Reading this board always boils my blood. Why does it always have to be devs and the technical community vs lazy, greedy, speculators. It pisses me off because i don't consider myself ether of them. Im just a non technical guy that liked the project, could see its potential and invested my hard earned money. You clearly added a topic on the forum asking people to donate money to the foundation, thats cool. Its just unprofessional to change the terms and start taxing people already.
Now im a patient guy and am happy to wait as long as it takes for the project to get off the ground. I would rather you guys take your time and get it right the first time but why are average Joes like me made to feel like he has done something wrong just for investing in the project, the best thing i could of done for this project was to invest my hard earned money is that not good enough! There is only confusion and ambiguity when things are not clearly defined so whos fault is that!!!
When we got that simple little update the other day it alleviated a lot of the uncertainty for me so thank you for that.
From what i can gather you guys are doing a great job, keep it up.
Topic: IOTA - page 561. (Read 1473233 times)
give people the right to be greedy and they'll make use of their ability to be generous,
force them to be generous and they'll take every chance to be greedy.
thanks for sticking to your contract.
force them to be generous and they'll take every chance to be greedy.
thanks for sticking to your contract.
I think those are wise words. I believe people will donate adequately once an address to send to is made available. The foundation will be funded.
Some people might get motivated by the fear of failure "do or die" type of thinking but, personally, I'd be willing to donate more if I knew exactly how the funds were going to be used and I could see the funding goals gradually being met. Even a task-based funding campaign might be a decent idea where people can send to different addresses depending on which task/objective they consider the most important. Just an idea.
Ether way, I think transparency would be valued by the community so people know what they're donating towards. I don't think you'll have any trouble convincing people to donate as long as you can make it clear (in writing and visually) what the funds are necessary for and how the funding is progressing towards shared goals.
rlh took the words out of my mouth too.
It is impossible to know what kind of numbers you will see donated until that final UI is out and the donation address is filling up with coin.
The spreadsheet can help give you a steer, but there is a reasonable chance it will be wildly inaccurate, one way or the other.
I'm personally down for about 7% to deal with btc raised from it going to the foundation. It is quite possible I will donate another 3-7% to the foundation, but that will in part depend on my situation and level of interest and confidence in the project when the final UI is out and the address is there in front of me for me to send to. I'm only a very small investor, but I'm sure the same will be true in varying degrees for everybody who holds a stake.
You never know, just through self-interest you might find many of us donate 20% or more if we feel the project might fail unless we do... we also won't feel that pressure until we see the address not filling up fast enough, and david and cfb start reminding those of us following the project that our investment will go to zero if we don't give more.
That UI that people keep saying doesn't matter really does imo. Not just for this reason but also to drive interest in the ecosystem as more people become invested in it and to improve distribution post-donation (obv donation needs to be done before it goes on exchanges or you'll get much less lol).
It is impossible to know what kind of numbers you will see donated until that final UI is out and the donation address is filling up with coin.
The spreadsheet can help give you a steer, but there is a reasonable chance it will be wildly inaccurate, one way or the other.
I'm personally down for about 7% to deal with btc raised from it going to the foundation. It is quite possible I will donate another 3-7% to the foundation, but that will in part depend on my situation and level of interest and confidence in the project when the final UI is out and the address is there in front of me for me to send to. I'm only a very small investor, but I'm sure the same will be true in varying degrees for everybody who holds a stake.
You never know, just through self-interest you might find many of us donate 20% or more if we feel the project might fail unless we do... we also won't feel that pressure until we see the address not filling up fast enough, and david and cfb start reminding those of us following the project that our investment will go to zero if we don't give more.
That UI that people keep saying doesn't matter really does imo. Not just for this reason but also to drive interest in the ecosystem as more people become invested in it and to improve distribution post-donation (obv donation needs to be done before it goes on exchanges or you'll get much less lol).
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.
I agree with rlh, pledges are hypothetical funds, and there's no guarantee you'll ever see that amount.
But, if you setup a foundation fund raising campaign post launch with a set deadline, people can track the amounts raised, and the community gets motivated, especially as the deadline gets closer. Nothing is theoretical with this, all funds raised are in the bank, and people can see clearly what's going on, and judge for themselves the likely success or failure of the fund raising, plus it generates interest and exposure.
That's what project Tennessee did with their fundraising, and it worked a treat! As the deadline got closer, and it looked like their 10M NXT target might not be reached a big holder got motivated and pushed it over the line in one go. The donation below to TNNSE was worth 2M NXT at the time, or 20% of the target, and it came in the last few days when it looked like the target might not be reached. Nothing was theoretical, and the implications of failure were obviously sufficient motivation for Aldrin to donate.
IOTA could follow the same plan as TNNSE did!
AWESOME NEWS!!
Aldrin has just donated 20,000 InstantDEX for sale for TNSSE.
His conditions for sale are the following:
- The price is 100 NXT per asset.
- We do the sale strictly OTC.
