Pages:
Author

Topic: [ANN] Swarm Fund 1.0 - [OFFLINE THREAD] - page 28. (Read 139876 times)

sr. member
Activity: 386
Merit: 250
@fractastical, With a "NO" vote, I assume your team will be developing the software even while you continue fundraising, no?  

Not really, fundraising is very time intensive and with a NO vote I will probably spend most of the time up until the 20th on marketing/fundraising/PR. If we get a YES vote I will spend the next week just developing the product, hopefully with a working prototype by the 10th of July.

I'm actually quite tired of fundraising so I hope people vote YES.

I think I will vote "YES" unless I can be convinced otherwise.

I want to see a product, and I am, honestly, less concerned with shares that are out there in the ether than I am with having a viable product that will bring in new potential investors/users. I appreciate the importance of taking care of initial investors, but this is not even an alpha product. So far Swarm does not even have a whitepaper. So what, exactly, are we investing in? At this point, this project is susceptible to the "vaporware" insult that is thrown at it.

To put it another way: When I worked in a pool hall in North Carolina, the guys would sit around and talk about how good they were and who could beat who, etc. It was a lot of fun, but with a serious undertone. At some point, one of the guys would lose patience and say to one of the jaw-boners, "Do it, then talk about it." And either the other guy would have to put up his money and play, or shut the hell up. So let's do it, then talk about it.

Or convince me otherwise.
full member
Activity: 203
Merit: 100
BTS: merockstar420
voting no.

having a giant portion of coins in limbo is unacceptable to me as well.


edit: counterwallet informs me that the NO vote address from the e-mail is not a valid Bitcoin address?

edit again: I see what happened. the addresses in the e-mail are all caps, and the blockchain is case sensitive. anyone running into this should get the correct address from here: http://blog.swarmcorp.com/2014/06/29/swarm-proposal-1/

props to counterwallet for not allowing me to burn my vote coins.
sr. member
Activity: 309
Merit: 250
Swarm

Yes, I got the email. sent the 0.00******* goldtickets. sent the email. but no confirm or what to do next

You will get another email with instructions, probably on Monday.
legendary
Activity: 1279
Merit: 1018
did the goldenticket thing. heard noting since. vote yes/no where and for what ?

Did you get an email from Swarm?

nope. no email received

We sent out an email to folks who signed up for our newsletter. It had a link to the blog post.

Yes, I got the email. sent the 0.00******* goldtickets. sent the email. but no confirm or what to do next
sr. member
Activity: 309
Merit: 250
Swarm
@fractastical, With a "NO" vote, I assume your team will be developing the software even while you continue fundraising, no?  

Not really, fundraising is very time intensive and with a NO vote I will probably spend most of the time up until the 20th on marketing/fundraising/PR. If we get a YES vote I will spend the next week just developing the product, hopefully with a working prototype by the 10th of July.

I'm actually quite tired of fundraising so I hope people vote YES.





sr. member
Activity: 386
Merit: 250
Hello, smaragda. I know you've had some thoughtful exchanges on here about the vote and funding. Can you explain why you voted "NO"?

Sure...  I voted NO because the initial plan is straight-forward in regard to what happens with the unsold SWARM...  the devs have two fundraising phases with an announced cap...  if the cap isn't reached...  remaining SWARM get distributed to the holders. 

Locking the coins away without specifically stating what will happen to those coins if a second fundraising phase never takes place is unacceptable IMHO.

I agree with smaragda.

Plus, what if 4500 BTC is never reached....

Ok, I'm more inclined now to vote "NO" myself.

@fractastical, With a "NO" vote, I assume your team will be developing the software even while you continue fundraising, no? 
sr. member
Activity: 309
Merit: 250
Swarm
So if Yes vote wins and you develop SWARM successfully and need more funds I assume you will not be selling more SWARMPRE but a different asset that represents the unsold swarmcoins? Then, after the second fundraiser is complete 92 million swarmcoins will be equally distributed to SWARMPRE and "SWARMPRE2" holders? I also assume the second round of funding will be at a much higher price if for no other reason than fairness to SWARMPRE buyers.

That's the general idea although any specific proposal will need to be adopted via a vote.
sr. member
Activity: 309
Merit: 250
Swarm
Am I doing something wrong?  I am trying to vote but when I attempt to send my SwarmVoteOne coins CounterpartyWallet does not accept the address.  The address field turns red and there is a message "This field must be a valid Bitcoin address".

There was a CSS issue with the address sent via our newsletter that automatically uppercased all of the letters. The correct addresses can be found here.
sr. member
Activity: 309
Merit: 250
Swarm
did the goldenticket thing. heard noting since. vote yes/no where and for what ?

Did you get an email from Swarm?

nope. no email received

We sent out an email to folks who signed up for our newsletter. It had a link to the blog post.
sr. member
Activity: 309
Merit: 250
Swarm

This may seem strange in the cryptoworld but this is exactly how investment is normally done. See this paper of mine for an early attempt at explaining how this could work in a crypto context. In these cases, people accept dilution because the overall valuation of the project is expected to increase substantially via future funding (i.e. Peter Thiel's small percentage of Facebook grew smaller over time, but turned into rather a lot of money in the end because Facebook became massive).  



