newbie
Activity: 84
Merit: 0
MNY is just what it states - it is MNY.
There are actually less "hands in the pot" on this than any ICO to date. Here is what you usually buy when you buy into an ICO; the vague and probably bullshit non-legally binding agreement that when Mr. Entrepreneur makes a profit he will pay you back. That's just garbage; specifically, it is not decentralised management, it is not in any way a value-efficient use of a token, nor is it really beneficial for anyone. Simply, the entrepreneur has no one looking over his shoulder, the investor is a nameless, faceless entity wherever in the world, and there is no agreement between the former and the latter. If that is not a recipe for loss-making then I do not know what is. Basically, on the slim a project does make money, what's the chance the entrepreneur will think to pay a nameless, faceless investor back before, say, buying their daughter a better birthday gift? ZERO. And that is perfectly natural, fair and justified.
What is wrong is not the token itself it is the fundamental way in which it is (mis-)applied to the value creation process.
How is Monkey Capital different? Well, first of all, as you indicate, there is a shit load of people involved in this. First, as by necessity in a crowdfunded campaign you are just another nameless, faceless investor, multiple separate parties working together under the roof of the project you are considering investing in should immediately be the first thing you are looking for; how many completely separate, unknown parties are involved in a project you invest in? Ask yourself this question first! The more there are, the more checking and double-checking and the less swiping from the till there is likely to be. This is simple human nature. Second, there is one fund manager in Monkey Capital. That is right - ONE entity manages the money; The FactoryBanking Company. This is outlined in the WP. The other parties have absolutely NO empowered management authority to move ANY cash ANYWHERE. The ONE manager is firthermore compensated on a fixed schedule, so there is no advantage in him cheating.
If you don't like the preponderance of so many different parties - multiple project parties, an independent administrative capital management entity controlled by an audit manager etc., I do not blame you. But this is what decentralisation looks like; it's jammed to the brim with different parties variously and alternately cooperating with one another and keeping an eye on another all the time.
If it looks any different, 99% chance you have lost your money. It's quite simple. I am not telling you this so you invest in this ICO (it sounds to me like actively managed ICOs are not your thing and you should instead focus on the digital assets that don't have these human variable factors in them; stuff like Statis, XRP, Peercoin etc., and if you have had success there so far, why change the damn formula now?) I am telling you this because any ICO with a management team, a simple, single-minded goal in place, and a straight pathway with minimal actors involved achieving it, is very, very, very unlikely to ever give you a return. You will be waiting 100 years and nothing will turn up, simple because no one is incentivised to make sure something ever does, at least not sufficiently so.
I am proud to have resolved that exact problem here. It is indeed, a fucking great achievement quite frankly, so I know exactly what I am talking about as I spent hours and days and weeks and more agonising over ringfencing this value proposition within the token.