Legal cases are brought about by a dispute between parties. No one has filed any kind of case against maidsafe for keeping the coins and giving them to the foundation so far. Who exactly is going to file against maidsafe now or in future and why?
What you seem to be saying is that it’s possible that one day retrospective legislation may appear which makes maidsafe liable for this action, and then after the coin distribution has become much more diluted some individual holder or gorup of holders will decide to take maidsafe to court for having used these coins to help build the network?
This is a surprising idea… bizarre if you ask me. It makes me doubt you on even more levels, not tht you should care what I think, but yeah, weird idea… smart contract bet done for 5 years from now that no case will have been filed regarding the use of these coins?
I would put my money on the UK government breathing down their neck… but no thanks, I will kindly decline your smart contract bet; although I must admit I love the pun
I believe on Monday the IP bill is again being discussed ? I think that makes the UK governments’ position very clear. I would not give them a stick to beat the dog.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this should not be taken as legal advice.
I don’t think the UK govt will try to take maidsafe to court overt the 24M lol Maybe over other things in future, but that’s a whole different kettle of fish and they have always behaved morally and legally as far as I can see so I hope they flourish into a huge company.
Does it really matter to us what happens to maidsafe the company after safenet is launched? I want the best for the guys in Troon, but it’s not my responsibility and my investment won’t be affected by something like that happening many years from now - these things take a very long time! It also seems impossibly unlikely that the thing the company are taken to court for is the 24M error coins.
All in all this does not cause me even the tiniest bit of concern and I’m heavily invested in the ecosystem.
Who knows what happens in the future. Maybe a Brexit, followed by Scotland seperating from the UK, with a government more to the left and reentering the EU.
… now you’ve brought lawyers into the mix and moved up to governmental politics…
I think you’ve helped bring this thread to an end for me now.
good night
i like the idea but not sure if it would work, maybe if sold on a limited edition physical format instead like cassius coins. But the issue is maidsafe coin is meant to be exchanged into safecoin eventually so not sure people would buy into that sort of hype.
I meant that it still does that, but the conversion for these special MAID would involve a special burn address that sends the MAID back to the person, for future trading / collecting.
regardless of approaches we take to fund maidsafe, I think the priority still is to get a better market cap, which requires: 1. launch of MVP asap (1-2x addition to marketcap); 2. safecoin creation asap (more exchange adoption, liquidity, price discovery, media exposure, China onboarding) 3. app development; 4. on-going PR.
Whatever route the team finally take, a $100-150m market cap will ensure a financially sustainable position.
We are building a great product and let’s spread the excitement and speculators will take it from there.
I want to thank @benjaminbollen for expressing and defending his thoughts, which largely mirror my own from a few days ago. I didn’t speak up because I find this entire forum hostile.
The proposition to liquidate the mistakenly issued coins is theft, at least in the US. That many vocal members of the community do not mind the theft, that the theft will go to an undeniably noble cause, is irrelevant to what it is: theft. That theft creates a liability that would preclude soliciting investments for projects that utilize the Safe network.
Some difficult conversations need to be had by the team. It isn’t worth launching the MVP until those conversations are had.
Good luck to Maidsafe. I am very much wishing you well.
The coins where created for MAIDSAFE to sell. While the agreed amount to sell was exceeded, all the coins still belonged to MAIDSAFE to sell. Then the 10% were sold.
So while it can be argued the extra should have been burned to keep to the 10% of 2^32 figure, I still do not see how it can be called theft. Who stole them from MAIDSAFE whom the coins/token were produced for?
If its to do with the crowdsale documents then its still not theft as far as I can see. Maybe a breach of some sort of contract which is not theft.
I think he meant that it is detrimental for the community as the dump of the extra coins would have an inflationary effect, which IF IT WERE TRUE it would be like stealing away the value of the coins.
But the market cap has been calculated considering the extra coins, so there is no such effect.
Mind you others have claimed criminal theft, even taken to court. I was not being specific who I was asking with my question because more than one person has claimed theft.
But your explanation if it applies to those others does make a lot of sense
Well inflation is usually called the poverty tax, also a hidden confiscation of wealth by the government; to jump from there to “criminal” and “theft” it is just one step away.
Does it then follow if there is no inflationary effect, then there was no theft?
It seems that this is essentially a moral issue. That being the case, it’s up to Maidsafe to decide what moral stance they want to take, and it’s up to the community to challenge or condone that moral stance. And there is hardly a definitive right or a wrong side in a moral argument.
Well, if that is the argument then I don’t know how “theft” would be applied. Even in the inflationary argument it is quite a stretch.
As an analogy, in corporations and more so in startups it is quite common to issue more shares diluting everyone’s stakes. The only reason that it is acceptable to investors is because even if you own a smaller portion of the company such funds will add more value to the company (in most cases current investors have the preferential offering so they can reinvest buying more shares to keep their percentage)
Such thing is inevitable and it is quite common in equity investment of startups, it is quite rare to find founders owning more than 50 percent of their own company after going through seed, series A and series B.
In our case with Maidsafe, such thing isn’t even happening.
The excess of issue has been accounted for since the beginning, so whats the problem. Nobody’s worth is being devaluated. NONE.
Besides, it is not like David is selling it to buy a new Porsche and hiring escorts, in that case I would clearly see an ethical and a moral issue.
But it is not, it is to add funds to the development of Maidsafe and its SafeNet, therefore for the benefit of everyone.
So why not make lemonades with lemons?
I am still scratching my head when I hear about how immoral it is, in my head it is almost like hearing a feminist ranting about men holding the doors for women.
