Launch Planning: Community Update 🚀

[Toivo]

@dirvine

This

@Toivo

I’m deeply in debt, and my chances to get out of it is to a great degree dependent on the money I have loaned to Maidsafe

Does not imply this

@Toivo

, is the only token, without rivals.

That’s a bad way to look at things, very bad.

I have never thought that way. The reason I brought up my struggle is to highlight that the desire for profit does not necessarily mean some stupid “Lambo” stuff.

My thinking is:

This, that is said in many times and forms over the years, quote from Bitcointalk.

safecoin is the crypto currency of the SAFE (Secure Access For Everyone) network.

Implies this:

@Toivo

, is the only token, without rivals.

@Mightyfool

If you haven’t fully written of your investment yet in your mind, you’re doing something wrong on my honest opinion.

I don’t argue with that. I have done big mistakes and been too confident with this project. That’s a topic of it’s own, and a personal one that I am not open to discuss in public any more than I already have. It does not negate my other points though.

@dirvine

If you are broke then surely a return now is what you need?

One thing I have learned from my mistakes is that on top of now, I also need to think further ahead.

And about now, I have nothing against Erc-20.

[majumba]

Agreed! Feels very disengeneuous

[Josh]

@Toivo

Maidsafecoin represents 1:1 that Safecoin

Has that really changed?

Those who bought maid were pre-purchasing the network token.

Holders of maid will still get the network token at 1:1 but at a 50% reduced token supply in a far more liquid form.
(Argument of what network token means set aside momentarily)

So we could argue the benefits of the original network token in a nerdy way about its superior attributes to erc20 and thats seems valid to me.

But if the argument is financial return especially in any near term that matters erc20 is going to provide a far greater return.

… in my opinion yada yada

[dirvine]

@Toivo

One thing I have learned from my mistakes is that on top of now, I also need to think further ahead.

And about now, I have nothing against Erc-20.

I think this is key. If you need money then take it when it’s on offer. Investing in longer term should only be done with money you can afford to lose. So I suggest everyone needs to be in the position of being able to afford to lose 100% of ANY investment.

It’s not easy, but it’s just valid to not be overexposed.

[Mightyfool]

@Josh

Holders of maid will still get the network token at 1:1 but at a 50% reduced token supply

It’s like people forgot this ever happend. Halving the max supply is essentially the same thing dor investors aa keeping max supply the same but converting 1:2 (maid → SNT). I’m not sure how people can completely move past this point and this complain about smaller things changing from the “original” plan.

And lets be honest folks. There has not been a viable company for decades that didn’t change their philosophy in 18 years. The crypto market is evolving rapidely, thank god we’re changing along with it.

[scottefc86]

@Josh

So we could argue the benefits of the original network token in a nerdy way about its superior attributes to erc20 and thats seems valid to me.

Just to clarify, this is my gripe with the change to erc20 (but not in a nerdy way )

[bridge]

The data network is truly decentralized and made into a neutral network, and on top of that, the Autonomi team will also participate in the fair game to create an alternative digital currency and create business-friendly applications as participants.

I thought I had thought a lot about decentralization for a long time. But this time, I realized that deep in my heart, there was a desire for Autonomi to create a digital currency that exclusively integrates the data network and the world. I thought I had pursued decentralization, but in fact, I expected Autonomi to create a New World Dollar through the technological gap. But how paradoxical is that? It is forcing only one digital currency on a truly decentralized data network. Is this a network that can create a truly decentralized 3th information revolution?

The reason why Irvine, who thought more deeply about this problem than anyone else, did not choose something like a Monopolized Method is because this method is not natural, and being unnatural means being strong but not fit for survival. It is not the strong who survive, but the survivors who are strong. In order for us to prosper, we must survive first. I think Irvine came to this conclusion after thinking a lot about this perspective (regulation, ecosystem, survival, market entry strategy, etc.). Therefore, I support his decision.

I believe that the Autonomi token that this team is developing has still huge value because I am sure that this team has a very very deep knowledge of DAG and decentralized networks. However, if the team’s knowledge and passion are overtaken by someone or the team, it would be also natural for my token and interests to move. If decentralization is an alternative to the current Dollar, which forces use based on military power and technological gaps, I hope that Autonomi will create a network that is free and infinitely competitive, and that it can provide tremendous added value to humanity. From my point of view, it is the best and only way to get a return from Autonomi investment.

Let Autonomi Create a World Bigger than Monopolized Central System. And this will bring greater returns and higher survivability to everyone.

[Bogard]

Now that maidsafe has admitted that the “native” token issue isn’t a technical issue at all as the code is fully ready but rather an issue of wanting to have liquidity, let’s talk some economics and liquidity. Because there’s still a lot of misleading statements from the maidsafe leads here, or at the very least, naive statements.

Just because the ERC20 will be able to be more easily listed doesn’t mean that it’ll have much value or demand especially if entities with large holdings start selling. Non-insider investors may not get to exit like insider investors who can and will sell first on the markets.

