I wonder how you would increase the value of token without ICO. Well, few project has proven thy could do that... let's just put aside.
Even it's not for speculation, you will need to list the token on exchange anyway. So if you hold 50% of token, it will give a bad view for users or traders. They will think you may sell your reserved token whenever you need money or the price is getting pumped hard which you couldn't resist once it get listed on exchange. Or.. maybe you won't list your token on exchanges? I doubt that.
The value increase comes from the utility burn. Did you understand what I ment by 1 cycle, 20 cycles, 100 cycles? The more the platform is used, the more tokens burn, after say 20 cycles, AKA the market cap burnings 20 times, theres only 20% of the total supply left. If everything stays the same (no dumps, no pumps), this is a 5x increase in value. Also if price dumps, tokens burn faster as users are using USD as a reference, so if price dumps from $1 to say 0.1, users are just going to charge 10 instead of 1.
The 50% ops will be vested over 2 years (maybe 3). The point is this is not a speculative token off an idea without execution. This is an executed product that needs a market stimulus to get users more engaged in it and create a free market.
Where "tokens to burn" comes from? Is it from transaction made by users only or also from portion you will be holding (50%)? The idea of burn token is good to increase its value, but for long-term it could be bad as token price will be so high and people can't afford to buy it unless the product is pegged on dollar.
It doesn't matter how long you vest the token but the portions is too much.
The token burns comes from smart contract resolutions, always incurred by the sending side, this would be for the various transactions in the market place. Ex: Token is trading 1:$1, Bob locks up 108 tokens for his campaign at a rate of 0.1$ per hour per viewer, Alice takes the contract and starts streaming to Twitch.tv, she gathers an audience of 1000 viewers which holds for 1 hour, you should read how NEAR Protocol Oracles work for this part but, lets just say, oracles resolve every minute taking a screenshot of the stream + live viewer count. Bob goes thru the minute segments and confirms indeed Alice was streaming "The FalconX Strikes Back" and the viewer count is accurate. 108 tokens release, 8% burns, 92% goes to Alice, she gets 99.36 tokens.
People do not need to buy 1 token in the future, after a lot of burns 0.001 would be sufficient for the same value, just like before 1 btc was around $5, now you are fine knowing 0.0005 BTC is 5$ and perhaps just reference BTC prices in sats. This isn't an affordability problem, just go down a few decimal places and the platform works exactly the same.
I do not see how this is a problem.
Are you aware of how many "decentralized video platforms" exist right now? Why on earth would people be interested in what you haven't yet developed when they have Antonio Banderas and Johnny Depp aligning themselves with projects like Tatatu? Unless you have boatloads of money or the next Einstein, your idea won't succeed.
This type of project is needing good amount of money not just in setting it up, getting good people to man the project and then making sure that the project can get on the ground by promoting it to get people to use it. Remember that YouTube was not profitable for many years until such time that it already exploded and establish the name in that industry. Now, if the project can target like a niche and can offer unique selling propositions then why not? Go for it and make a crowdsale for the project...and I am hoping the project can gain some share in an overcrowded market.
If you look at stats what make a successful company, you will be surprised funding is not first on the list. It is superseeded by market timing/readiness, execution and team.
The market is actually quite barren and only warming up. Its literary dominated by 1 company, Twitch.tv which is owned by Amazon. The race is on to establish a foothold in the market.
Are you aware of how many "decentralized video platforms" exist right now? Why on earth would people be interested in what you haven't yet developed when they have Antonio Banderas and Johnny Depp aligning themselves with projects like Tatatu? Unless you have boatloads of money or the next Einstein, your idea won't succeed.
This type of project is needing good amount of money not just in setting it up, getting good people to man the project and then making sure that the project can get on the ground by promoting it to get people to use it. Remember that YouTube was not profitable for many years until such time that it already exploded and establish the name in that industry. Now, if the project can target like a niche and can offer unique selling propositions then why not? Go for it and make a crowdsale for the project...and I am hoping the project can gain some share in an overcrowded market.
That's what I have been thinking as well. What about the competition? How does this platform theoretically differ from the likes of Twitch? Okay yeah, centralization is one, but the way streamers and the platform makes any money is through viewers, how does OP wish to get viewers? What about Play2live, Theta token, Livepeer etc?
Itl come down to execution. If you go to Play2Live, even tho they raised 30m dollars, their beta page says this:
https://i.imgur.com/OC0xaSf.pngWtf? Does this even work. Livepeer is more just video transcoding and rebroadcasting, using a VERY complex staking model build on Ethereum. Using Livepeer youl burn a crapload of money on GAS. So the platform I do not see how it can work at scale on Ethereum.
Again execution, raising money is good, people have done it. But where is the execution / product?
Hence why I am focusing on the burn approach. This is no BS, and we are not looking to raise 30m dollars to not build anything or just start building. So far only dlive.tv is kinda close to what we are.
