I have looked at the documents you keep posting, and they actually clarify the situation quite well—though perhaps not in the way you think.
1. The Investment Structure:
You claim we didn’t invest in a BTTF fund, but the documents show otherwise. The BTTF_Listing_Clean.pdf explicitly states this was a BNK TO THE FUTURE MAIDSAFE SP, which is a Segregated Portfolio. In financial terms, this is exactly what an intermediary vehicle is. The Term Sheet even confirms that MaidSafe paid a 5% fee to BnkToTheFuture for raising these funds. We are participants in a BTTF portfolio that holds the shares; we are not listed as individual shareholders on MaidSafe’s own registry.
2. The Promise of Revenue & Legal Liability:
On this point, you are correct. The BTTF_Listing_Clean.pdf clearly describes a business model with 4 revenue streams, including network maintenance fees and licensing in fiat currency.
Regarding the legality: David himself posted on the forum promising these outcomes to induce people to invest through the fund, those statements carry legal weight. In many jurisdictions, ‘Investment Misrepresentation’ doesn’t care if there was a mediator like BTTF. If a founder makes specific factual promises to attract capital and then fundamentally changes the company’s nature, they could potentially be held liable for the pivot.
3. My Personal Stance:
However, this is where we differ. While you feel ‘screwed over,’ I personally do not feel cheated. The world and the technology landscape have changed drastically in the last 9 years. I see these as original goals that became unfeasible due to external shifts, rather than a coordinated scam or an act of bad faith. In fact, if this ever went to a legal dispute, I would personally stand in defense of David. I believe he acted with the intent to fulfill his promises, but reality forced the project to adapt.
No, I claimed I didn’t invest in bttf STOCK. I claimed I purchased maidsafe stock (because I did–via an spv). I did NOT buy bttf stock as many people on this site keep saying, nor did I purchase maidsafe coin as others are saying. I bought maidsafe stock. Period. That is what the document says.
I’m glad we agree on this point, this was my biggest point. That they fundamentally changed the nature of the company we invested in 9 years after our investment, without consulting us. It is also something that @neo and others keep on saying is a lie. It isn’t. It happened.
I’m glad you don’t feel screwed, though I do. But I’m glad we agree on most of the facts. Thats what matters. How it affects us can differ. And I too do think it wasn’t malicious. But I do think it was horribly handled. They could have at least given us the full value of our investment in coins, instead of approximately 1/3
My biggest point is that there shouldn’t be so much debate over what happened, since its a fact. People here seem to be horribly confused. So I’m glad we can agree on the facts.
I understand your point that you didn’t buy BTTF company stock or MaidSafe coins. However, it’s worth looking very closely at the header of the share certificate you are holding.
What exactly does the name of the issuer say at the top of your document?
According to the certificates issued for this round, the issuer is ‘BNK TO THE FUTURE MAIDSAFE SP, a Segregated Portfolio of BnkToTheFuture CAPITAL SPC’.
This is a crucial legal distinction for a few reasons:
The Entity: You own ‘B’ Ordinary shares in that specific Segregated Portfolio (SP), not in ‘MaidSafe Limited’.
The Structure: An SPV (Special Purpose Vehicle) is a separate legal box. You bought the ‘box’ that holds the MaidSafe shares, but you are not a direct shareholder on MaidSafe’s own cap table. MaidSafe sees only one shareholder: the BTTF SPV.
The Records: Because the certificate was issued by BnkToTheFuture CAPITAL SPC, the record of your name, address, and the shares you hold exists only in BTTF’s internal ledger.
If you look at your document again, does it actually list ‘MaidSafe Limited’ as the company in which you hold shares, or does it list the BTTF Segregated Portfolio?
There are countless times that maidsafe could have sunk into the abyss. Shares of nothing, are nothing.
BTTF should also take matters up with Maidsafe, if they feel they, as the actual Maidsafe shareholder, were wronged. I would have expected BTTF to articulate that to the SPV shareholders, if indeed they felt it was the case.
I suspect many companies invested in simply fail, which is why they aren’t pressing. BTTF have liked concluded it was a failed investment and moved on.
Have Maidsafe or BTTF let people down? I suspect Maidsafe hoped to deliver more and sooner, but they are still working away (rather than capitulating). Have BTTF been helpful and supporting of their investors? Imo, no, they have struggled to support people or distribute the tokens Maidsafe provided.
I understand the anger. I’ve lost some money too (thankfully, not life changing). However, I feel some expectations are unrealistic, although I agree that there is an unfairness around the BTTF situation.
We’re saying the same thing. I purchased maidsafe shares via bttf’s spv. I did not (as some very misguided people here keep saying) purchased bttf stock or purchased coins.
Maidsafe offered people to invest in order to receive shares (via bttf spv). they did not offer coins via bttf. They did not offer bttf stock (that just makes absolutely no sense).
We invested in maidsafe via an spv, and then maidsafe did a complete 180 and changed the terms.
The above are all facts. That’s what happened.
Whether investors feel like they got screwed or not is personal. I feel like I did.
But the fact of the matter is that maidsafe completely changed the terms of the investment after the investment was made, without consulting investors.
I’m sorry man, but I think you’re being completely unreasonable. Every company you invest in is selling you a story that they’ll eventually earn more than they are earning now. This is the entire stock market you’re describing. Some companies succeed, others don’t. Some increase in price and some decrease. Some become the magnificent 7, others go broke entirely.
it would not be the first company to go bankrupt just because of changing political environment. Maidsafe could’ve just gone broke, then nobody would’ve said they lied. But because they adapted to try and realize the vision anyway, now all of the sudden they’re liars? That’s not fair man.
I cannot emphasize it enough, I feel for every BTTF investor. The way they’re handling things is not ok, it’s unfair, and I’m keeping my fingers crossed that ANT is going to $25, early investors all sold before $5 already and then the BTTF ANT gets paid out and shareholders are still the ones in the most profit. But please, try to be reasonable towards Maidsafe, they never lied, they never had bad intentions, but they were forced to adapt, and thank Josh they did.
edit: The auto correct made it Josh instead of God
I am not suggesting that our current situation is ideal, but we have to consider the alternative scenario. Suppose MaidSafe had strictly pursued a for-profit model as originally outlined. If the network became successful under that structure, MaidSafe would be directly collecting revenue from every user, regardless of their intent.
If even a fraction of a percent of the network’s data involved illegal or harmful content, David—as the head of a profit-seeking entity—could be held legally liable for ‘profiting’ from criminal activity. This would likely lead to severe legal consequences or imprisonment, which would inevitably cause the company and the token value to collapse.
In my view, the shift away from a direct revenue model wasn’t just a business change; it was a necessary pivot to protect the project’s creator and its long-term viability from legal risks that simply didn’t exist in the same way nine years ago.
But but but… any examples of for-profit going non-profit, willingly destroying shareholder value, and the shareholders not screaming “scammed” or “screwed”?
The person is solving nothing, but I would say they are not unreasonable. Quite the opposite. If anything, they have earned the right to complain and they execute it well.
I totally understand that some community members have concerns about historical share offerings and token exchanges from MaidSafe’s earlier funding rounds.
These are legitimate concerns for those affected.
However, these issues are not related to the Autonomi 2.0 network
launching in a few weeks. They involve historical fundraising structures
that are being addressed separately.
To keep the forum focused on building Autonomi 2.0 and to avoid
creating FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) for new community members, can i suggest these discussions be moved to a private “Historical Issues” section or whatever.
Why this would make sense
New visitors see Autonomi 2.0’s potential, not historical complaints
Those with legitimate concerns can still discuss privately
Community energy focuses on what’s launching, not what was
Regulatory/legal discussions should happen in appropriate context
Let’s build the future we’ve been waiting for.
Historical issues matter to those affected, including myself.
