impossible to vote on every issue.
I was thinking about some sort of more periodic opinion polling instead, to see how people think we are doing with respect to our goals. Obviously this doesn't include any significant shift in direction, so we have to see how we can handle this efficiently.
Another major issue is how we directly engage with people. Right now our highest volume activity channels are our Skype channel and bitcointalk, but both have enough activity that it is difficult to keep up if you aren't looking at them every day.
Anyways, advice and input always welcome.
I just really don't like the idea of having millions of swarm looming, ready to potentially plummet the price at any time if those swarm ever get dumped. it's not fair to early supporters, if you were afraid that providing value to early supporters would attract government attention then you may as well have kickstarted the project.
if there's too many swarm in limbo i'm probably going to sell immediately after the first spike out of fear.
I don't own that many though, so my opinion should be taken with a grain of salt.
Ok, this afternoon we are swarming the official FAQ. All questions welcome. Leave as a comment. We will answer until we get exhausted.
Answers will be provided by Swarm Agent X (fractastical) and Swarm Agent Provocateur (David Babbit, chief-cryptoeconomist).
saw this coming.
that's why I voted "no."
One thing that I think is worth some open discussion about is how we can engage folks on a continual basis. As many people noted, there's a fair bit of overhead and lag time in doing a vote, so it's basically impossible to vote on every issue.
I was thinking about some sort of more periodic opinion polling instead, to see how people think we are doing with respect to our goals. Obviously this doesn't include any significant shift in direction, so we have to see how we can handle this efficiently.
Another major issue is how we directly engage with people. Right now our highest volume activity channels are our Skype channel and bitcointalk, but both have enough activity that it is difficult to keep up if you aren't looking at them every day.
Anyways, advice and input always welcome.
Correct. We haven't made any specific promises with respect to our giveback model since, among other things, it is legally problematic. Generally speaking we encourage people to think of the first iteration of Swarm as a crypto-kickstarter with some cool perks of not particularly clear monetary value rather than an investment.
Isn't the whole point of Swarm to solve the problem of unfairness that occurs with the kickstarter model of fundraising?
You might want to rethink this statement..
I hate to seem pessimistic, but the real problem as I see it is that the more value we provide to people who have swarm coins the more likely we are to be sued by the U.S. government and shut down. So in order to provide the most value long term, we actually have to provide less value in the short term.
I don't blame anyone for thinking this is a bit ridiculous...
It was very clearly stated that Swarm itself was going to be the first instance of Swarm crowdfunding. (crowdfunding itself to get the platform running)
I cannot find this quote anymore, I hope it was not deleted.
I have been very confused about the recent quotes such as that we should not think of swarm as an investment. Clearly it was described as one when I donated.
Correct. We haven't made any specific promises with respect to our giveback model since, among other things, it is legally problematic. Generally speaking we encourage people to think of the first iteration of Swarm as a crypto-kickstarter with some cool perks of not particularly clear monetary value rather than an investment.
Isn't the whole point of Swarm to solve the problem of unfairness that occurs with the kickstarter model of fundraising?
You might want to rethink this statement..
I hate to seem pessimistic, but the real problem as I see it is that the more value we provide to people who have swarm coins the more likely we are to be sued by the U.S. government and shut down. So in order to provide the most value long term, we actually have to provide less value in the short term.
I don't blame anyone for thinking this is a bit ridiculous...
saw this coming.
that's why I voted "no."
Correct. We haven't made any specific promises with respect to our giveback model since, among other things, it is legally problematic. Generally speaking we encourage people to think of the first iteration of Swarm as a crypto-kickstarter with some cool perks of not particularly clear monetary value rather than an investment.
Isn't the whole point of Swarm to solve the problem of unfairness that occurs with the kickstarter model of fundraising?
You might want to rethink this statement..
I hate to seem pessimistic, but the real problem as I see it is that the more value we provide to people who have swarm coins the more likely we are to be sued by the U.S. government and shut down. So in order to provide the most value long term, we actually have to provide less value in the short term.
I don't blame anyone for thinking this is a bit ridiculous...
I believe swarmpath will put together a writeup as to why he thought it was better not to issue the dividend as originally planned.
Looking forward to a professional, clear and transparent write up and next steps.
So am I.
Swarmpath is in transit right now but hopefully we'll have something soon to chew on. Jump to: