OK putting on my financial engineer hat, because I think we can do better than donations. My suggested structure follows, which meets the goal of raising money, without hurting current investors or creating some unworkable two coin structure (i.e. hurt current investors...):
Hello sir, I think you have raised some important points in your earlier post. As you explicitly allowed comments on this post, please consider my red remarks as an opportunity for a conversation and not as a confrontation. From what you have wrote earlier I consider this is not the case.
1) Fibrelite is a new coin, that Fibre holders are able to convert to. Fibre will cease to exist some period after the conversion. -Why should Fibre cease to exist?
2) "Baseline" # of coins in Fibrelite is the same as Fibre and Fibre holders can convert 1:1. Thus there is no dilution -My nondilution theory tells me that 1 Fibre should be 90 mil/650,000=138,46 Fibrelight if they were to merge.
2a) But now you say then no money is raised, so what is the point- that's why we need both the coins, but with the current holders having 90+% percent of the total supply of FibreLight and 10% being left for the ICO. This is when the wallet with two currencies also comes in place (I'm sure I'm not the first one sugessting it but I think it would be a premiere in crypto)
3) "Upside" # of coins in Fibrelite are the ICO. Selling price is whatever the price of Fibre is at the start of the ICO (or some average over the last X days, whatever). However many BTC come in from the ICO dictate how many "Upside" coins get actually released, the remaining unsold coins are burned. Maybe some BTC target is set, but the key point is the unsold coins (if any) are burned.
4) Net result is that the value of Fibre holdings = value of fibrelite holdings in BTC for current fibre investors (because price is the same and # of coins held by individual investors are the same), but since new coins are sold in the fibrelite ICO, devs get the money they need to maximally execute on their awesome plans.
Comments / criticisms? Let me know if any of that was unclear. May need some tweaking but I think this is straightforwardly feasible from a tech perspective and best achieves everyone's objective.
From a communication perspective, maybe you say something like the following:
1) Fibre is a great coin, and the worst case is that we continue to develop aggressively to grow and meet our goals
2) But we have even greater goals to create value for investors that we can execute on with new funding
3) Therefore we are considering a "v2" upgraded Fibre, ie. Fibrelite, which would have an ICO to provide that funding
4) We are 100% committed to not only protecting Fibre investors, but making sure they as early supporters get all the same upside in Fibrelite, which we think will be even greater for them than if we simply stay on the current course and develop fibre only (which is an option, but not one we think is the best)
5) To achieve (4), the ICO will have the same coin price as fibre, and new coins will only be created pro rata to new invested BTC coming in. Fibrelite will also benefit, because potential investors will know our level of commitment in return for their support -
Maybe say that or maybe prove it first, as in the developers should first show that they can be trusted with a 1000 BTC/year revenue.
. 