- We will reserve the NXT into TNSSE in the name of the buyer, who will then receive his TNSSE part once the TNSSE are released.
- We are selling the Assets on a first-come-first-served basis based on offers in this thread!
Assets are already in my account: NXT-D6K7-MLY6-98FM-FLL5T
This donation donation comes from parties involved with InstantDEX and jl777, and therefore SuperNET.
Please put offers in the thread if you want to buy AND support!
Aldrin has just donated 20,000 InstantDEX for sale for TNSSE.
His conditions for sale are the following:
- The price is 100 NXT per asset.
- We do the sale strictly OTC.
- We will reserve the NXT into TNSSE in the name of the buyer, who will then receive his TNSSE part once the TNSSE are released.
- We are selling the Assets on a first-come-first-served basis based on offers in this thread!
Assets are already in my account: NXT-D6K7-MLY6-98FM-FLL5T
This donation donation comes from parties involved with InstantDEX and jl777, and therefore SuperNET.
Please put offers in the thread if you want to buy AND support!
ElectriCChain: Chain of Things / IOTA / SolarCoin Demo in London June 1, 2016
Tweeted!! https://twitter.com/MagicNxt/status/733796089321639936
Good Night!!
Yes, Yassin has been doing a stellar job running a spreadsheet with updated pledged totals for the foundation and the deal...
Thanks!! I totally agree with this.
If I could suggest something, it is (if already possible) the creation of an IOTA address to receive donations towards the foundation funding. Anyone using "Nostalgia" would be possible to send whatever amount he wishes to donate. If the "minimum" balance is reached, CfB will possibly be able to assure that it will be still valid in the "definitive" tangle.
(no technical knowledge, from my part. I am only saying what makes sense for me, but I might be talking nonsense)
For moment IOTA is not stable, but it is very soon Step By Step!! If I could suggest something, it is (if already possible) the creation of an IOTA address to receive donations towards the foundation funding. Anyone using "Nostalgia" would be possible to send whatever amount he wishes to donate. If the "minimum" balance is reached, CfB will possibly be able to assure that it will be still valid in the "definitive" tangle.
(no technical knowledge, from my part. I am only saying what makes sense for me, but I might be talking nonsense)
When all is good, a promise is a promise and it is golden!!
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.
+1 wise words rlh. And even the widely broken an inactive Nxt Community was able to donate 10 Million for the Marketing 22 Months AFTER launch. So don't make any community fund before having 5% at an Excel list helps no one.
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.
I totally agree with this.
If I could suggest something, it is (if already possible) the creation of an IOTA address to receive donations towards the foundation funding. Anyone using "Nostalgia" would be possible to send whatever amount he wishes to donate. If the "minimum" balance is reached, CfB will possibly be able to assure that it will be still valid in the "definitive" tangle.
(no technical knowledge, from my part. I am only saying what makes sense for me, but I might be talking nonsense)
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.
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.
Is there an estimate of how many users are involved in IOTA at this point?
An exact number is hard to give, but hundreds are directly involved through crowdsale and acquiring IOTA post-sale. Outside of that there's quite a lot of things going on behind the scenes that make a lot of people indirectly involved.
Why in the initial crowdsale, the foundation was never talked about, and now seems to be a do-or-die situation?
Why is it 5% or nothing?
Fair question, I'll try to elucidate the position:
The Foundation was *always* in the roadmap and I think we even started talking about it while crowdsale was still on, but it was not priority number 1. Priority number 1 back then was sorting out the crowdsale, writing the code, getting testing up etc. To me the foundation has always been a key to success. This is why I initiated both the Nxt Foundation and Organization back in Nxt, but Nxt was too far gone in my opinion to ever be able to shift it. Given prior experience we had not really anticipated that it would be hard at all to set it up with community support pre-launch, since it is in the interest of the community. It's a no-brainer no matter what your interest in IOTA is. IOTA the tech will still exist no matter what, and that is what we created IOTA for, it's a solution to real problems facing projects that require distributed ledgers, but more importantly; IoT itself. But if the current IOTA community want to be part of this, they need to understand that this does not happen on its own. I have been very clear on this issue since day 1.
As for why 5% it is the lower limit of what travelling the world, attending conferences, paying salaries etc. will cost. To put into perspective: Ethereum raised 18 million dollars and set aside 17% premine, and still almost bankrupted a couple of times due to lack of funds. It's not cheap to do all the stuff that is required for the tech to get adoption, even when you got the code.
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.
I am still hopeful that we can reach the 5% target pre-launch, but now that we're closing in it's an urgent matter, which is why I am pushing the issue. The Foundation I am initiating will only happen pre-launch or it won't happen at all, I say this because I know from years experience in this very field how this works. I don't believe for a second that we'll see a lot of donations post-launch of IOTA on exchanges. There's no way someone will buy at a 20-30x ICO price and then feel like donating when there's still people who made this 30x profit who isn't. I have NEVER seen that happen in my 4 years in crypto and do not expect it to happen now either.
