Topic: IOTA - page 560. (Read 1473233 times)
So much text about donation to the Foundation, can't read it all. This weekend last optimizations in the architecture should be completed, I've just got rid of necessity to have an entropy source in an IoT device, no idea what else could be stipped out, nothing left. Next week I'll be refactoring all the code to prepare it for publication, after that I'm planning to enable transfers which won't be rolled back. So those who wish will get ability to donate to the Foundation.
Great news..thanks for all he stellar stuff CfB and iotatoken!
So much text about donation to the Foundation, can't read it all. This weekend last optimizations in the architecture should be completed, I've just got rid of necessity to have an entropy source in an IoT device, no idea what else could be stipped out, nothing left. Next week I'll be refactoring all the code to prepare it for publication, after that I'm planning to enable transfers which won't be rolled back. So those who wish will get ability to donate to the Foundation.
Glad to hear CFB!!
I originally had pledge to towards the deal with it's proceeds going to foundation after...but since foundation is really the highest of priority I will donate it to foundation one time. May of us like myself bought post ICO otc -- hopefully once the sellers fulfill their orders..more donations will flow into foundation.
So much text about donation to the Foundation, can't read it all. This weekend last optimizations in the architecture should be completed, I've just got rid of necessity to have an entropy source in an IoT device, no idea what else could be stipped out, nothing left. Next week I'll be refactoring all the code to prepare it for publication, after that I'm planning to enable transfers which won't be rolled back. So those who wish will get ability to donate to the Foundation.
Thanks!! 
So much text about donation to the Foundation, can't read it all. This weekend last optimizations in the architecture should be completed, I've just got rid of necessity to have an entropy source in an IoT device, no idea what else could be stipped out, nothing left. Next week I'll be refactoring all the code to prepare it for publication, after that I'm planning to enable transfers which won't be rolled back. So those who wish will get ability to donate to the Foundation.
Thank You, CFB, for YOUR HARD WORK!
Cheers
So much text about donation to the Foundation, can't read it all. This weekend last optimizations in the architecture should be completed, I've just got rid of necessity to have an entropy source in an IoT device, no idea what else could be stipped out, nothing left. Next week I'll be refactoring all the code to prepare it for publication, after that I'm planning to enable transfers which won't be rolled back. So those who wish will get ability to donate to the Foundation.
Wohoo! Excellent CfB! Looking forward to final release. Many thanks for your constant work us! 😃
So much text about donation to the Foundation, can't read it all. This weekend last optimizations in the architecture should be completed, I've just got rid of necessity to have an entropy source in an IoT device, no idea what else could be stipped out, nothing left. Next week I'll be refactoring all the code to prepare it for publication, after that I'm planning to enable transfers which won't be rolled back. So those who wish will get ability to donate to the Foundation.
@banqueiro Why not to pledge to foundation 
@achimsmile It was just cry in the night for everybody to do pledge in foundation, cause everybody from our community must step up and not just wait!
The Idea of blockchain is flying in the air and while we are waiting and sleeping, another project like dao is working very hard!!! BE SURE!!!
I hope that everybody from our community is understanding very well!
Cheers.
@achimsmile It was just cry in the night for everybody to do pledge in foundation, cause everybody from our community must step up and not just wait!
The Idea of blockchain is flying in the air and while we are waiting and sleeping, another project like dao is working very hard!!! BE SURE!!!
I hope that everybody from our community is understanding very well!
Cheers.
add some donation!!
Thanks for @totocom25, @max and anonymous pledge for your Donation, very welcome!!
Thanks for @totocom25, @max and anonymous pledge for your Donation, very welcome!!
My God! THIS IS REALLY LOVELY NEWS!!!
Thank You, Guys! This is right choice!
The only way that would happen is if it was unanimously voted for, which won't happen, so in my mind it's not even worth entertaining further, which is why we never suggested it either. We want IOTA to be an open source movement with a Foundation that was established by and for the community. Simple as that.
Cancel the ICO .. refund the BTC. Start a new ICO with foundation % and let it run its course.
Too many greedy people in crypto happy to ride on other peoples hard work.
I'm going to fed up with all of this(sorry) and agree with @dasource!
Somebody are working hard, but somebody just waiting for result...
I love IOTA, but I have not clue to step up from this...
Refund our BTC and bye.
Probably, THE DAO will do much better same work, while we are taking decision.
just die
You can die hard, if you wish!
But my speech was about:
Let's on the end do our FOUNDATION, BUT NOT WILL JUST WAITING FOR RESULT!!!