To make the liquidity argument credible, maidsafe should state the number of exchanges they guarantee the ERC20 to be listed on at launch versus none for the native token. Market maker opportunities, etc. Then folks can make a more reasoned choice versus emotional arguments in favors of ERC20 when there may not be any meaningful listing to follow anyway, bringing non-insider investors to the same situation they would be faced with with a native token unfamiliar to exchanges.

Clearly liquidity is important for maidsafe (please note that this wasn’t important to bitcoin and ethereum founders at the outset, that shouldn’t be the focus), but has maidsafe explored asking the community to allow for a small percentage of the tokens to be issued to maidsafe at genesis to be available now as eMaid tokens? This way, maidsafe gets their liquidity and the community still gets the real native tokens. There’s already the eMaid ERC20 that’s already listed. No need for all of the genesis supply with the native token to be listed immediately as well. That can take its time, like bitcoin and ethereum did to become popular.

If maidsafe’s concern is regulatory with the native token, then drop the royalty and truly attempt no control over the network at all (truly, not just words; some of us here don’t buy just words no matter how often you repeat it but actions). You do these and there’s little regulatory concern.

[DavidMc0]

@dirvine

This is what I don’t get, others are berating the team for doing something that will please investors as they get returns

@dirvine

Again allow them to get a return. I am completely bewildered by this argument.

I hope I’ve not been unhelpful in this discussion. That’s not the intention at all. I feel you’re getting frustrated due to misunderstanding the concerns people have with your comments.

You think you’re talking about a plan that can enable people to get them a return soon, while they see a concept that could greatly reduce the chances of getting a return.

The people who are questioning you on your comments are not necessarily against the ERC20 plan; they’re concerned that your comments leave the door open to a massive undermining of the value of the tokens they hold.

They’re envisaging a third party team coming along, making a ‘Native Token’ that gains traction with node operators in the early days, but has nothing to do with the Network Token supply.

This would threaten the value of their holdings of Network Token & make getting a good return less likely than if the first ‘Native Token’ shared the same supply as the ERC20 Network Token, which has always been presumed by the community / investors, as MAID was always presumed to be convertible for Safecoin (the Native token with instant confirmations, massive scalability, low/no fees etc).

If this is a situation that seems at all likely / probable, it could undermine the confidence in the value held by eMAID / MAID now, and the Network Token at & following launch, making it difficult for anyone to get a return. Many people would / will be selling ASAP if they’re fearful their holdings could be undermined in the near future.

But, from your comments it’s clear you’re all for in investors getting a return, and I think your statement here though should put people’s minds at rest if I’ve understood it correctly:

@dirvine

If that were to happen and you held on to your coins then you could lose out. I said I did not want to design this right now, but that would be a terrible way for it to happen

You’ve been clear you don’t want to design anything now, and in this comment I think you’re saying that it would be a ‘terrible way’ for the token to happen if it undermined all holders of the Network Token, MAID/eMAID etc.

So I think people are reading too much into your open mindedness, and you can’t quite see where they’re coming from so you are getting frustrated.

I hope this clarifies things a bit, rather than confusing things / frustrating you further

[Sotros25]

@DavidMc0

From my perspective Jim and Bux have been clear on a commitment to have developing the Native token in-house in their communications. David has a different approach

@Toivo

The problem for me is that whatever degree of clarity is in any communication from the managament, it still is not credible, because they say something, and after a while things seems to be different again, without any clear communication.

Thank you for highlighting statements Bux has made. I had read them before, but as Toivo noted, the conflicting comments from David create confusion.

@Toivo

I find myself reading and re-reading all they say again and again to try to find possible loopholes they may be trying to leave for themselves in order to not communicate stuff in a binding way.

I have to agree with this. It seems like a mix of the left pinky doesn’t know what the left thumb is doing, or else trying to plant the seeds of “plausible” deniability.

@DavidMc0

something like a weekly review (even just a forum post) of roadmap progress, hits & misses, and reasons for any delays / changes would have been very helpful in managing expectations and clarifying progress along the way.

Agreed. I am always surprised that a readout on progress (or lack there of) on the roadmap is not included in the weekly Thursday updates.

@dirvine

Folks, I am not in the office and I am not in meetings. What I post here is my honest feelings of what’s possible.

I guess this would explain why there appears to be misalignment between Bux, David, and Jim…

@neo

I would just KISS and have payments for resources in native token and node operators use bridges to exit their earnings from the network if they don’t want to exit with native tokens. …

Having multiple tokens/currencies to pay for network resources that are ALL not daily fiat will be a nightmare to sell to the general public

Once again, agreed and agreed.

@dirvine

You say you are desperate for cash, we are doing something that allows you to get cash and you are complaining strongly.

