As neo pointed out, the team already said a further share sale would be done.
1 Like
Where are these ‘extra’ coins that you mention, where have they come from? Do you mean the extra coins that were created during the ICO? Is it not the coins mentioned in this Medium article?
I thought these have been sold to market already?
Would be fantastic in Maidsafe never actually sold these and they are still held!
3 Likes
Yep, the team has in many cases already said something, and then something else happens. Nothing wrong with that, on the contrary, it’s what keeps them in tune with current situation at any given time. They have shown to be good at it.
So I would say that is neither a very good argument, nor actually a mutually exclusive course of action.
I didn’t know of it, just picked up what @riddim mentioned above.
I would see ways to do it regardless. I mean, it’s a placeholder token, there’s plenty of technical solutions to that.
2 Likes
Some have, most of them actually over the last while. Very slowly but essentially.
8 Likes
@oetyng, somebody has to buy the new offering, no? Who is going to buy it knowing how the old investors were treated after years of patience and unwavering support?
A workable alternative would be to do what you suggest, but only with a 1.5x to 2x increase in the number of safecoins that one maid token was originally owed all without increasing total supply.
2 Likes
I would very much support that if it is needed, when reaching Alpha Flemming would be a good time to leverage that proposition.
Let’s keep options open and be prepared to which solution would be best when that time comes.
1 Like
Sure, that is one way to see it. That’s why I’m saying that we actually collectively decide on treating ourselves this way. That is the sacrifice. It’s not MaidSafe treating the investors bad, it’s the investors manning up and taking some responsibility for the project.
This idea of sitting idle by the sidelines to eventually rake in the big bucks… if that doesn’t bring us to the finish line, why stick to that complacent attitude? (Not saying you have it, I mean generally.)
I mean who for real thinks a big important project doesn’t need any sacrifice? Who’s supposed to do it? Someone else?
The main point though, is that it is a short term sacrifice, for a long term gain.
2 Likes
But this isn’t how any of this work. Surely you know that. If investors actually had board seats, then you can ask such a think of them. Would the company be open to that kind of oversight? I can point to many posts on this forum reminding anyone who dares question management decision that they have no right. You can’t ask investors to sacrifice when convenient yet ask them to shut up (not you, but some on here) when inconvenient.
I’m saying that as a late comer who didn’t invest in the ICO and whose interest in the network is for building purpose. I can only imagine how many who actually invested in the ICO must feel.
This is a bad proposal without some carrots to the investors, not promises, real carrots today.
3 Likes
It doesn’t have to be VCSs. It could be a larger company wanting to acquire maidsafe, to get a head start in the crypto space.
They would potentially fund the team indefinitely and give them plenty of scope to continue with their ambitions, as long as they complimented the owning companies.
For example, Netflix would have a lot to gain by acquiring Maidsafe. Netflix would then have a platform to distribute content on and a large presence in the space. It would be a competitor for Facebook coin, for example. It would remove their dependency on large data centre providers, etc.
There are win/win options out there and I suspect discussions happen with other parties more regularly than many realise.
I see that, but that to me is a new project.
It is not David Irvine’s or MaidSafe’s project at that time.
Sure, if you want GoogleSAFENetwork or NetflixSAFENetwork go ahead.
But that money does not come without strings attached.
You want someone else to pay, but do you realize what you give up?
We are the supporters that rallied around this idea. If we pay, it is for this vision.
If Netflix pays, it is for their vision.
3 Likes
In such case it would probabaly be bettetr to target for example tech companies that want to keep their tech secrets from espionage, Intel, AMD, BMW, Samsung or others similar. They would not be as much interested in controlling the Network development because their needs is to secure data.
1 Like
Whatever it takes to get to launch is the be all and end all. Just trying to get some clarity on the funding situation, and that hopefully everyone else can get on the same page too.
I would guess there are a large amount of the 5 million maidsafecoins put aside for bounties, community building etc still left? Hopefully this is the case, as that is not a negligible amount and could be put to great use the closer we get to a launch. To help grow the community and get some new eyes on the project would be the best use of it.
2 Likes
Well yeah, as said before, any idea should be tested here, and many things could be discussed and executed in parallel.
But I don’t agree.with your assumption that trust would disappear when we ask MaidSafe to let us pay for their continuance of the project.
We are the important ones. The rest of the world doesn’t know about us, much less give a damn.
If we want this, we chip in.
1 Like
A good trade is where both parties benefit. Selling a business is no different.
If goals align, the acquirer gets a business, any IP, etc. The company being acquired gets funded and can continue to work on their baby.
I have been in a start-up that went through this. They were a small 20-30 person company, who was bought by a wing of one of the biggest names in the US. They still make the same product, but the team is several times the size, has grand offices, money to spend, etc.
Edit: To add, the company now gets to say who they are associated with and that carries a lot of weight. They are now vastly bigger than their old competitors and find it easier to attract talented devs. It isn’t just about funding… There are many benefits in a good merger.
2 Likes
Mm that’s right. I guess I’m asking for us to be bigger than that. For us to take that on voluntarily.
So what if we don’t get to influence in all parts. It’s still better for us to help out, than to sit there with our arms crossed and watching.
OK, maybe that can be done.
But there’s really no contribution done, no help proposed, if we just look to reap harvests now. Long term success needs investment, wether that be sacrifices in terms of short term price drops, or trust and support given to the team’s independence.
1 Like
I agree that it is good to discuss options at this point. We should probably limit the discussion to options for the moment. If alpha Fleming soon is here then the timing is better to figure out who is in for which option. The carrots of increasing price would probably soften some of those who might oppose a small dilution. Let’s Imagine MAID reaches top 30 market cap when Fleming comes, price would be in todays value 0,83. Possible drop from dilution might then be to 0,73-0,78 with potential short, medium term gains of a price in 10-20$ or higher. The future potential value might then soften many opposing thoughts. Also if there is some way to give even more carrots at that time might be good.
2 Likes
The idea of auctioning off PNS names has been brought up before. That seems like maybe a less contentious way to quickly raise some funds. The system doesn’t have a way to mitigate name squatting yet anyway, so an auction for names could be somewhat positive or more fair.
3 Likes
There was also mention of trying to get an academic grant from government. Is that a dead end, or just slow moving bureaucracy?
Hmm - this would corrupt maidsafe in the way that it wouldn’t be beneficial for them to enable name resolution as plugin in a simple way 
1 Like
I’m not sure about that. Even with a plugin system, most users would likely stick to the default resolver provided with the browser. I’d still be in favor of a plugin system BTW.