Topic: IOTA - page 549. (Read 1473233 times)

There is an implied threat, sure. That there will be a fork and that what we have as software will be useless. I would also say that this would appear to me to be a breach of the terms of sale of said software.

If this software is no longer part of the tangle we were supposed to be a part of, then I'm not quite sure what it is that we have bought. This would feel a little like being sold a car and then told "AHA! Only problem is that you can't drive it on any roads, but still, you got what you paid for". Problem is, the software sale is attached to the idea of the tangle itself - if you fork the tangle and just go on your merry way, I'm not sure how that will look (well, yes i do).

ps. if this "threat" is not what is implied by "company driven consortium" then I apologize before hand.

Of course I will use the term 'the community' when speaking of something as broad as THE actual community. I can't single out 500 different people's stances. I have emphasized hundreds of times in this very thread that I am speaking on a *general level*, I believe the MAJORITY of the community want to and will donate to the foundation. But at the end of the day all of these different people in the community make up 'THE community', I have never once said that it's a homogeneous organism.

Is it still possible to create 5% more coins for foundation or deflate the current coin supply to 95% and leave 5% for the foundation?

+1 strongly agreed

Basically everyone who holds more IOTA than he needs for testing purposes is a speculator. There is simply no need to hold larger amounts of IOTA until you somehow plan to do a profit. Even if you are planing to hold IOTA for 10 years or more you are still speculating that the value will rise, otherwise there would be no need to hold any IOTA at all.

I don't agree with something David: you say : "THE community" like if it was a whole and homogeneous organ.
But do you think guys like me who already pledge 10% of their stack deserve to be treated in the same way as retarded speculators who are sitting on their stack waiting for people to work/invest for them?

Yes, people purchased the software, which is almost done. That's the end of our sales agreement.

What is being discussed here is the future of the tech in terms of adoption in the real world, someone has to do that work, it does not happen on its own, thus if someone want a group of people to do this, they have to pay for it.

I claim again with the same seed, in IRI:

but http://188.138.57.93/nostalgia.html not change the balance

but what about transfer @Bitme? if I do not get in my address, I should go back to @Bitme

I can respect that. perhaps one day you'll see that people with my goals are necessary for people with your goals to reach them and vice versa. but that doesn't matter now. back to business  

My proposition to make the Foundation happen:

Cut the % crap,

split launch in two phases with a "iota internal Foundation ICO" held in between.
First release a stable version that allows claiming iotas and settling any open deals. promote this so most Iotas are claimed.
then set up a donation Adress for the Foundation , perhaps a fancy website for it to see progress.
Now make the reaching of the necessary amount for foundation mandatory for the second Launch phase that would include beeing listed on Big Exchanges. That way you don't brake contract with ico investors,
the bad bad speculators would see it as a listing fee to play on polo.
Of course you would need the exchange on board for that.

Thanks my friend!! good reaction!!  

Is that really so that the rule will be changed? I see it as further development of necessity of iota ecosystem.
That's just my opinion

It's certainly no threat, what could we possibly be threatening with? The terms of our sale agreement were simple: You prepurchase software, we develop said software, you get said software - deal is done. No more, no less.

If people also want us to continue working + other people who will be in the foundation, then of course they have to pay for it. No one is going to work 5-10 hour days for anyone for free, that's borderline slavery. The reason we have to take this blunt tone is that a lot of people in crypto tend to actually treat the initiators of projects like slaves that they somehow inexplicably 'own' for all eternity. We have seen this 100 times in crypto and decided to solve this from day 1 by not having a premine and leaving it in the hands of the community, everyone is free and everyone has a free choice. We don't own anyone *ANYTHING* except the software.

For us what matters is that the tech itself gets adoption, if that is not achievable through the current IOTA community then I predict a company driven consortium will be the best way to make this happen.

The choice lies in the hands of the community.

Guys, there are no free riders. Those who have IOTA tokens BOUGHT THEM. There was no talk about "continued future financial support" at the time. There are usually clauses in contracts about this very issue...  

I share most of the concerns and frustrations that have been voiced here over the last couple of days. All these foundation worries could have been easily avoided if the money ("software" ) had just been set aside for it from the start. I think that was a mistake and don't really buy the "we wanted to leave it up to the community and prevent bystander effect" argument because that was not clearly communicated at the start. Actually, I couldn't find any mention of it anywhere prior to the crowdsale (or whatever it's called for this project).

I'd still be happy to have 5% taken from me at launch (or more as long as it's the same for everyone) but I realize it's likely too late for that now. I fully intend to donate generously but will only do so once the process is simplified and I feel safer using the software.

I still think the community will pull through and make the foundation happen, even if it takes more time than expected. To make it happen faster I think the community would appreciate knowing the details of what the funds will be used for. Who will be the members of the foundations? What are the foundation's goals? How will they be achieved? How much money will each objective cost? Of course, much of this is uncertain right now but clear and open info in this regard will help a lot in conveying the importance of the foundation to the community.

Once a clear vision and direction for the foundation has been agreed upon, please post this info in the opening page and maybe send it out to the email list.

Actually, posting more general info to the OP would probably save a lot of time and headaches answering the same questions over and over again.

No worries Yassin, I would even spend more than in the Excel File you track.
But I am happy about, that I need to finance the free riders, that won´t donate and also never show up in testing, never tweet and contact IOT-companies: No, I´m somehow bitter about it and it harms my motivation as well.

A premine 5% from all genesis accounts would be good imho

If we can a solution where the users could vote, that would be the most ideal solution.
I expect most would chose the 5% premine, including myself.
If everyone can vote with his stake it would be a great solution.

Just to say everybody IOTAERS, Solidarity!!!

Check my post if you can donate some IOTA, or wait Release!!  

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15007209

I hope people support the foundation with donations then, but if we're all honest here, there is no 'community opinion' really, just a collection of individuals with their own private opinion. I'd rather pay 5% in a premine and watch from the sidelines myself. That's not for any other reason than there's not a lot I can contribute other than eyeballs reading and thinking. I don't have tech skills or time now. There'll be plenty like me here too, who want to support passively. If you want an amish barn raising style of input from IOTA hodlers then looks like I'm in the wrong place.

I can understand why (psychologically) it is the best solution to ask for the needed donations from the community, as it shows engagement, support, it would clearly show that the community recognises and honours the great works being developed in IOTA (and it is undoubtful that these are amazing good and competent works).

The only thing I don't feel comfortable with is the way this donation request has been put (I am sincere when I say I feel menaced with the way the community "leaders" started to behave after the donation issue was brought). In such situations I naturally tend to dissent... oh boy, I don't accept being totally subject to my country's government threats, why would I submit to any others?

But, still, I understand that this is simply a "communication problem", and I prefer to believe that their intention is not threatening. OK. So, I told myself: overcome all this and do your best for the community.

I hope all other sincere IOTA community members will have the wisdom to make their best decision.

Anyway, even though the best case scenario would be the community recognition by the needed donations, if there is no other way, I agree that the "premine" solution above would be the rational one. And if there's an eventual "lack of recognition" from the community, this recognition will surely come when IOTA proves itself.

I would only like to request that people here abandoned this hypocritical "speculator" talk, for it helps nothing to the cohesion of the community. The community should grow, and not shink

Peace will bring us much more fruits than fights.