What about this?
Transfer complete control of the entire ICO to David, and have smart contracts written for the funding of the various projects and development needed.
I know we are building a trustless, decentralized system, but in this case; and to begin with, there is still a massive amount of human trust needed to launch this project efficiently. In cryptos, trust is built by successful and field tested developers, which David is.
I believe with the smart contracts in place and the control, being given to the designer of the project; public transparency and trust could be adequately achieved with little to no question on the merit of the project, with superior program efficient control of all funds.
At this point, I can see a troll storm comin... and newbie dev team with a fistful of public money, well, it'll feed the hurricane.
As shallow as it seems, I would not give 5$ to a newbie dev ico.
For Zimbeck, I would consider an adequate investment as he is an extremely respected and long standing member of the crypto community. He is also is beyond greed and truly has a passion for the completion and implementations of the core of cryptocurrency philosophy.
This could be something huge, but right now it is unfortunately appearing not much more then rest, fancy looking marketing and maybes, without any backbone but the lead dev, who's credibility is completely alone and on the line.
The 'wait and see' investors, will be much smaller then the 'I believe in this investors'.
I want to believe. (-;
I believe in Zimbeck but Bitbay Team, A little more please.
Transfer complete control of the entire ICO to David, and have smart contracts written for the funding of the various projects and development needed.
I know we are building a trustless, decentralized system, but in this case; and to begin with, there is still a massive amount of human trust needed to launch this project efficiently. In cryptos, trust is built by successful and field tested developers, which David is.
I believe with the smart contracts in place and the control, being given to the designer of the project; public transparency and trust could be adequately achieved with little to no question on the merit of the project, with superior program efficient control of all funds.
At this point, I can see a troll storm comin... and newbie dev team with a fistful of public money, well, it'll feed the hurricane.
As shallow as it seems, I would not give 5$ to a newbie dev ico.
For Zimbeck, I would consider an adequate investment as he is an extremely respected and long standing member of the crypto community. He is also is beyond greed and truly has a passion for the completion and implementations of the core of cryptocurrency philosophy.
This could be something huge, but right now it is unfortunately appearing not much more then rest, fancy looking marketing and maybes, without any backbone but the lead dev, who's credibility is completely alone and on the line.
The 'wait and see' investors, will be much smaller then the 'I believe in this investors'.
I want to believe. (-;
I believe in Zimbeck but Bitbay Team, A little more please.
We understand your concern. We have a team of VERY talented people. Mr Zimbeck heads up our development side and as such he will have his own account with funds set aside for the purpose of bitbay coin development. We have a marketing side which will have some funds set aside for them as well. The majority of the funds will be held in our new wallet with multi-sig. David will have one of those keys and a voice as to how funds are spent.
It's your prerogative to invest or not. We are not forcing anyone to invest. If you chose to do so that you that on your own volition.
Awesome thanks for the reply. Again although vague. Majority is not good enough, as whoever you are has no risk here. The only risk is the public's and Davids.
I am not speaking on his behalf here in anyway, just know that he is an integral part of cryptos in general, and do not want to see him shoved through the mud, by the assault of trolls that will come if the ICO is completed at anything less then perfection. Which is the program you are selling in your ICO; trustless perfection. To use it to mitigate these risks would seem logical.
Of course it is everyone's perogative to invest or not. That is not the issue. The issue would of course be, the actual implementation of this project into your own marketing strategy, and 'business' structure involving control of the public funds.
If its smart contracts you're selling, (of course among other things) the entire project should be run with them to stand by your project and the developer creating the core of it. I would believe involving smart contracts, public transparency on all aspects of every contract, would be quite easily produced for public review. After all it is their/our money.
Again, as much as i would love to believe your 17th post 'We are a team of VERY talented people', 'well most of the money will have a multisig'; im sorry but it presently has no merit.
There is no plan for this in your brilliant marketing. (I assume this is what you mean by talented, it is quite good)
Cryptos cannot afford another failed ipo, especially in the dire need to see a project like this succeed.
This is why i am speaking and asking.
Again thank you for your reply. Just figure you can do better then.. 'well, don't invest if you don't wanna. the lead dev has a say in most of it..'
His ass. Should be his show.
The entire project should be laid out in smart contracts based on this premise.
edit: 14th post
Yeah man, chill. When you invest in facebook does Mark send you an email stating where he plans on spending your invested funds?
For example: Seriously lol!
