this is the sort of argy bargy i’d normally get involved in, but after reading a few bits and pieces i have gone out of my way to make sure its all gone totally over my head… why people have given this ben chap the oxygen of giving a monkeys what he thinks i don’t understand, he appears to be intent on upsetting the apple cart and life is frankly too short…
if i thought i could help i would, but i’m sure after david and the team have spent the last 5+ years sweating their nuts off working on this system they must have at least some idea how to avoid the whole thing going tits up so i’m happy to leave to them… if you can REALLY help then good on yuh!
maybe the best way forwards is to simply ignore mr ben and stop wasting intellectual bandwidth best spent getting this sucker up and running…
Glad you appreciate my input. My curse is a lack of time and I hate committing to something, knowing that I won’t be able to give my all. I will keep trying to post interesting stuff though!
It has to do with previously accumulated respect as a dev, before going his own way, a bit mysteriously to the peanut gallery, but apparently amiably. It can take a bit to shift gears from respect to disregard. He may have some valid points to raise, but also have some other stuff clouding his approach. I’ll give that much as grace, unless the attitude and approach are not adjusted to reflect effective statement of the points, based on current data, so they can actually be considered rather than just resulting in doubt or rejection…
@dirvine … I am an every day quiet follower of this project. I used to also follow and invest in Bitshares back when they were developing the escrow collateralized derivative asset exchange with BitUSD/BitGold/etc. The ability to hold market pegged notional hard asset value in cryptocurrency should have been a huge break-through. Then the Bitshares developers decided to inflate the coinbase to extend their own funding, ruining the trust of investors and interested parties. The underlying collateralized asset market never gained traction or capital when it was released because the economics of psychology drove investors away. It was decided that the Larimers and team couldn’t be trusted not to mess with the consensus. Before MAIDSAFE moves forward with self-funding through the sales of uncertain coins that weren’t in the original social contract and that will affect market supply/demand, consider how the economic psychology will affect the potential long term adoption of the wonderful technology you are brewing up. For my sake and your own, don’t pull another Bitshares.
Bear in mind that this is a loan that will be repaid later, thus reversing any inflationary effects.
Also these coins already exist - I don’t know the details / contracts, but I guess the foundation who owns them may sell then at some point anyway, so they could end up on the market even if MaidSafe don’t borrow them, and this has been the case since the crowdsale.
I am not in favor of using the coins as I have expressed repeatedly, but comparing the inflation of Bitshares and selling the accidentally created MSC is comparing apples and oranges.
Anyway, I am still bit confused with regard to the Maidsafe Foundation who is in control of the coins. What David writes about it
(They would unlikely accept donations to build software as they keep apart from that. I am not a trustee of the foundation and have no part in their meetings etc… They have spent most time in fab labs / school events and hosting the Chernobyl Children a few times so far, but they have no income really. As MaidSafe becomes successful the foundation will benefit and then direct funds toward the objects it has.)
does not sound like the foundation that was initially intended
(Board members will be appointed from the community via polling. This board should be selected from as wide a catchment as possible and include 3rd party developers, core developers and members of other decentralised projects (e.g. Mastercoin, Invictus). The board members will be continually up for election. If the polling shows the community wish a member to be removed then the next meeting will remove that person and they should be replaced by the next in line, selected again via polls.)
I would have much less doubts about the decision to sell the coins, if the foundation was in fact openly connected to the community…
hmhmm - that argument would be valid if they just increased the amount of MAID and didn’t plan to compensate it with their own core-developer-shares …
i’m more with @DavidMc0 - it’s just a loan and i see way more risks to the project in general if madisafe made itself depending on some other source of funding …
staying independent is an important aspect of this to me - and that is why i like the idea of selling those coins (though i don’t think it is a good deal for the developers … since the lost shares will then be worth much more than the loan now…)
First I’d like to say I agree that it represents a reduction in $$$ earnings for the core developers.
