MaidSafe rebuilding secure decentralised internet with BnkToTheFuture equity fundraising

[BIGbtc]

@nicklambert

So we are working hard to make the BF campaign as successful as possible and your ongoing help

Are you making any changes to the pitch ? Is there anything in your contract with BNK that would prevent you from suspending it for a brief period?

[BIGbtc]

@danski

Am surprised the £1m minimum was a BTTF imposition,

Have you considered that there should be a minimum based on what the company “needs”? I would hope some science went into making a determination if a certain amount was necessary to keep the company comfortable to exit. Its a good thing that BNK has a minumum. Investors will NOT advance money to pay next months bills just because MAIDSAFE needs it. Investors want to know that the funding will carry MAIDSAFE to a point of fiscal independance or a point at which subsequent funding rounds are very attractive. Airbnb just did another round at $550M and they have a proven product. MAIDSAFE has no proven products and needs cash to get the product to market and has no idea how long that will take. That is a very scary proposition to any investor.

[Nigel]

I was watching loyyal on bnk to see what happened with the remaining 7 days left and being underfunded but now it has 20 days. So obviously they got an extension. They have a small amount to raise, $500,000 I believe and are about half way. Thought I would share

[BIGbtc]

@Nigel

So obviously they got an extension.

Ive not done much research into bttf practices but certainly they would not get a nickel if funding minimum was not met. So its in their interests as well to get this to the minimum. Not sure Im impressed with the manner in which the stated funding format is abandoned.

[BIGbtc]

@Nigel

hey have a small amount to raise, $500,000 I believe and are about half way

So does this tell us that it really doesnt matter where the minimum threshold is? If it 500K or 1M?

[BIGbtc]

@nicklambert

but as the deal is not yet agreed and not guaranteed

@nicklambert As this is not guaranteed, would it not be better for you to keep this under wraps until its a done deal? The fact it may not happen makes it seem you’re desperate to put out something positive. This kinda stuff will backfire if it doesnt come to fruition. Or am I reading this incorrectly? Sorry if I am.

[nicklambert]

Yes, we are keeping details under wraps:

@nicklambert

We would love to tell you more at this stage, but as the deal is not yet agreed and not guaranteed so we need to keep our lips sealed, for now at least.

So the community should be aware that BF is not the only show in town, even if we can share the specifics of the other discussions we are having.

[whiteoutmashups]

@rand_om

I’m afraid thats not the case. The 5% are not Maidsafe specific, they are for the core devs. Only the first 4 (iirc) years will Maidsafe get exclusive payment. After that, they get a part of the 5% just like anybody else who will be doing core dev.

Ok yeah that’s how I remember it to *whew!

Back to what makes sense. Whoever is actively improving the code at any given moment is exactly who should be getting rewarded

[whiteoutmashups]

@anon40790172

This might have been the old idea. This is how it’s stated on the BTTF website.

I’m sure that’s just a watered down version for the masses. I think that because 1) it’s a bad, centralizing idea that I would be very surprised to see MaidSafe make and 2) because their other BNK videos were aimed at new people / the masses, so I think it’s just a simplified version that doesn’t explain the real long term rules of the 5%

[whiteoutmashups]

@dirvine

5% of all safecoin is held in trust by the foundation to buy back shares from investors if the investor wishes to sell them that is.

5% are core rewards, we stand to make a % of that, initially very high, hopefully tapering off.

Awesome, got my answer. I knew they wouldn’t make a decision like that. Centralized control? Not with MaidSafe!

Looks like we just had the 5% here and 5% there mixed up

[BIGbtc]

@nicklambert

Yes, we are keeping details under wraps:

No thats not my point here. You have announced you are negotiating something big - with a big player –but its not guaranteed- is not keeping it under wraps. If it was guaranteed to happen - subject to those negotiations - that would be a completely different story.

Totally agree the community should know BF is not the only game in town and that you are looking at all strategic opportunities.

[nicklambert]

I guess we see it differently. From my perspective I have discretely mentioned this in a thread, providing no details (no suggestion of a big player), to help alleviate concerns voiced by concerned community members in earlier posts. So I don’t see this as an announcement. We could move to a place where we say absolutely nothing about anything until it becomes official, but I think that we make this forum a less rich place.

[whiteoutmashups]

@Username1

But on safe network, you can use datachains to create blockchain technology, with blocks capable to handle terabytes per block

Holy jeez this is the first time hearing / thinking about this. So on SAFE you can create a much better “Bitcoin” ? (open ledger publicly viewable currency?)

That’s pretty amazing just saying.

These are the kinds of things that could improve this / future SAFE pitches.

Go invest

[rand_om]

I appreciate some little hints here and there. I dont think this is a problem really. Also, I’m pretty sure they’ love to be As open As possible, and it’s hard for them to keep quiet . It’s great to surprise ppl

[Nigel]

@whiteoutmashups I have noticed that lately you are easily inflamed by information that you have misunderstood. It seems your confidence in the project is waning or your confidence in general is easily waned. I hope that your relationship with Daniel isn’t to blame, he seems a bit more level headed more recently but his reasons for abandoning this network and original investors is mostly unfounded and is mostly based off time sensitivity (impatience) I believe. I’d hate to see the safe fs system endure the same abandonment issues that safe x has. Sorry if I am assuming too much I just see you as a valuable member of the community and want you to keep your bearings less hasty.

[whiteoutmashups]

@Krekc

Perhaps you could make investing into the pitch more attractive by giving a MAID “bonus” to investor. For example 1 MAID per Pound invested.

This is genius. Great idea for the extra MAID

[whiteoutmashups]

Sir I’m allowed to read and interpret,

The main thing that got me worried was that the idea was coming from @anon40790172 himself.

That’s it. Read super deep into it if you wish though. I’ve always spoken freely, truthfully and uncensored, if you’ve followed by posts since the beginning. And I enjoy that.

Probably why I’ve never become a mod in all my years here I enjoy the ability to speak 100% freely, even if human mistakes are made. I feel life is more efficient that way.

[BIGbtc]

@nicklambert

I guess we see it differently. From my perspective I have discretely mentioned this in a thread,

Trust me @nicklambert , our investments in Maidsafe may not be equal, but our enthusiasm to see it succeed are matched.

@nicklambert

In the background, we are currently negotiating a partnership that will provide MaidSafe with additional funding, but also provide access to one of the world’s largest markets.

This is no small tidbit of information. This appears to be designed to bring more confidence than it should to the status quo.

@nicklambert

but as the deal is not yet agreed and not guaranteed

This is what makes it not cool to reveal.

To suggest to the community that you are actively discussing investments - like you have in the past - is perfectly acceptable and absolutely necessary.

What happens if the deal is not done? Will you proactively announce it failed and give details as to why it failed?

IMO to garner trust you cannot give false hope. Making a firm announcement that Google Ventures is taking a position with Maidsafe after long negotiations is what we all want to hear. A done deal!

If your negotiations are not successful it will be clear the next time you mention a big deal that it means nothing.

[nicklambert]

@BIGbtc

This appears to be designed to bring more confidence than it should to the status quo.

No, it was not designed to do anything other than convey that there are other options on the table. [quote=“BIGbtc, post:336, topic:11039”]
What happens if the deal is not done? Will you proactively announce it failed and give details as to why it failed?
[/quote]

We have done in the past and have discussed unsuccessful attempts to secure EU funding in this very forum, although I don’t think we would share details of why deals have not come to fruition, who would even want to start a negotiation with us then.

[BIGbtc]

@nicklambert

No, it was not designed to do anything other than convey

I said “appears”. It’s all about optics here Nick and I think you know what Im talking about.

Good luck.