But they shouldn’t define the front page.
I honestly feel they have the right to complain, I really do. And I cannot emphasize enough how much I feel for them. They’re complaining at the wrong place though and it feels like they continue to hide behind the fact that they didn’t do their own due diligence. If someone said invest through BTTF, even if that’s the president of the US (wrong example maybe? ), they should still do their own research and see if they trust BTTF. They did at the time, the political environment changed and so did BTTF and some of the companies they hold shares in.
So, in my honest opinion, they should complain at BTTF about their holding structure that is holding shares of Maidsafe the company. That holding should’ve complained at the time the board decided to change the company. If they had no voting power, that’s what everyone investing through BTTF signed up for. If they had voting power, they should’ve used it, and if it didn’t help, the majority of the shareholders were fine with it.
Would be even better if we could get them to understand the best they can do now is support the project despite all its caveats so perhaps one day the token moons/rockets and hopefully heals all the financial hurt.
I understand your perspective on ‘due diligence,’ but there are a few fundamental points that need to be addressed regarding the history of this project:
The Survival of the Project: It is important to remember that Autonomi exists today largely thanks to the roughly 200 individuals who purchased shares through BnkToTheFuture (BTTF). Without that specific capital injection at that critical time, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation today.
Trust in the Founder: While BTTF was the technical vehicle, our trust was placed directly in David. When people here asked why they should buy shares through BTTF instead of buying tokens directly, David himself explained that shareholders would receive more tokens in the long run based on the revenue streams outlined in the prospectus—such as the 5% network maintenance fee. We didn’t invest because we ‘trusted BTTF’; we acted on the guidance of the founder.
The Moral Obligation: While the legal structure (the SPV) means we don’t have direct voting power, it doesn’t absolve the project of its moral obligations. We know exactly what was promised in the BTTF listing: a revenue-generating model that has since been altered.
Personal Stance: To be honest, this investment has left a bitter taste in my mouth. However, despite the financial loss, I personally support the path the project has taken. I will continue to defend David against any accusations of bad faith or malicious intent, as I believe the pivot was driven by necessity, not dishonesty.
A Note on Mutual Respect: Finally, I would appreciate it if we could move past the narrative that those of us who invested through BTTF were somehow ‘foolish’ or lacked due diligence. We made a choice to support the project’s survival based on the information and leadership at the time, and that contribution deserves respect, not condescension.
They deserve all the respect in the world, you’re right, without them the project wouldn’t exist anymore. But that counts for almost everyone here. What about the people who loaned Maidsafe 10 million MAID. What about the people that bought every dip in the last 20 years that Maidsafe relied on. What about the people that made ERC20 happen, what about the people running the community forum, what about the people helping technically. Everyone has contributed in their own way, and up until now, everyone is probably at a loss. So I’m not saying I don’t respect the people that invested through BTTF, but they’re the loudest while in the grand scheme of things it’s currently worth $300k and a few months ago only $60k.
That I agree on, and sorry if it came across as condescending. It was only intended as a simple reminder that at the early stages of crypto, a lot of people where promised rainbows and unicorns and some got rich while some got left behind. Not (just) because of bad intend, but because of the ever changing environment.
For what it’s worth. I would support it if @Bux would already use some of the unused emissions to pay out (or “reward” whatever fits legally) shareholders of the emission pool and stop spending time chasing BTTF, if they ever pay out, congrats, the shareholders got a bonus. It would probably be 10x more efficient than the endless back and forwards, negativity and time/energy consumed from both community and team members.
Scammed again. Oh well. A good lesson to learn. Glad I learned it on 500 quid or whatever I paid. Remember not your keys not your money. I remember thinking a similar thing about the BrewDog equities scheme. Not sure why I didn’t see through the scam on this one. Probably too close to the dream of this project which is another good lesson to learn when investing.
), they should still do their own research and see if they trust BTTF. They did at the time, the political environment changed and so did BTTF and some of the companies they hold shares in.