Nope, read about 20 posts above yours.
I did not see that in David’s post either
David responded to a post that included the words “full swap” but I did not see that he was thinking in terms of a full swap like this poll is. I would always have taken it as what was talked about for 2 years and that is an optional swap and never a full swap.
You said tried, did you succeed because you should be able to by clicking on “Show vote” button
FWIW, I took full swap to mean an actual conversion as opposed to a wrapped version, rather than converting all coins. When voting, it was with the assumption that we wouldn’t leave dormant address holders high and dry.
I realize that Dimitar’s later comments indicated one consideration was to do a total token swap, but he seems to also be interested in hearing other ideas.
I think it’s pretty unanimous that we don’t want to do anything which will potentially screw over some folks, and I don’t think that was ever the intention.
We can (not me, we) but a snapshot should be done by parsing omnicore data out of the bitcoin blockchain directly, not by scraping omniexplorer. We can’t trust omniexplorer.info. We should have several independent people create a snapshot at the desired block.
Sorry to be technical about it but I want to stress that omni protocol is trustless but omniexplorer.info is not.
Of course, you are right and you understood correctly. The goal is to discuss how and if we can do something before starting with the ERC20 token. I personally think that the best option is to be able to exchange both tokens (omni and erc20) for Safe tokens.
Privacy. Security. Freedom
Thanks, I wasn’t aware. Changed it there successfully
I voted yes because it solves quite a lot of problems, in addition to hedging risk:
MAID-ERC20 provides a bridge to where the majority of the decentralised developers currently work and have invested their liquidity. Developers who will be seduced by the SN technology, come over and become dApp developers over a period of time after the SN launches and gains traction, earning trust as it continues to secure larger and larger amounts of value. This goes beyond SN launch date as a single event where Maid just stops on that date.
It opens up Maid to CEX and DEX markets that do not and will not support omni tokens. This is the majority of the market.
It allows people with even small amounts of MAID-ERC20 to provide them as liquidity to large markets such as Uniswap, earning fees while maintaining control of their private keys, reducing risk off loss and improving the liquidity of the market for Maid at the same time, which ties into…
Improved Price discovery. Helping zone in on the true value of the Safe Network and its utility token. This has not happening as efficiently under the extremely limited market that Omni protocol offers access to. A few that have opposed MAID-ERC20 swap in the past have cited that maintaining Maid-Omni keeps the it from circulating, keeps the price lower and allowing early adopted to accumulate more at cheaper prices. This is true, but I think this is fairly selfish thinking as the true value for SN will only be unlocked when there is Secure Access For Everyone. Everyone can’t be involved if there is little to no access to the Maid or later the SN Token soon after launch. Note that the market infrastructure for delivering SN tokens into the hands of people will likely not be available immediately on the SN launch, perhaps even for quite some time after launch other than farming - but most of the market use mobiles only that may not be able to farm right away (?). Maid-ERC20 helps with the “Everyone” part of the Safe name.
Supported by a very large list of wallets, hardware, desktop and mobile.
This has been stated like this for several years now. It would be constructive to see a least a little evidence this time around because it has always appeared to be framed as extreme fearmongering to me:
When you transfer 100 (Pounds, dollars, yen, frequent flyer miles, whatever can be taxed) from account A to account B, it is still 100 and there is no taxable event if accounts are owned by same person or entity. You are not redeeming your flyer miles, your not loaning them to yourself, your not exchanging asset classes. It does not matter than account A uses some new Fintech protocol technical system with pooled funds to store its 1s and zeros vs account B that uses a completely different protocol or keeps those accounts on paper in a cabinet. It also does not matter that the price of the asset fluctuated vs some other asset class. When we transfer 100 MAID (Omni) to 100 MAID (ERC20) some people are stating that the transfer is a taxable event. In my tax experience it sounds like quite an extraordinary claim. Transfers are not transactions, or loans unless you decide to change who owns them. Only transactions are considered taxable events and transactions only happen when there is a change in asset class, at least in any jurisdiction I have been taxed in. Filled out enough damn tax forms to recognise this basic difference. I am happy to be educated about how your individual exotic local rules tax transfers as well as transactions (extraordinary claim, lets see the extraordinary proof). In the unlikely event that some people do pay taxes on transfers as well as transactions, then please also add reasons why we should hold back on all the benefits because of it? Or are we just trolling @dirvine past negative experiences with the tax authorities and hoping for once burnt twice shy reaction to bolster a very weak premise?
No, this is very unlikely based on recent example, the fear your expressing is unfounded. The smaller Tauchain project with their Agoras Token (AGRS) transitioned perfectly on three exchanges including on Maids biggest exchange, Bittrex. ERC20 transition is actually cheaper and more secure for exchanges to maintain because literally nobody else but Maid uses Omni. So exchanges get to reduce their support costs and increase security. Note that Agoras Token has a much smaller market cap than Maid and it was even then still worth Bittrex facilitating the swap. The larger market cap Maid will reduce much more operation risk for the exchanges.
Add on top that the amount of quality exchanges Maid-ERC20 would open Maid-ERC20 up to far outweighs the almost non-existent risk.
I do no think the functionality will be lost so much as it just stops being updated like appears to already be the case. Omnicore development looks like it is just treading water and Omniwallet is already underwater with lots of outstanding issues on the log. Only a real concern if a security issue is being exploited and there are no capable devs or users with enough eyes on it to notice in time for real damage to be done. Are there community members that track or participate in Omni development and monitor for security events?
Note that we have a very credible Omni DEX already, and nobody uses it (see second half of post here). Maid.ERC20 is not just about access to a DEX. Note also that cross chain swap DEX technology has been around for a few years on several chains now yet there has been no traction. Some claim they are complicated, slow, high frequency of rollback etc. Even if these secondary market cross chain DEXs you list do buck the trend and manage to launch successfully, they will not address the reasons I gave for voting Yes above. Not worth waiting for a “maybe” vs what we would be giving up.
1: Liquidity wise, yes. Since Tauchain announced that AGRS would transition to ERC20 they got a big spike of activity, then a pullback, and since the conversion both liquidity and price appear to have been ticking consistently up, probably because of the reasons I list in point #4 for voting Yes above.
2). AGRS(Omni and ERC20) is a temporary transition coin to be converted when their project launches, just like Maid.
Most governments model them after shares with appropriate changes to cover the differences. And any change of circumstances (buy/sell/split/transfer/convert-to-new-company) causes tax events. If the share transaction has tax prepaid then only needs reporting.
Still does not hold water. We can change shares between protocols (different brokers systems, and even paper), and no taxable event is recorded. You did not change the asset class, you did not loan them to another person or entity = no taxable event.
This poor tax excuse has been trotted out for years now: Lets see the exotic tax code proof!
Ask your tax accountant who has expertise in this. What you suggest goes against tax advice others have received from the tax accountants and you could cause people problems. At least the advice you reject only means people ask their tax expert and the tax expert handles it, whereas your advice may cause problems in some places.
II don’t know how much MaidSafeCoin MaidSafe has, but let’s say they have 5 million left from community loan at conversion time to SNT.
If we assume a price of 5£ per MaidSafeCoin at the time of conversion, burning as opposed to a snapshot might then potentially give MaidSafe an extra tax bill of around 4 million £. I’m sure some of that money could be spent on figuring out any technical issues with a snapshot instead.
Not sure how HMRC will see burning vs snapshotting though. It could be considered an airdrop an in that case it would be considered a gift with cost basis 0, but assuming MaidSafeCoin then reaches a value of 0 an equal tax deduction could then be done. Airdrops can be taxed as income if the receiver is an active participant in the airdrop as opposed to passive, being a receiver solely from holding a certain amount of some coin or token. Not sure if that means that MaidSafe, as an iniator of the airdrop/conversion, would then get income tax in any case.
Anyways there are a lot of legal issues with how the conversion is performed and I am sure MaidSafe are looking into these when it’s time. Doing an extra mandatory ERC20 conversion would complicate things a lot.
The tax considerations are not clear to me either and I’ve studied it a bit.
From what I’ve heard (second hand) and understood for a long time with regard to any asset that has appreciated in value since your purchased it, then if you sell that asset for fiat, you pay capital gains.