BUT
I don’t think its quite as bad as it first presents itself.
The company is loaned 24 million coins which is to be paid back as SAFEcoins over many years. Lets say its a short load at 10 years. And for simplicity 25 million coins to repay.
In that 10 years the Farmers are quite likely rewarded 4 billion coins total. This set the effective Farming rate average over the 10 years (Likely then 3 billion or more recycled)
The core dev rewards are equal to 5% of what the farming rate was which means there are 150 million coins rewarded for core devs
out of that 150 million there is 25 million to come out of it for loan repayment. This means 1 in 6 core dev coins are used to repay the load. This equates to a 16.67% reduction in core devs $$$ rewards. The actual $$$ price does not matter it is still 16.67% of that $$$ value.
Now if farming rate has been higher then this percentage is smaller.
Now if the load repayment is over 20 years then its likely to half that %age.
So yea it is still a significant hit the devs take, but workable. And they may opt early on for repaying at a higher rate of coins/year while the coin $$$ value is still low so that they get more later on.
You only calculate the 5% core farming but there are another 10% for the applications. Maidsafe Ltd. could get a significant part of this percentage to pay back this loan, especially the early years of the network when the number of developers will be lower.
Yes for the applications that MAIDSAFE the company creates. So yes the burden could be spread a little wider to reduce its impact. I only mentioned the 5% devs rewards since I think that is all David mentioned
These company decisions I refer to here are predominantly company-private matters and have hence no place on this forum. The selling of the extra MAID however is a company decision that very clearly affects this community and the wider perception of this space.
Technical mistakes have happened during the crowdsale, and those have been publicly stated and cleared up. These extra (accidently printed) coins however are not the company’s to take, or the community’s to give. Doing so damages foremost MaidSafe the company, and by extention this community.
he just seems to be upsetting people and taking peoples eye’s off the ball at a time when after a long gestation period stuff has actually started to kick off…
we’ve got software to play with, tests to help with… all very positive!!
i’ve been following this project for years with nothing to actually touch and use, this is christmas!!!
what ben wots-his-face thinks is so minor in the greater scheme i don’t give a monkeys…
what he used to do and what he does now that he has zero active part in the project is of no interest really…
think he just needs to get some friends and move on with his life instead of pooping in someone else’s pool…
I think Selling domain names would be a great way for the development team to earn bitcoin and to reward early adopters to get a possibility to buy the domein names they would like to have.
I agree with Benjaminbollen obvious its already showing that its not the best idee chosen now cause the camps are diverse and also a lot of negative feedback.
There are thousands of people around here that would like to buy already their domain or public id, imagine if you sell 20k domains for $10 each.
I think that @happybeinghas made a good point that selling DN will unlikely generate sufficient funds in the discussed timeframe to keep Maidsafe running and that those who propose the solution should be more concrete on their proposal - otherwise a senseful debate isn´t possible.
To raise a Million one could also have a Million Dollar Webpage on SAFE, but will it generate the needed funds when it is needed? I doubt that.
I Agree you wont be able to probably sell enough to solve all the problems, but on the other side it might generate a hype, reward early adopters with great domains (agains payments) , and also might buy you enough time to start thinking about better ideas how to generate some more funds.
If your not selling the domains now to people actually interrested, then people would squit them all as soon as the network goes live for nothing.
If im right the domain names are payed only ones not every year am i right ? then $25 each wont even be expansive but rather cheap.
Hey @benjaminbollen , I think your status as a former and respected Maid team member has been reduced to ashes and you have done irreparable harm to your reputation. Your legacy will be that you did not understand the importance of respect and decorum or the challenges senior company officials face when building and running a startup/company. This legacy will follow you around like a bad smell, everywhere, and for all time, and so it should.
Your presence here is toxic and your immaturity is matched only by others on this forum who have capitalized on the backs of David & Team and have mistakenly decided they are smarter.
