Topic: Best funding model? (Read 1179 times)

I do not understand what "solely" means in this context. It is an exchange of product for payment, if there is a "solely enrichment scenario", then the value of the coin is proportionate to that. I may be misunderstanding the meaning here, but that "hint" is supposed to be ICO, premine or just a statement?

"there can't even be a hint of the coin being created solely to enrich the creator"
bump

I see 2 roads.

First one we are all familiar with.  Create a massive hype cycle, insiders profit, pumpers profit, random Joe thanks for your support, thanks for playing the zero sum game, our gain your pain ... suckers!   But if you have a big enough bubble when it pops there is a slim but possible chance of having actually launched a new cryptocurrency.  But it takes years for it to match the initial public interest crazy levels.  And in reality none of the major projects are above their hype cycle peaks.  And a 1000+ have bubbled up and most dissipated to nothing.  The most incredible of these (imo) is Paycon, massively over valued to what $180M?, I thought for sure that even if 100% con it at least achieved $10M network in terms of material assets and in branding/users, but it couldn't even hold 1% of the IPO, and currently has faded under $100k.  There might be a lesson there for an elite product like ETH, too much hype can kill golden geese.  Time will tell.  Same for BTC, it has to hit +$1200 before before 2020 or else.

Second are coins that do have something different to offer.  But are surviving by paying up front to stay afloat.  They may not standout on the charts yet but they are working from zero (aka sub $1-2M caps) and maintain viability.  This is the realm of shitcoins, yet some of these turds may very well blossom.  They will have the devs pulled themselves up from their bootstraps story.  And could claw their way up to a significant rank because they are building solid levels of support each step up, rather than the rocket ride to the MOON!

Third way has not yet been done.  But something with smart contracts, and established trustees (escrows).  Funny thing is neither are yet proven to work, but the promise is there.  So real capital can underwrite a launch, say +$100M and something like a instant ride to the TOP 5 is possible.

Like you're saying, it is all about valuation. Nobody forces anyone else to participate in any ICO. The good thing about open sourced code is that it can be copied and reissued for other purposes, with any vision in mind. But there will be always one Satoshi, one BCNext and one Vitalik. And people will pay them, if only for the cult of personality or participation in something that has a speculative value. That's why we're here. Because coins cannot be cloned within one blockchain.

Is mining essential to you? What about things like airdrop? I mean I could implement some form of mining, but I don't like to put too much strain on the nodes with additional verification and orphan handling. Mining might be the most difficult and error-prone part

I will probably not take over any C-based coin because I dont like C portability and compilation.. also I suck balls at C and generally I don't want to study a fork of any kind, I like it fresh and new, be it a fail or success- ah the adventure!

http://archives-dc.library.caltech.edu/islandora/object/ct1:483

No funding at start, dev buys/mines his coins through the first market prices. Comments ?

For any cryptocurrency to be adopted, there can't even be a hint of the coin being created solely to enrich the creator.  Economics is a zero sum game and there is no Nash equilbrium to be had by random Joe off the street adopting something that puts you at an advantage and him at a disadvantage.  It doesn't matter if you think you should get paid to work.  Nobody would have adopted gold if gold had a central issuing authority with the market cornered at day one.

A *partial* ICO is called a "Premine"

I can tolerate a mined coin with a small premine far more than i can an IPO / ICO style coin.
If the premine is accounted for and documented well and we keep the coin holders feet to the fire.
Even then though we don't need *more* coins so it better be for a good reason..
(because it will STILL be coin #7,001)

Have you considered contributing to an already existing coin or taking over a coin abandoned ?
I hear Jackpot Coin is hiring  

Warning:
Even if i like a person around here i still can NOT support their IPO / ICO ..sorry guys
It's the principle of the matter !

Did the visionary and genius Satoshi need to start an ICO ?
I wonder what he thinks of all this IPO madness where there is thousands of them now.

LOL thanks i voted

I see others did too "Get a job" is leading  

The best model? It is hard to say, depends on many factors.
If Dev novice and his idea of the shit, no model which does not help in financing.

But the funding can be used for purposes which may bring success to the coin in the long term

Thanks, I am considering an ICO too, at least partially, the world will decide how good the ideas are

ICO would be my choice.
Convincing people to invest money in a new coin is not easy, though. You will be successful if you have a really good idea.

+1

yes paying people to dev a coin kind of defeats half the purpose of needing an alternative to fiat in the first place 

Yeah, that could be a problem. You could have it so you get your fee let's say every 1000 blocks.

Coin development is easier

Getting a job (not a Poll option)

I see, so this is a transaction phasing system, a kind of "decentralized contract"

Well you only get paid if you do your work... otherwise funds are locked till there is a taker or it will get moved to general dev fund.

Is that some kind of a charity? I am not interested in charity models. Fees/rules need to be enforced in code to qualify. But I added your option to the poll.