But if it would come to that a dilution is necessary for survival and Fleming is released, would you rather see the project fail and the value of the investment go to zero. Because if it comes to that I can’t see any other alternativets.
1 Like
OK, fair enough. But, what would you say of a company, that does not ask of their investors do dilute, but does it anyway at the request of the investors?
That would IMO mean that no shadow falls on them.
That’s the idea being tested: i.e. the idea of how about trying that?
“We”, is every coin holder that will be affected by dilution.
These are good questions, and I feel it actually moves us somewhere.
I think someone mentioned proxy tokens that did this. I will need to summon someone who can give examples or get back to you.
Legal consequences, how will the exchanges react. Yes! Those are further questions. They need to be investigated. It is not something undoable. It is a task like any task. Nothing of importance happens without a great deal of effort.
Also, trying to find investors, get their acknowledgment or somehow define a way to proceed with a subset of them.
The first step is to say “alright, let’s see if we can do this”.
1 Like
How will you find all these people in order to make a “democratic” decision?
4 Likes
Yeah, I agree that is a very difficult task.
This is something we would have to chip in with ideas for.
Spitballing:
It’s not a perfect correlation, but if we start looking at forum member count and coin holder addresses, we can estimate how large of a share is covered by forum voices.
Anyone who knows non-forum holders can try get their consent.
It’s not an exact science. The idea is to gauge an approximate “YES” from the community. There will never ever be clear unanimous support behind any important decision. That is what makes important decisions hard.
If we just play with the idea, if we got a good enough number, we then give enough leeway for MaidSafe to take that decision with good faith among majority, if they so wish.
A few loud voices and dissenters making hell is not possible to avoid in most decisions. In fact, the more important MaidSafe and SAFENetwork will be, the more such will probably grow.
For a question like this, it may or may not be worth it. That’s also part of the discussion.
I don’t think they should ask anyone if it comes to that. If it is legal to do so than decision theory will give two alternatives, if funds run out = value of the project goes to zero, if new funds is secured the probability that the projects value stays above zero and gets higher, has a higher probability for positive value and is better. The second option is the only one that don’t mean certain zero value and is the better option (if it becomes a matter of survival). They won’t need to ask, only make sure it is legal, beacause their will only be one option that could give a positive future value and that is that the project survives.
1 Like
Imagine this kind of “estimating” when it comes to e.g. elections for political office.
But sure, If Maidsafe feel dilution is necessary, I won’t be one raising any hell. But I would still advise against it. I really, really don’t want the SAFE project to fail. But I also really, really don’t want Maidsafe to compromise on ethics/promises, even if it means the project will take ten years longer to complete.
3 Likes
I’m not sure that this conclusion is sound. For example, the project could continue at a slower pace as a volunteer open source project. But if you just mean that the MAID token value would take a big hit if funding runs out, that is probably accurate.
1 Like
Couldn’t agree more, and my sentiments exactly. Were dilution/inflation the only path forward, ok. But it isn’t and the risks with regards to trust lost (which will translate into unintended adverse economic impact) are too high in my opinion.
4 Likes
Yes you are right. I meant that the hit to the price would be many many times higher than a small dilution, if funds run out. And it would not suprise me if the price would be very very low, approaching zero.
It could go on a voluntary but what are the odds of positive success compared to a larger funded team, I don’t now if that would be a game worth playing. I would take a 5-10% hit of dilution every time if it could give success to a project that delivers results. The dark path of some voluntary struggle would be the worst nightmare.
1 Like
Agreed, and they wouldn’t, I’m pretty sure of that. It’s hard to say what options there are out there with regards to acquire funding from VC or be bought.
They have avoided it before as to not give up on ethics. It’s like one of the super cool things about this company. To me it seems that with the high standards of the company, it will be a larger effort to find the right sources. The sources must simply live up to higher standards as well.
We are the supporters that rallied around this vision. When we pay, we pay for these ethics and this vision, and so that would mean zero effort for the company.
No naturally. I mean, talking about failure becomes a theoretical exercise at this point. It’s not something we need to discuss, because this project is very high up there in fundamentals, team and community and they are funded. It’s just a strange fluke of reality that we’re in crypto space and the mechanism of that space is really odd, so we could be even more funded if it was a bit more sane space I would think.
The changes that happen now, in my view, are of course also reliant on some compromises. That’s everyday reality for any business. When those come, it’s a bit tougher, especially for management. So, I would really like to see the community think of ideas how to just give maximum support in those times. The idea of some additional funding is just one way, and I wanted to see if it would really be such a bad thing, would it really mean dilution and more than a temporary price drop?
Some seem to say, but I’m not sure the question is fully cleared yet.
1 Like
To be honest - and I’m sorry if this comes across as blunt - I think it is a bit arrogant to assume:
A) That MaidSafe is not capable to take appropriate actions on their budget.
B) That it would be possible to speak on behalf of all MAID holders.
I know you mean good, but in my opinion this approach is based on an assumption, and paints an image that MaidSafe is not just weak economically, but incapable to take responsible actions based on their own assesment of their situation. I wouldn’t like to paint that image especially now that they arrange their lines to meet their goals in a new way.
7 Likes
Wait, what? What compromises are you talking about? Let’s not talk about more evidence; we’d better talk about any evidence.
Until a qualified member says ‘hey ya all; we’ve had it’, your proposal is of the last resort variety instead of first aid.
I definitely do need a lot more evidence before I say ‘OK, let’s compromise this and that instead of that and that.’
EDIT: I dare presuming you assumed that the latest departures took place because of dough.
I wish someone from the MaidSafe team would shed some light on this. Is money already such a huge concern?