I think the concern is that even though “cashing out” could be possible via the new ERC20 token, that new ERC20 token will have minimal value such that people will cash out at a loss due to uncertainty around whether 1) MAID/eMAID/new ERC20 token will be 1:1 convertible to the native token, 2) there will ever be a native token, and 3) that native token will actually be the currency via which nodes are compensated for data storage. Without clear communication from MaidSafe, those concerns cannot be allayed.

@Josh

Holders of maid will still get the network token at 1:1 but at a 50% reduced token supply in a far more liquid form.

This is not true unless 1) MAID/eMAID/new ERC20 token will be 1:1 convertible to the native token, 2) there will ever be a native token, and 3) that native token will actually be the currency via which nodes are compensated for data storage.

@Mightyfool

@Josh

Holders of maid will still get the network token at 1:1 but at a 50% reduced token supply

It’s like people forgot this ever happend.

Because at the end of the day a 50% reduction has no meaning in a world where multiple teams of people are creating multiple tokens that could serve as a type of native token, I.e.

@dirvine

so not only maidsafe, but lots of teams.

@DavidMc0

The people who are questioning you on your comments are not necessarily against the ERC20 plan; they’re concerned that your comments leave the door open to a massive undermining of the value of the tokens they hold

Exactly.

@DavidMc0

I think people are reading too much into your open mindedness

As they say, heavy lies the head that wears the crown. Those in positions of leadership should expect what they say to be scrutinized because what they say carries power to change outcomes.

[Southside]

@Sotros does not post often but when she does, it is always worth listening to.
Thank you for your analysis.

[Mightyfool]

@Sotros25

This is not true unless 1) MAID/eMAID/new ERC20 token will be 1:1 convertible to the native token, 2) there will ever be a native token, and 3) that native token will actually be the currency via which nodes are compensated for data storage.

I might be missing something here but the last time I checked Bux mentioned:

• Halving of max supply is not to create more later. Just a half, period.
• Once (or if) a native token gets build, it will replace the erc20, not coexist. Conversion will be 1:1.

Might be good to clarify this during tuesdays stages @rusty.spork @Bux

[Southside]

@Mightyfool

Might be good to clarify this during tuesdays stages @rusty.spork @Bux

Indeed.
There is a lot of confusion about who said what and whether they had their fingers crossed behind their back when they said it.
Healthy scepticism is fine, indeed mandatory, but perhaps we need to allow the team to speak as one and set out their plans.

Now I know they already did, but we need to hear it again clearly and without any ambiguity. <---- and thats not a poke at anybody ok?

[dirvine]

@Sotros25

As they say, heavy lies the head that wears the crown. Those in positions of leadership should expect what they say to be scrutinized because what they say carries power to change outcomes.

I suspect you are correct and there lies the end of open headed and open hearted innovation talk from me.

From now on it will only be fully designed, tested and documented released work. No more community engagement in how I design and think on the technical side.

This conversation has been an eye opener and all I can do is apologise to everyone for looking at what is possible. I am very tired anyway so less communications from me gives me more time, which is probably a good thing.

[Southside]

David, I’m sorry to hear that

@dirvine

there lies the end of open headed and open hearted innovation talk from me.

but I totally 100% understand and I support you in that decision.

This is all causing you stress when you really don’t need it. I hope you continue to recover and that your withdrawal here helps you get back to fighting fitness.

Thank you for all you have ever done - and will continue to do for us.

[Josh]

@dirvine

From now on it will only be fully designed, tested and documented released work.

Well it was nice having you back while it lasted.

Perhaps we can gather in a place where ideas/thoughts are welcome. Ffs

[aatonnomicc]

@Southside

David, I’m sorry to hear that

@dirvine

there lies the end of open headed and open hearted innovation talk from me.

but I totally 100% understand and I support you in that decision.

This is all causing you stress when you really don’t need it. I hope you continue to recover and that your withdrawal here helps you get back to fighting fitness.

Thank you for all you have ever done - and will continue to do for us.

@Josh

Well it was nice having you back while it lasted.

exactly what i was thinking couldn’t agree more

[Toivo]

@Bux

I will be on the Discord stages this coming Tuesday, will ask @rusty.spork to collect questions ahead of time and will address all those that are relevant and reasonable

I appreciate that, and I’d love to participate, but unfortunately it is just too late for me.

[Southside]

@Josh

Well it was nice having you back while it lasted.

Nice having him back but it seems collectively we put too much stress on him at the wrong time. A most unfortunate set of circumstances but we cannot expect someone to risk their health for this project.

Risk all the wealth you want but ALWAYS ALWAYS regard any money you put into crypto (or other Distributed Consensus Mechanisms) as gone forever, entirely lost and if anything comes back its truly a bonus.

Having said that lets try and get back to this being the fun project it used to be where we are all mostly on the same page with the same objectives,

[Southside]

@Toivo

unfortunately it is just too late for me.

Its OK, I have phoned your mum and she says its OK for you to stay up just this once, but don’t dare be late for school in the morning.