The reason the cap is large is because we are aiming to fix a global issue. We can start fixing it wirth one street or with one continent, or anything in between.
Obviously the funds required to reinvent the way real estate is transacted is well north of our cap, yet our goals are ambitions enough to do just that.
I didn't yet check your math, but it is largely irrelevant. The reason is that we have declared from the very start that we will burn any unsold tokens. Because of this anyone who participates should benifit from an anti dilutive effect.
Obviously the funds required to reinvent the way real estate is transacted is well north of our cap, yet our goals are ambitions enough to do just that.
I didn't yet check your math, but it is largely irrelevant. The reason is that we have declared from the very start that we will burn any unsold tokens. Because of this anyone who participates should benifit from an anti dilutive effect.
Burning unsold tokens is frankly your only option. You need to let the marketplace decide the value of ATLANT, and not try to artificially inflate it. Look at the example set by Civic (yes different application, but they got their ICO right). $33M hard cap at ICO, which created the demand to send it flying to $141M today. If they had been greedy and gone for $100M, it's entirely possible they would be worth LESS than that today. It suits you long term to create more demand via cheaper tokens & a smaller cap.
The math is not irrelevant - you are asking people to purchase at an instant loss on the prospect that a $100M market cap has room to grow.
But burning the unsold tokens is a good thing and could balance out this problem.