I also believe (again second hand info) that if you take out a loan with the asset as collateral, you don’t pay cap gains on it - not until it sells … but even if the entity that hold the collateral, sells it (say you stop making repayments or the collateral loses a lot of value) - you are then obligated to pay cap. gains (if any).
To my mind this should also apply to barter - if I trade one asset for another - as I’m not realizing a gain. But that’s where it probably get’s even more technical as the gov. is always looking out for ways to take a bite.
I voted Yes. I feel that Omni is holding us back, like a broken down vehicle while everyone else is overtaking.
This extraordinary tax claim has been hand waved in a vague way around here in a fearmongering way for years now to hold progress back. Yet it has no proof or substance. I don’t need to ask: I have submitted plenty of crypto tax transfer and transaction data to tax authorities in three major jurisdictions. Transfers are not taxable events in any asset class, the people making an extraordinary claim should be providing proof as only they can: in their exotic jurisdiction that taxes transfers, different to the rest of world. If true in that exotic location then we have to decide whether that negative is worth all the positives.
Those that have not moved their coins since the IPO might have a lot of unfounded fear, it occurs to me that the real reason Tax is being raised as an issue is because some people have Maid and have never declared to the tax authorities, and are afraid that if they transfer them they may suddenly have to declare their assets. Converting Omni to ultra-private SN tokens first would alleviate that “problem” so that is why they might be fighting against progress to a Maid.ERC20 token. Maid-ERC20 is not a threat to your Tax situation:
But please, stop with the tax fearmongering without proof in your jurisdiction. Transfers are not and never have been taxable events in most major jurisdictions no matter if it is currency, flyer miles, shares or cryptocurrencies. Hiding undeclared assets is a different matter however but Maid-ERC20 does not threaten you there either.
He did clarify later by saying that was a possibility, but this thread is about discussing it and I think it is clear (even before the poll begun) that some will not part with their Omni, and I see not problem with that. What you may be confusing is: Wrapping Omni Vs full conversion no wrapping. Full conversion No wrapping does not imply all Omni-Maid must be converted. @Dimitar did clarify this later in the thread but I think it would be better to really nail these differences down if this is still causing people confusion.
WE need to be aware though, each location will be different and here it’s not clear. HMRC for example state clearly transfer from one crypto Asset to another is a disposal.
The tax debate would be whether OMNI->erc20 is a disposal or can it be claimed as just a wallet transfer or similar (as you “own” both, kinda, nearly) (note HMRC will not consider claims IMO, they apply the rules steadfastly in a way to maximise tax you pay, well unless you are wealthy enough to fight).
We may have a similar situation/argument when MAID->SNT happens and we will need to take advice and try and help as much as possible with any rules we know of and also any potential issues to be aware of.
I hate it, we probably all do, but forewarned is forearmed as they say.
When I wrote the first post, I was thinking about wrapped vs full ERC20 MAID. Later I realized that people misunderstood it and I explained it (at first I didn’t understand it and maybe the things I wrote sounded like I was proposing to force everyone to switch to ERC20 token).
Privacy. Security. Freedom
In other words: A change in asset class. Maid to Bitcoin, Maid to Ethereum. Not: Maid in one format to Maid in another. In this case transferring shares on paper to shares at the broker would be taxable.
Note that the HMRC has taken a hostile stance so it has been in their interest to overstate their case.
To play it safe there is no reason that MaidSafe the company have to do any protocol transfer (which is not a transaction aka “disposal”) for Maid in their taxable accounts anyway, does there?
While financial accountants and lawyers definitely need to be in the loop on whatever happens, I still think the best way would be a MAID locked loan for SNT. Say you get one key and a smart contract gets the other and the MAID is locked. You can unlock it by giving the SNT back to the contract - therefore the MAID is not being disposed, just lent out. And hence not a taxable event in any case … well that’s what I think anyway.
As to how SNT get’s onto a smart contract chain (and what chain is used) I don’t know - some sort of bridge to SN I suppose.
Edit: That bridge has to be centrally controlled. So a point of weakness I guess.
Do you think we’d get divergent prices on MAID-o and MAID-e?
Might they even end up being traded in parallel on the same exchange?
That would seems like different assets to me.
How do we stop people trading MAID that’s already been redeemed for SN?