Crypto-tokens/iota is a different beast but human psychology is still the same. We will probably be in a better place post-launch considering the anticipation of iotas, but even if we get a 5% commitment before launch, I'd be shocked to see 75% of those funders pay up.
You are very optimistic about human nature. In US, the average church goers' donation to church is about 3% of their income while they are supposed to donation 10%. So my estimate is 30% of pledged iota to be actually collected after the official launch. Don't count anything after iota hits the exchanges. That is just the reality. I am not saying there won't be a few people who will 100% honor their promises. but they just can't cover the overall loss.
I doubt that voting will work because most of people won't participate and there is no a good and easy voting mechanism now and we don't have time to wait for them to show up in months.
The best and fairest and easiest way to do this is to create extra 8% to 10% of iotacoins from the genesis before the official launch for the foundation and the deals. No one needs to donate anything any more and we save the uncertainty and hassle to collect the donation. And the cost of creating the extra 8%-10% of iotacoins will be equally and proportionally shared by everyone and everyone can proudly announce that he/she is a part of it and it can guarantee the foundation have enough funds to start with.
The only way that would happen is if it was unanimously voted for, which won't happen, so in my mind it's not even worth entertaining further, which is why we never suggested it either. We want IOTA to be an open source movement with a Foundation that was established by and for the community. Simple as that.
Cancel the ICO .. refund the BTC. Start a new ICO with foundation % and let it run its course.
Too many greedy people in crypto happy to ride on other peoples hard work.
I'm going to fed up with all of this(sorry) and agree with @dasource!
Somebody are working hard, but somebody just waiting for result...
I love IOTA, but I have not clue to step up from this...
Refund our BTC and bye.
Probably, THE DAO will do much better same work, while we are taking decision.
just die
The only way that would happen is if it was unanimously voted for, which won't happen, so in my mind it's not even worth entertaining further, which is why we never suggested it either. We want IOTA to be an open source movement with a Foundation that was established by and for the community. Simple as that.
Cancel the ICO .. refund the BTC. Start a new ICO with foundation % and let it run its course.
Too many greedy people in crypto happy to ride on other peoples hard work.
I'm going to fed up with all of this(sorry) and agree with @dasource!
Somebody are working hard, but somebody just waiting for result...
I love IOTA, but I have not clue to step up from this...
Refund our BTC and bye.
Probably, THE DAO will do much better same work, while we are taking decision.
yeah, refund the btc, who wants 20x ROI and new technology anyway?
/sarcasm
The only way that would happen is if it was unanimously voted for, which won't happen, so in my mind it's not even worth entertaining further, which is why we never suggested it either. We want IOTA to be an open source movement with a Foundation that was established by and for the community. Simple as that.
Cancel the ICO .. refund the BTC. Start a new ICO with foundation % and let it run its course.
Too many greedy people in crypto happy to ride on other peoples hard work.
I'm going to fed up with all of this(sorry) and agree with @dasource!
Somebody are working hard, but somebody just waiting for result...
I love IOTA, but I have not clue to step up from this...
Refund our BTC and bye.
Probably, THE DAO will do much better same work, while we are taking decision.
David,
I am 100% behind your decisions and I think you've made the right call on the issue of not forcing a vote on setting aside funds. However, I must ask that we please consider at least having a short-term period of accepting donations for the foundation post-launch to a foundation address before assessing community health and making any broader decisions regarding the direction of iota.
My few reasons are simple and all of which come from the fickle, relative nature of people when it comes to making pledge commitments.
Specifically, without a place to send funds someone can make a pledge to offer X but, as time goes on, they may forget to make that donation or change their mind on how much they prefer to actually contribute. Even general life circumstances may occur that cause them to backtrack on their decision once it's time to contribute. Ethics aside, this type of behavior will happen and we can't count on those iotas until they materialize.
Furthermore, since many people did offer a verbal agreement to the foundation months ago, they may have checked-out and might not come back for a few months. These people may stand by their commitments but we can't count/expect their iotas if they aren't going to make a deposit for 4-6 months after launch.
Conversely, I think it's easier for the community to rally together when we are seeing concrete goals being met. Yes, Yassin has been doing a stellar job running a spreadsheet with updated pledged totals for the foundation and the deal but those are just numbers on a sheet until they materialize and, for many, that's not motivating. However, if we see the actual fund accumulating we can work together and strategize ways to increase real contributions if we are coming up short.