1 Like
I have always thought a good compromise if we are gonna break “ico rules” and raise again would be to shrink the # of actual total safecoin that could exist in the end(obviously with divisibility this is not a problem). I think current maid holders would be fine with that as scarcity is what gives bitcoin its booming value yet since it breaks down to satoshies its always in range of someone getting the piece of the pie. The secondary ico could be called maidsafe coin too as an erc-20 token and hold == value to the omni asset in terms of conversion value 1 to 1. But the real problem I see here is MaidSafe without a giant deliverable that gives the crypto community a taste of what this network offers as a decentralized product it won’t insight a lot of investment hunger right now as they are in a position of weakness. Hopefully the team changes that in the next couple of months to deliver big value assets for the company to drive public hunger for the product and a convincing story that they have the skillset and known path forward to finish it as years go by and we see lots of positive news but nothing end to end tangible just yet.
My understanding is they will look to sell shares in MaidSafe rather than touch tokens is the approach forward for now though.
1 Like
Yes, I was not expressing myself very well.
I’m saying that they are doing fine, and they are capable. But we can also consider not waiting for them to ask this of us. We have an opportunity to pitch in with our skin, voluntarily. That will be helpful even when MaidSafe is fully capable on their own. Like every effort counts.
I mean that compromises are being done in any company, in ups and downs - which is just normal business life. I think it’s very normal that the changes and additional efforts they show now, also means some compromises. That does not mean it’s bad, on the contrary, and also it’s unavoidable that to choose any direction at the same time you turn down other directions. I mean that it raises the idea that the community can partake in such changes and needs more pro-actively.
That we in time of changes all rally around them.
We are seeing good changes, we are seeing a wonderful leadership IMO, and a super dedicated team focusing on delivering.
I’m trying to say: let’s match that! They are working even harder than before (it seems to me), I’m testing the idea that we can more pro-actively support them. One way I haven’t seen people suggest, as other than a last option, is to give them some extra funding that would come with less hassle for them, than if they do it themselves. Pure funding from their core supporters.
So, the idea is that perhaps we can do that by accepting dilution (if it really is dilution, it is another question I wanted to clear up). By telling them that we don’t care, we don’t mind - the important thing is that you are relieved of some work and hassle if possible, and get more out of your current efforts.
I’m trying to tell you that MaidSafe is of course not going to ask this of you unless it’s really needed. But we could propose to them to do this out of free will. Just to show support.
You probably mean well, but, honestly, it doesn’t sound too good. If MaidSafe is not gonna ask me to support them through accepting dilution, I won’t consider it viable and/or necessary. That’s how it works.
And – maybe I’m naive – I just don’t believe the team would be so clandestine about something so essential and that they would expect their community to:
- Figure out money is the issue although no-one told them.
- Think of solution (yoohoo, dillution!)
- Pride themselves on being the greatest community on Earth, although they just assume a whole lot on a semi-rational basis.
4 Likes
Well if there are, I trust that they are measured ones.
It seems that you have some extra money, so you can give it to them by all means. But I don’t have and I have far too much on the line with my investments, and I’m not willing to start thinking this kind of last measures unless they are being asked for by those, who know the situation exactly - meaning MaidSafe.
It seems to me you are willing to make sacrifices just for the sake of making sacrifices. Fine, but don’t sacrifice me.
1 Like
Again, it is very clear you have good intentions and pure heart, but still this kind of statements are de facto spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt. Which is exactly opposite to what the project needs at the moment.
6 Likes
Sure, it may not be good, but I’m trying the idea out. Both the idea if it in reality would actually constitute dilution, and then in that case, if it wouldn’t be possible for community too accept that anyway, if it can be of help.
You mean to say: that’s how you work.
This to me just sounds cynical.
-
MaidSafe expecting us to figure out money is the issue, and no one told us?
They have said when funding runs out at approximately a certain date, they have said the downturn in markets have affected that (and the reverse, which puts them in a good position now). Why are you muddling the waters? It’s not a controversy. You have been told. Money is an issue in a very ordinary way. They have what they need now, and there’s no imminent problem. But it’s still a startup, so that’s just how it is.
Look, if you don’t shape up, I’ll just have to ignore you. That is bordering to trolling. -
MaidSafe does not expect of us to think of a solution. We can actually do that out of free will. How about that?
-
Yeah okay, maybe you have an issue with trying to do something good. You mean to say that this has nothing to do with ensuring the project, but to further someone’s pride? That sounds very cynical to me.
Look, it’s never going to be easy, in any business or phase.
When I say compromises, it’s because to me it’s obvious that that is part of any business, in ups and downs. To me it’s not a controversy that in order to reach an MVP sooner, they do some different prioritisations. Like in any company, at any time not everyone can agree on everything. To me that is just very normal, didn’t expect people to interpret that as something negative and dangerous when I used the word “compromises”.
Of course it’s tough times now. You can’t deny that. I mean it in the way that changes require a lot of focus and effort, and now they have been making changes. MaidSafe are doing a great job with everything, and in my opinion, and as far as I can tell, are making very good moves, necessary changes. I believe it is plenty enough bang in that effort. But I also argue that as a change to the common defacto practice (standing by the sidelines and just expect everything to be easy for them) we can try something new. I am trying the idea that we have the power to improve their situation, more so than we actually take advantage of - perhaps because of misconceptions regarding total supply/dilution etc. And that’s what I wanted to look into and see if we really considered it properly.
Everyone is focusing on the positive message, as they should - holding up to their end.
The idea I’m testing is that we don’t need to do very much to give some extra bang to that. We can help out alot by just saying: hey issue coins, we don’t mind temporary drops of value. Do it. We support you and want you to have the funds. Go ace it.
Now, if they don’t see the need for it, like now when they are relatively well off, then OK.