well I was not really asking for a job personally just saying they should have experts at the crypto market here. If they hired someone and all they said is I project this price in 24 months so you are fine, their paid group leader is shit and you can find these guys all over crypto twitter. What they need is someone that doesn’t promise some price but promises to play the game for them on a daily basis.
I mean at one point there was no way to deny they were like wayyy up and could have bought like 3x the dev time. Why is no one pressing the button to sell here? Any experienced crypto trader could tell you this is the time to exit and you can always buy back in later for much cheaper. Oh even forget about all that cause I wager at one time they could have 100% exited and had for sure more then enough fait to make it to final. Why is no one doing this? Sounds like newb trader thinking uptrend will never end. You want someone with like 5 years experience that has been though several bubbles and crashes. I don’t doubt they hired some high priced bankster type but those guys don’t understand crypto, for that you want like the 25 year old living in moms basement staring at charts on crypto markets all day, micro trading to scalp you 5 dollars every chance they get, and constantly keeping up on ANY public information that becomes available.
ok how bout this proposal… I challenge you to a duel… of trading. What if we had a paper trading competition and like the top 10 get to manage the MAID fund with some kind of DAO or something to make sure no one person can control it for predatory motives. If their current advisors want to play they are more then invited. It would be easy and cheap to setup. its just like make some tokens of equal amount of MAID and BTC we have at the start and its just like proposals to burn or create more (of course if the math doesn’t work out something is wrong and the DAO no longer has control) then the internal team sells or buys according to what these tokens do. Also the internal team can set quotas like this much BTC token will be burned on this day (block) and that means they are liquidating it to pay for development. Also this would be crystal clear transparency. Anyone could check the blockchain and see how much of either token we were holding or proposing to buy/sell or burn and at what time. Of course there would be some discrepancy in a low volume volatile market like this but the DAO would reject proposals where this was too large and the internal team would be able to edit the values after the fact to represent the true holdings of either asset. I am not sure what the reward should be for these 10 people. Maybe nothing more then you can now put this on your resume. But if its anything it should be directly tied to how many more of these tokens did you generate.
This is a terrible idea on so many levels. Trading can be both based on skill and luck. But if you run a trading competition people will be drawn to take high risks. If you have a pool of let’s say 1000 people participating there is no guarantee the winners will be good traders, in fact they are just as likely (if not more) to be degenerate gamblers. Yes, they won the “competition”, but it could be sheer luck. The risk/reward ratio will likely be off the charts because it’s the craziest winning bet that wins the competition, not the smart long term trading. We don’t want the dev funds to be used in highly speculative trading where the risk of a complete wipeout is extremely high and all the managers are gambling junkies.
100% agree. Short term trading is either TA trading or gambling, and TA trading is completely bullshit. So short term trading, as you said is highly risky and much closer to gambling.
Let’s just deploy an MVP and publish press releases with attractive title like “After 12 years of development, the project, which inspired the serie Silicon Valley, goes live”. I am sure this can create a good dynamic, attract potential investors, developers and tech enthusiasts inside the community.
Yes we all agree that we need a MVP! Developers will follow and community will grow up much faster then. It’s like the team (which btw is doing a great job) spend too mannnnny time making a perfect product.
I think some have lost sight of how difficult this (MVP) is, and make an assumption that the time it is taking is because Maidsafe have not been focused on what is essential, or that more resources applied that alone could have sped things up.
I don’t know if that is true or not, but I seriously doubt that it could have been done quicker with the resources Maidsafe have available.
I certainly don’t think the delay is due to perfectionism or being distracted by other areas - but because the core, the foundation, needs to work in certain fundamental ways. Otherwise it isn’t SAFE.
And you can’t build on top of that until you have a SAFE foundation.
Time and money is being spent on other things too, so that’s a fair point. But I think only in retrospect. Maidsafe too thought this would be quicker and easier, but I think it is important to be optimistic.
I’m not an optimist by nature, which is why I’m not leading something like this, and David is. But I have always been good at choosing who and what to join in with and work on. So now I’m an optimist too.
Maybe that’s the problem. We don’t see how hard it is. Maybe the team should explain us why is it so hard and what is still needed for this.
I am engineer. I know that the last 10% is the hardest part. But If i can’t understand why, I will expect something in the next 12 months. Like everyone does.
Have we forgotten about the transition to rust? Without it we wouldn’t be as far along as we are. Imagine coding, refactoring and debugging this behemoth in C++!!! The team has been making efficiency improvements every step of the way. There have been absolutely no uneeded side steps or slow downs.
Remember that the back end team resposible for routing requires a very specialized skill set. Expanding that team is no easy feat. Many might think that front end work like API modeling and usability designs are the reason for delay, when in fact having these worked out in parallel is the most efficient use of resources that would otherwise remain idle. The front end team is not qualified to do network engineering. For this reason they continue to do what they know.
Training them to work on the routing layer is poor management of both resources and time. If you really want to see things move faster find maidsafe some talented network engineers or stop crying. These complaints are obviously fueled by the lack of understanding. Learn more about the job or just sit back and be happy that something like SAFE is inching towards fruition.
Thanks Nick. Good to know about the GBP buffer. Indeed there is a diff between position sizes and strategy and I’m more interested in the strategy than the size, despite have at least similar opinion of both. When your strategy makes you a trader then you have to behave like a trader in order to avoid being taken advantage of. Thats another reason to avoid trading but it still can be a legit strategy, just risky as hell.
Re: Dilution and series E, F etc. Having further funding rounds for growth aren’t the same as for re-capitalisation when funds are running out. Firms that get to multiple funding rounds usually are happy to dilute because of the valuation boost you described earlier. Its a much tougher sell when there os no revenue and valuation is sliding.
It is for sure. We all know there is much more to this though and presented with a world changing technology then the upside is obvious. The downside is
It does not work (too much tech risk)
Project runs out of cash/resources.
The upside is cemented with early rounds, where equity investors bought in almost 100% of the time, or later when a wider community got in more easily. So to the blockers.
As we progressed we have de-risked the biggest gamble, “can this be done?” Well we know it can now. It needs to be complete and that does mean some implementation detail worked out and coded, but not any new inventions. I.e. there are probably 15 or so RFCs to complete which supersede already agreed RFCs, read no inventions here, this is Engineers taking existing tools and completing some work. So this part is well covered and that can be proven as we have the documentation and existing proof points.
That part is something a significantly larger set of people can help solve, there is not so much of a resource limitation there. Cash is about, investments, grants and donation are al something much simpler than inventing a serverless, self healing, autonomous data and communications network. So this part is a task we probably have to attend to whilst the Engineering teams complete point 1, to a point the autonomous network can launch.
Launching the autonomous network version “absolute minimum possible to launch the network securely” that last word (securely) is the 100% key part. As some suggest do an MVP, stop being perfectionist should consider this. If we release an insecure network it just dies, we have even shown that and ripped back 2 years to get PARSEC in place, authority chains, data chains etc. and get node age in place (this was designed 4 years ago and we tried to do a test-net without it). So MVP is something we chase, but that middle part viable means secure an autonomous. When we have that viability then the world will have SAFE, until then it won’t and that has zero to do with perfectionism. we have not optimised out codebase (except PARSEC to an extent). So there is no premature optimisation and will will likely launch without any optimisation if it is viable. We can optimise after launch and we are all 100% certain of that.
So please folks, the “maidsafe are perfectionists” may be true of some of the team, so they suffer as the project execution does not allow that perfectionism. Also maidsafe are “tweaking stuff forever and we must wait” is not true, when the network is viable the network is launched, we cannot be more clear on this point. This viable word is extremely important and if we miss a security hole out and think we can do it later then we are not SAFE. So be really clear that we as a team are moving towards viable to allow us to launch.
tl;dr we are more valuable every day as a project independent of any crypto market token price. If we get this right and it is a tough job, then all those holding these tokens or equity can all celebrate along with us, until then we all make the choice, stand fast and make the world SAFE or run away. That choice is for everyone to make and nobody should feel bad or insult the choice anyone else makes. I though choose to stand fast, I know many others do as well and I do not feel alone, I know the team in maidsafe are driven to change the world an I thank them all for that, as well as almost everyone here.
I am not worried in any way, but I am pretty focussed on getting the resources we need when we must, but beyond all I am focussed on changing the world in my own wee way as many of us all are.
I thought the reason for not giving even tentative roadmaps and timelines was to not make some people disappointed if/when these timelines could not be met. I don’t really agree with this reasoning, but I’m not the CEO, so it’s not up to me to decide. However, with all due respect, I do think the word “soon” should be avoided when talking about releasing anything, especially in the crypto space.
This is good to hear. I have very limited knowledge of the purely mathematical stuff, but my understanding is that PARSEC was the last true “invention” needed. It has now supposedly been “invented” and proven to work. Again, I’m no mathematician, but I’m surprised that PARSEC is hardly mentioned even in the crypto media, if it truely is a new invention that solves a fundamental problem that hasn’t been solved before.
Just wanted to say that when i used the term ‘perfectionism’, i should have been more specific. It wasn’t so much the drive to have components working as well as possible before launch but more so the apparent philosophy to have the whole stack of UX/tooling/accessibility/etc available before the release could be deemed viable.
I completely agree with your view of what viable should mean in this case, and also its vital importance to the concept of MVP.
The optimist half of my brain cant help but tell as many people as possible about how SAFENet changes things. The ‘dont remortgage the house’ side of my brain tells me not to trust but verify. This side wears an activist VC jumper and skeptically taps its finger on paper work. I’m therefore in the middle saying ‘yes this is one of the most important software projects of 21st century, but I don’t know exactly how it solves the problem and possibly its leaders dont either’. So I’ll invest my time and money and occasionally ask as many probing q’s as necessary to relax or escape.
crazy