Yes in cryptoland this is not the norm. But Swarm is some kind of hybrid I suppose. I strongly believe you should just nix the whole vote and do what YOU think is the best move
for SWARM's overall success. What if everybody votes yes and it wasn't what you were leaning towards. Who knows what's best for the project better than you at this point?

Yeah, well we have to do what we promised originally, so even if our plan was not the best one I think we have to stick to it unless SWARM holders approve a new one.

I also see this as an interesting demonstration of the potential power of our model of engagement. It's really the first time something like distributed voting was possible. I see a lot of potential applications, but the only way to identify the highest value ones is to try it out and see how it works.



member
Activity: 87
Merit: 10
So if Yes vote wins and you develop SWARM successfully and need more funds I assume you will not be selling more SWARMPRE but a different asset that represents the unsold swarmcoins? Then, after the second fundraiser is complete 92 million swarmcoins will be equally distributed to SWARMPRE and "SWARMPRE2" holders? I also assume the second round of funding will be at a much higher price if for no other reason than fairness to SWARMPRE buyers.
legendary
Activity: 1279
Merit: 1018
did the goldenticket thing. heard noting since. vote yes/no where and for what ?

Did you get an email from Swarm?

nope. no email received
newbie
Activity: 26
Merit: 0
Am I doing something wrong?  I am trying to vote but when I attempt to send my SwarmVoteOne coins CounterpartyWallet does not accept the address.  The address field turns red and there is a message "This field must be a valid Bitcoin address".
member
Activity: 87
Merit: 10
If a yes vote means fundraising stops after phase 1 then all remaining coins should be distributed equally and Swarm is born. If you want to lock the unsold coins and reopen more fundraising later on that is so ludicrous. Do you really think any investor wants the potential of their investment diluted at any time looming over their head?

This may seem strange in the cryptoworld but this is exactly how investment is normally done. See this paper of mine for an early attempt at explaining how this could work in a crypto context. In these cases, people accept dilution because the overall valuation of the project is expected to increase substantially via future funding (i.e. Peter Thiel's small percentage of Facebook grew smaller over time, but turned into rather a lot of money in the end because Facebook became massive).  



Yes in cryptoland this is not the norm. But Swarm is some kind of hybrid I suppose. I strongly believe you should just nix the whole vote and do what YOU think is the best move
for SWARM's overall success. What if everybody votes yes and it wasn't what you were leaning towards. Who knows what's best for the project better than you at this point?
sr. member
Activity: 309
Merit: 250
Swarm
Oops I accidently sent my Swarmcoin instead of my Swarmvoteone coin!

Is there anyway to get it back or am I screwed Sad?

Done. Should be on the next block.
sr. member
Activity: 309
Merit: 250
Swarm
If a yes vote means fundraising stops after phase 1 then all remaining coins should be distributed equally and Swarm is born. If you want to lock the unsold coins and reopen more fundraising later on that is so ludicrous. Do you really think any investor wants the potential of their investment diluted at any time looming over their head?

This may seem strange in the cryptoworld but this is exactly how investment is normally done. See this paper of mine for an early attempt at explaining how this could work in a crypto context. In these cases, people accept dilution because the overall valuation of the project is expected to increase substantially via future funding (i.e. Peter Thiel's small percentage of Facebook grew smaller over time, but turned into rather a lot of money in the end because Facebook became massive).  

sr. member
Activity: 309
Merit: 250
Swarm
Is there anyway to see the balance of either of the swarmvote addresses?



The easiest way is to create a new address in a Counterwallet as a "watch address."
member
Activity: 87
Merit: 10
This is truly unacceptable if I am understanding this correctly. I thought the vote was to satisfy those who believe Swarm was too ambitious in its fundraising. If a yes vote means
fundraising stops after phase 1 then all remaining coins should be distributed equally and Swarm is born. If you want to lock the unsold coins and reopen more fundraising later on that is so ludicrous. Do you really think any investor wants the potential of their investment diluted at any time looming over their head? Now if you are saying it will probably take more money or else Swarm will eventually fail then go on with the original plan. This vote should only go on if YES means fundraising stops after phase 1 and coin distribution is final. Maybe I am not following correctly some things so please make it clear for everybody.
newbie
Activity: 26
Merit: 0
Is there anyway to see the balance of either of the swarmvote addresses?

member
Activity: 78
Merit: 10
Hello, smaragda. I know you've had some thoughtful exchanges on here about the vote and funding. Can you explain why you voted "NO"?

Sure...  I voted NO because the initial plan is straight-forward in regard to what happens with the unsold SWARM...  the devs have two fundraising phases with an announced cap...  if the cap isn't reached...  remaining SWARM get distributed to the holders. 

Locking the coins away without specifically stating what will happen to those coins if a second fundraising phase never takes place is unacceptable IMHO.

I agree with smaragda.

Plus, what if 4500 BTC is never reached....
Pages:
Jump to: