Topic: This message was too old and has been purged - page 8. (Read 12669 times)

Most people don't, but when being realistic, most coins do need a small premine to pay contributors and get promotion going. The problem of course is when a premine is like 20-50% of the coin, not some minor percentage.

Besides, a premine in ICO-land is somewhat different than in a traditional coin. As already stated, if we pretend you put some of your own BTC into ELC, then turn around and offer Dazza (or any dev) that ELC for his help, that is the equivalent to a premine. It all gets muddled when talking about ICOs.

I'm not saying you should do this, or change any ICO terms. But Dazza has a point... unless you use BTC for payouts, it's not as easy without ELC set aside.

I should point out that I mostly agree with you by the way. A small premine set aside for giveaways, promotion, marketing, testing and so on does make sense. But again, it wasn't in the original ICO terms, hence why it's not so easy to do at this point.

As for other devs contributing to the coin down the road, I assume they will be paid in BTC, so that part may be easy to take care of. Paying in ELC would be the tricky part.

sure.

all i want is that he and his team can deliver whatever promised.   

I do not agree that I have been asking him to do evil.  But I accept that his decision has been made, and that it is final.  We will have to live with the consequences, good or bad.

Because it's exactly what he said he wouldn't do ... back when we were discussing ways to exploit an ICO.

If a dev buys his own coin like that, he gets both the BTC and ELC. And yes, he can then use the ELC to donate to contributors (as it's like a premine at that point), but it also lowers the proportion of coins all other investors get ... such as if 2.5M are sold to investors, 2.5M bought by dev, it's equivalent to a 50% premine. And ideally that BTC that goes from left to right pocket is spent to further the project, but it's not exactly something easy to verify.

And that said, it's not necessarily a bad idea for a dev to have a small premine set aside to pay out contributors and for promo purposes. I don't think may people have an issue with that.

But to be exact, I was replying to Cyberhacker's statement that it was easy for the dev buy ALL of the remaining coin. That is the part that isn't so good... you don't want a dev buying too much of his own coin like that.

Why not?  It's his ELC, paid for out of his own pocket.  Why should he not do with it whatever he likes, just as you and I can do whatever we like with ours?

He can't do whatever he likes with the BTC that's gone into the right pocket.  He can only spend that to further the project.  All expenditure should be transparent and he should account to the community for his decisions.

ANY ICO play that trick, but ELC didn't.

Evil is honest and make it clear rule will not be changed. if there is only 2 million sold, there will be only 2 million in circulation.

That is what i understand from above statement.

I think we should not waste time on this since there is no clue that dev do evil, we would better not ask him to do.

And I hope you realize that isn't a good thing.

I think you misunderstood what I was getting at. If coins were set aside or the unsold were used for contribution purposes, it wouldn't be a proportional rate anymore... or at least the proportion outlined in the current ICO.

I was just stating to Dazza that you couldn't do what he was suggesting, without restarting things. Simple as that, no need to get defensive or act like I am harping on a restart. I get it, you don't want to restart or change any of the ICO terms ... so was just pointing out why what he suggested wouldn't work.

I would love to see bigger Proportion for risk takers

good. we would like to see team page on the website, if possible.

If It is necessary to reserve the left-over ELC for fund pool of future development.  It would be quite easy that Dev buy all the remaining, BTC is going from left to right pocket. and the ELC bought by dev can be distributed as He wants.

just saying.

do not change rules, do not reorgnize crowdfunding.

the crowdfunding window is long enough.

If he does any of that, he might as well just refund everyone, and restart the entire ICO and organize things in a more professional manner.

What you suggest is too major a change to just sort of slip in to the existing ICO. In your first scenario, he could end up with a huge amount of extra coins, equivalent to a giant premine. What if he sells 2M coins and is leftover with 3M? No investor would be happy with that. I'm not so sure any investor would be happy if even 1M was leftover.

hmmm.

rules will be changed?

It's easy to be honest when you're anonymous.

You don't need to.  It's sufficient to offer people their money back.

I understand the need for reliability, but I think the current circumstances are quite exceptional.  You have just taken over a dog's breakfast of a project.  Nobody will blame you for making the necessary changes now.

You have a short window of opportunity to get it right.  The alternative is to be reliably wrong.


Absolutely.  But what are you going to do if another brilliant developer turns up, who, like me, has no BTC to invest, or who arrives after the crowdfund is sold out?  How is he going to be able to profit from the success he will be helping to create?  You could give him bitcoin, but he wants ELC.  What are you going to do?  Give him some of your own personal stash?  You've already offered to give half of it to me.  What about alpha testers and beta testers?  They're also going to be contributing to the success of the project.  And no doubt many other people in capacities I cannot even think of.

The crowdfunding is structured to reward one and only one class of contributor to the project: investors.  Everyone else is left out in the cold.

If you cannot change the 5,000,000 ELC limit, then at least declare that there will be 5,000,000 ELC, and that any left over from the crowdsourcing will be used to reward other contributors at your discretion.  If you want to exclude yourself as a possible beneficiary, that's fine.  I would also reserve 1,000,000 of those ELC for this purpose, limiting the crowdfund to the remaining 4,000,000.

Dazza, you made me smile.  I appreciate your honesty which us hard to come by in the crypto world.

Since I've been using the pronoun "we", I guess in my own mind, I already have.  I should inform you, though, that I am temperamentally more suited to being a roadie than a band member.

I am Asperger's syndrome, I have borderline personality disorder, and bipolar disorder.  These are all formally diagnosed, though one Doctor has opined that I am "not as borderline as I used to be".  I think that's correct.  At the moment, I'm manic.

I also have sloooowww-motion ADD (self-diagnosed).  It's not that I lack attention, it's that my attention is so totally focussed on one think* that nothing else gets a look in.  This is my new bright shiny ball.  I could sit staring at it for weeks, months, or even years, but eventually I will lose interest.  It's not that I don't want to commit.  It's that I can't commit.  I know myself too well.

*The typo is so appropriate that I've decided to leave it.

I would not consider a future straight 20 for 1 split to be a breach of the current crowd-funding covenant, but I recommend against it now to avoid confusion.  Let's leave that for when liquidity actually does become an issue.

I think we are aiming at general-purpose computing.  If it is a task that can be performed by a computer, then we can do that task for you.  But there will be several caveats.

First, as I envisage things, you will need source code, since applications will need to be specially compiled with a compiler which we will provide.  Initially only one programming language will be available.  I'm sure others will join it over time.

Second, "my scheme" for the PoW function which EK and I have been discussing, has an aspect which hasn't been discussed at all so far.  It will vastly add to the storage requirement in the blockchain.  Essentially the entire data-segment of the program that wins the block will need to be stored in order to be able to verify the block.  Consequently we may have to limit the size of that data-segment.  Since I am now convinced that "my scheme" is unworkable and we will have to find a different solution, I don't think this will be an issue, though of course the individual nodes will have their own memory and storage restrictions.

Third your data will be made available at the very least to a large bunch of random people, and probably to the entire general public.  So while it might be possible for us to process your company payroll, it would be neither legal, ethical, nor sensible for you to use it for that purpose.