You can't count the funds you have until you actually have them. For many reasons, earmarked funds may not materialize because we are relying on to many people to step-up to their promises they've made more than a month ago. In fact, considerable research has shown that in pledge-drives most funds are sent immediately after the drive. However, the funds that are not quickly sent after the pledge is made (within, say, 1 week) are very-likely to never materialize. An entire campaign could have tremendous success in the short-term. However, if people have to wait to long to fulfill their committed funds, statistically, they will not materialize.
I've been a part of organizations that have had pledge-drives, I've seen this in action and their is plenty of research on the topic. The best way to bring in the money is to have a way for the people to get the funds to you ASAP. Don't COUNT promises until you see them in the bank. Anything that materializes "later" 1+ months after the pledge, should be considered "icing on the cake" because if people don't fulfill their commitments immediately, they simply won't.
Crypto-tokens/iota is a different beast but human psychology is still the same. We will probably be in a better place post-launch considering the anticipation of iotas, but even if we get a 5% commitment before launch, I'd be shocked to see 75% of those funders pay up.
Ok, that's my $.02. I respect your decisions but I think what I'm outlining is a bit of wisdom based on experience.
I am 100% behind your decisions and I think you've made the right call on the issue of not forcing a vote on setting aside funds. However, I must ask that we please consider at least having a short-term period of accepting donations for the foundation post-launch to a foundation address before assessing community health and making any broader decisions regarding the direction of iota.
My few reasons are simple and all of which come from the fickle, relative nature of people when it comes to making pledge commitments.
Specifically, without a place to send funds someone can make a pledge to offer X but, as time goes on, they may forget to make that donation or change their mind on how much they prefer to actually contribute. Even general life circumstances may occur that cause them to backtrack on their decision once it's time to contribute. Ethics aside, this type of behavior will happen and we can't count on those iotas until they materialize.
Furthermore, since many people did offer a verbal agreement to the foundation months ago, they may have checked-out and might not come back for a few months. These people may stand by their commitments but we can't count/expect their iotas if they aren't going to make a deposit for 4-6 months after launch.
Conversely, I think it's easier for the community to rally together when we are seeing concrete goals being met. Yes, Yassin has been doing a stellar job running a spreadsheet with updated pledged totals for the foundation and the deal but those are just numbers on a sheet until they materialize and, for many, that's not motivating. However, if we see the actual fund accumulating we can work together and strategize ways to increase real contributions if we are coming up short.
You can't count the funds you have until you actually have them. For many reasons, earmarked funds may not materialize because we are relying on to many people to step-up to their promises they've made more than a month ago. In fact, considerable research has shown that in pledge-drives most funds are sent immediately after the drive. However, the funds that are not quickly sent after the pledge is made (within, say, 1 week) are very-likely to never materialize. An entire campaign could have tremendous success in the short-term. However, if people have to wait to long to fulfill their committed funds, statistically, they will not materialize.
I've been a part of organizations that have had pledge-drives, I've seen this in action and their is plenty of research on the topic. The best way to bring in the money is to have a way for the people to get the funds to you ASAP. Don't COUNT promises until you see them in the bank. Anything that materializes "later" 1+ months after the pledge, should be considered "icing on the cake" because if people don't fulfill their commitments immediately, they simply won't.
Crypto-tokens/iota is a different beast but human psychology is still the same. We will probably be in a better place post-launch considering the anticipation of iotas, but even if we get a 5% commitment before launch, I'd be shocked to see 75% of those funders pay up.
Ok, that's my $.02. I respect your decisions but I think what I'm outlining is a bit of wisdom based on experience.
Yes, excellent bit of wisdom. Pledges are just that, pledges, until there is a way to make them realized. Once there is a way to actually send and collect donations you will see the community step up and get the foundation funded.
David,
I am 100% behind your decisions and I think you've made the right call on the issue of not forcing a vote on setting aside funds. However, I must ask that we please consider at least having a short-term period of accepting donations for the foundation post-launch to a foundation address before assessing community health and making any broader decisions regarding the direction of iota.
My few reasons are simple and all of which come from the fickle, relative nature of people when it comes to making pledge commitments.
Specifically, without a place to send funds someone can make a pledge to offer X but, as time goes on, they may forget to make that donation or change their mind on how much they prefer to actually contribute. Even general life circumstances may occur that cause them to backtrack on their decision once it's time to contribute. Ethics aside, this type of behavior will happen and we can't count on those iotas until they materialize.
Furthermore, since many people did offer a verbal agreement to the foundation months ago, they may have checked-out and might not come back for a few months. These people may stand by their commitments but we can't count/expect their iotas if they aren't going to make a deposit for 4-6 months after launch.