Humans are simple mammals, once people mentally attach a value to their tokens (always happens, it killed Nxt and stalled Bitcoin for years), things stop progressing. So this is a 'now or never' for me.
Several of the large companies I am in touch with is open for funding the foundation after we run out our funding in the future and we're actively in talks with them regarding being official members of the foundation, but that requires that we first get it off the ground. This is real life business, not crypto nonsense. People need to start accepting that IOTA is not some random crypto project, it's a genuine IoT standard movement which aims to be a solution in the real world, with real world deployment and utility from start.
I am still hopeful that we can reach the 5% target pre-launch, but now that we're closing in it's an urgent matter, which is why I am pushing the issue. The Foundation I am initiating will only happen pre-launch or it won't happen at all, I say this because I know from years experience in this very field how this works. I don't believe for a second that we'll see a lot of donations post-launch of IOTA on exchanges. There's no way someone will buy at a 20-30x ICO price and then feel like donating when there's still people who made this 30x profit who isn't. I have NEVER seen that happen in my 4 years in crypto and do not expect it to happen now either.
Humans are simple mammals, once people mentally attach a value to their tokens (always happens, it killed Nxt and stalled Bitcoin for years), things stop progressing. So this is a 'now or never' for me.
Several of the large companies I am in touch with is open for funding the foundation after we run out our funding in the future and we're actively in talks with them regarding being official members of the foundation, but that requires that we first get it off the ground. This is real life business, not crypto nonsense. People need to start accepting that IOTA is not some random crypto project, it's a genuine IoT standard movement which aims to be a solution in the real world, with real world deployment and utility from start.
Why in the initial crowdsale, the foundation was never talked about, and now seems to be a do-or-die situation?
Why is it 5% or nothing?
I'm against taking anything from ICO investors prior to launch and I think it would have very negative effects on the perception of Iota (more FUD ammo) I do believe we can hit the Foundation goals with community funding and I'm planning to donate more than 5% of my stake to Foundation. What many are underestimating are donations from people that join our community after they buy IOTA on an exchange.
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.
I am still hopeful that we can reach the 5% target pre-launch, but now that we're closing in it's an urgent matter, which is why I am pushing the issue. The Foundation I am initiating will only happen pre-launch or it won't happen at all, I say this because I know from years experience in this very field how this works. I don't believe for a second that we'll see a lot of donations post-launch of IOTA on exchanges. There's no way someone will buy at a 20-30x ICO price and then feel like donating when there's still people who made this 30x profit who isn't. I have NEVER seen that happen in my 4 years in crypto and do not expect it to happen now either.
Humans are simple mammals, once people mentally attach a value to their tokens (always happens, it killed Nxt and stalled Bitcoin for years), things stop progressing. So this is a 'now or never' for me.
Several of the large companies I am in touch with is open for funding the foundation after we run out our funding in the future and we're actively in talks with them regarding being official members of the foundation, but that requires that we first get it off the ground. This is real life business, not crypto nonsense. People need to start accepting that IOTA is not some random crypto project, it's a genuine IoT standard movement which aims to be a solution in the real world, with real world deployment and utility from start.
Oh okay, wasn't sure if this was a serious proposal or not. Anyway, I agree with you in that I'm very confident we can get the Foundation to 5%.
I'm against taking anything from ICO investors prior to launch and I think it would have very negative effects on the perception of Iota (more FUD ammo) I do believe we can hit the Foundation goals with community funding and I'm planning to donate more than 5% of my stake to Foundation. What many are underestimating are donations from people that join our community after they buy IOTA on an exchange.
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.
I am still hopeful that we can reach the 5% target pre-launch, but now that we're closing in it's an urgent matter, which is why I am pushing the issue. The Foundation I am initiating will only happen pre-launch or it won't happen at all, I say this because I know from years experience in this very field how this works. I don't believe for a second that we'll see a lot of donations post-launch of IOTA on exchanges. There's no way someone will buy at a 20-30x ICO price and then feel like donating when there's still people who made this 30x profit who isn't. I have NEVER seen that happen in my 4 years in crypto and do not expect it to happen now either.
Humans are simple mammals, once people mentally attach a value to their tokens (always happens, it killed Nxt and stalled Bitcoin for years), things stop progressing. So this is a 'now or never' for me.
Several of the large companies I am in touch with is open for funding the foundation after we run out our funding in the future and we're actively in talks with them regarding being official members of the foundation, but that requires that we first get it off the ground. This is real life business, not crypto nonsense. People need to start accepting that IOTA is not some random crypto project, it's a genuine IoT standard movement which aims to be a solution in the real world, with real world deployment and utility from start.
I'm against taking anything from ICO investors prior to launch and I think it would have very negative effects on the perception of Iota (more FUD ammo) I do believe we can hit the Foundation goals with community funding and I'm planning to donate more than 5% of my stake to Foundation. What many are underestimating are donations from people that join our community after they buy IOTA on an exchange.
Jump to: