Topic: Tau-Chain and Agoras Official Thread: Generalized P2P Network - page 137. (Read 309742 times)

show me one decent tech startup that declared a date to end of funding

Ethereum, counterparty, NXT, Maidsafe etc etc etc. I would increase the percentage of coins kept for the project (besides for the devs) and AS INTEREST grows in the project, i.e. demand, so will the price increase since the supply will be limited. Right now you basically offer unlimited supply+ some previous buyers sell (many times lower than you) and this holds down a healthy supply and demand curve. Ending the ICO will mean that supply becomes limited and since the project progresses, value should increase as not many previous holders will sell anymore + new comers will create demand that with less supply will translate to better value.


but the project won't necessarily have the luxury of not spending the tokens before they reach the moon. we'll adjust the premine (and maybe other settings) in the future when it becomes more relevant
[/quote]

That's why i suggest that you increase the project's share and differentiate between this and your personal coin holdings. for example if the "project" keeps 20% of the final number in an audit-able and transparent fashion it should have sufficient funding for some time and especially if the ETH like scenario plays out-:the ETH foundation now has funding for 5 years. All from the 42 days pre sale. from 14 cents to 11 dollars (no touring complete ofcourse...). If they were continue to sell for 2 years the value would still be 14 cents.

yes, that's the solution indeed


show me one decent tech startup that declared a date to end of funding


but the project won't necessarily have the luxury of not spending the tokens before they reach the moon. we'll adjust the premine (and maybe other settings) in the future when it becomes more relevant

didnt follow every word in the suddenly active thread..

BUT- isnt the simplest solution, especially when Dor returned his coins is to just issue a new coin with 42M and distribute to all current holders other to the thief's account and other than any other account that coins were transferred from the thief's account. If someone else is hurt from this he can write a private to Ohad who is honest and accomodating and will check better this time I am sure.... but the questionable coins are very few now. or maybe this was the solution already...? :-)

Also- the never ending ICO is a detriment to the project. what is the point? announce a final month, get done with it and have newly interested people buy in - in the free market.

since there will only be 10M coins for example after the burn, the value of each will eventually increase and a real market will start including an increased value for the project's funds to be able to finance marketing and maybe more dev's to expedite some issues.

he bought directly from the scammer over the counter, not on bittrex.

ohad
did martinzester returned coins 
if he did then how much coins he returned and how many total coins left

Agreed. Hats off to Dor for this. Mad respect indeed. But I am not aware of any new crowdsale.

A humbling example of integrity.
I'll remember it when Synereo's crowdsale starts.

I think Dor, the CEO of Synereo, has proven his character and moral fiber to us by his actions.  It is nice to know that there are still people who do the right thing regardless of the monetary consequences.  I hope Ohad compensates Dor for his losses.  We all are fortunate that it was Dor who purchased the mass majority of the stolen tokens.

Dor is a good man! Our problems are nearly solved.

most buyers of the coins managed to get them for a considerably lower price than market value .

I and i don't think many other would be opposed to buyers who bought for extremely low prices to keep a small amount of their coins , to cover the cost of their bitcoin losses , at the rate of the actual coins value .

So if someone manage to buy the scammers coins for say 2 btc, but bought , 200,000, them being able to keep 2btc's worth at what the real current market value of agora is or was before the scam .



This helps those out that lost potential bitcoin from the buyer and doesn't affect the market or share of the coin drastically

so as things stand now i think the easy thing to do is to send new tokens to all addresses except the 20.5M, and Dor will return the new tokens when he receives them. same for other bittrex buyers. this will also help us authenticate who actually bought from the dump.

I bought them too and want to return
feeling sad for my loss buying them, ohad pm me plz

Dor is doing the right thing and i salute him for doing so.
If any of the other holders of stolen coins see this, please follow Dor's honorable example and do the right thing as well.

Good news. We can move over now!
---
The project best interest it's to have Tau-Chain ready and inteligently crunching zeroes and ones, not today, not tommorow but yesterday, everyday

That is a great outcome.

Kudos to Dor!

breaking news: Dor is returning to me the 450K. he's doing it voluntarily.

assume we discredit the whole 21M rather only 20.5M (i.e. not sending new tokens also to the 500K holders).
you might claim that this is more justifiable (yet arguable).
but is it good from the *project's* point of view?
what is the project's best interest?

in addition, the 3% premine aren't meant to be mine personally. it is supposed to support the project for the long term (together with the presale funds).

last question: if the 500K were sold in 1% less than the market price (not 90% or so), would still reverting trades involving stolen goods was so important?

I like this idea, but only because it makes sure that Agoras tokens will not be valued less after this incident.
If some are given away it decreases the value of the current holders' coins because some coins are worth "nothing" due to being freely given away.

The principle 'first do no harm' if applied in law gives a framework that provides for desirable long-term positive outcomes. For example the expression, 'we don't negotiate with terrorists' is not beneficial to those held captive, but removes motive for such heinous crimes into the future, saving many more lives and heartbreak. The way that common law has developed over time, is similar with respect to 'receiving stolen goods'. It takes away the ability to profit from such situations by giving the liability for the loss to the receiver of stolen goods. Therefore if we seek 'to do no harm', we seek to enact society's standards of preventing harm now and into the future.

If Ohad was to request all tokens 'received as stolen goods' be returned within seven days, there is legal precedent in the fairness of this action. If Ohad were then to say that though a receiver of stolen goods is to bear the loss in accordance with the laws of our land, however I am prepared to make a goodwill gesture by paying an amount equal to the cost in btc - This would be incredibly generous on Ohad's part. If further to this Ohad was to give a bounty, if returned in seven days, Foerster suggested 15%, then that would be way over and above what anyone could expect as a receiver of stolen goods.

To empower the receiver of stolen goods with a beneficiary interest, has been proven time and again over many centuries in the development of common law to be morally destructive.

Hence should the return of stolen property be done immediately without any further negotiation?

Ohad could choose to reserve some 500,000 tokens or more for potential legal costs, and generous bounties into the future. If these contingency coins are never used, then they are as good as destroyed in effect.

Thereby the way is now made clear to cancel all previous coins, redistributing new coins to only the deserving recipients, leaving out completely the stolen coins, except the contingency coins. This truly fits with the principle 'first do no harm' to the vast body of people involved in countless endeavours.



Disclaimer: these discussions might serve as preparatory thoughts for further discussions with a lawyer. I am in no way giving legal advice; now, beforehand or in the future with regards to any or all input I make. I suggest to seek professional legal advice and treat my comments as entertainment value only.