Conversely, I think it's easier for the community to rally together when we are seeing concrete goals being met. Yes, Yassin has been doing a stellar job running a spreadsheet with updated pledged totals for the foundation and the deal but those are just numbers on a sheet until they materialize and, for many, that's not motivating. However, if we see the actual fund accumulating we can work together and strategize ways to increase real contributions if we are coming up short.
You can't count the funds you have until you actually have them. For many reasons, earmarked funds may not materialize because we are relying on to many people to step-up to their promises they've made more than a month ago. In fact, considerable research has shown that in pledge-drives most funds are sent immediately after the drive. However, the funds that are not quickly sent after the pledge is made (within, say, 1 week) are very-likely to never materialize. An entire campaign could have tremendous success in the short-term. However, if people have to wait to long to fulfill their committed funds, statistically, they will not materialize.
I've been a part of organizations that have had pledge-drives, I've seen this in action and their is plenty of research on the topic. The best way to bring in the money is to have a way for the people to get the funds to you ASAP. Don't COUNT promises until you see them in the bank. Anything that materializes "later" 1+ months after the pledge, should be considered "icing on the cake" because if people don't fulfill their commitments immediately, they simply won't.
Crypto-tokens/iota is a different beast but human psychology is still the same. We will probably be in a better place post-launch considering the anticipation of iotas, but even if we get a 5% commitment before launch, I'd be shocked to see 75% of those funders pay up.
Ok, that's my $.02. I respect your decisions but I think what I'm outlining is a bit of wisdom based on experience.
I am 100% behind your decisions and I think you've made the right call on the issue of not forcing a vote on setting aside funds. However, I must ask that we please consider at least having a short-term period of accepting donations for the foundation post-launch to a foundation address before assessing community health and making any broader decisions regarding the direction of iota.
My few reasons are simple and all of which come from the fickle, relative nature of people when it comes to making pledge commitments.
Specifically, without a place to send funds someone can make a pledge to offer X but, as time goes on, they may forget to make that donation or change their mind on how much they prefer to actually contribute. Even general life circumstances may occur that cause them to backtrack on their decision once it's time to contribute. Ethics aside, this type of behavior will happen and we can't count on those iotas until they materialize.
Furthermore, since many people did offer a verbal agreement to the foundation months ago, they may have checked-out and might not come back for a few months. These people may stand by their commitments but we can't count/expect their iotas if they aren't going to make a deposit for 4-6 months after launch.
Conversely, I think it's easier for the community to rally together when we are seeing concrete goals being met. Yes, Yassin has been doing a stellar job running a spreadsheet with updated pledged totals for the foundation and the deal but those are just numbers on a sheet until they materialize and, for many, that's not motivating. However, if we see the actual fund accumulating we can work together and strategize ways to increase real contributions if we are coming up short.
You can't count the funds you have until you actually have them. For many reasons, earmarked funds may not materialize because we are relying on to many people to step-up to their promises they've made more than a month ago. In fact, considerable research has shown that in pledge-drives most funds are sent immediately after the drive. However, the funds that are not quickly sent after the pledge is made (within, say, 1 week) are very-likely to never materialize. An entire campaign could have tremendous success in the short-term. However, if people have to wait to long to fulfill their committed funds, statistically, they will not materialize.
I've been a part of organizations that have had pledge-drives, I've seen this in action and their is plenty of research on the topic. The best way to bring in the money is to have a way for the people to get the funds to you ASAP. Don't COUNT promises until you see them in the bank. Anything that materializes "later" 1+ months after the pledge, should be considered "icing on the cake" because if people don't fulfill their commitments immediately, they simply won't.
Crypto-tokens/iota is a different beast but human psychology is still the same. We will probably be in a better place post-launch considering the anticipation of iotas, but even if we get a 5% commitment before launch, I'd be shocked to see 75% of those funders pay up.
Ok, that's my $.02. I respect your decisions but I think what I'm outlining is a bit of wisdom based on experience.
RLH, I strongly agree with your assessment. You've elucidated my thoughts exactly and it put it much better than I could have. David, please take RLH's wise words into consideration.
I appreciate the age old problem of Artist vs Business man. This is just my way of viewing the situation. Your crowdfunding was you "seed" round and the funding of your foundation will be your "Series A" it will happen naturally but lets not walk before we can crawl.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/102015/series-b-c-funding-what-it-all-means-and-how-it-works.asp
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/102015/series-b-c-funding-what-it-all-means-and-how-it-works.asp
Jump to: