So much money has been garnered by various ICO’s of late and that seems likely IMO to continue.
There are a pile of potential SafeNet apps that could be developed … and we even have a list and ranking of them: Most wanted APP for the SAFE Network
We also are facing a lot of up and coming devs who see the potential of SafeNet and would like to capitalize on it - they see that no one is yet working on it and they go get funding and then … in some cases they fall down and give everyone a black-eye in the process.
What if a group of long time SafeNet supporters and Devs got together to form a foundation that would do a large mega ICO and then use the money for development & marketing and at the same time the foundation would vet & oversee the developers and projects?
No more black-eyes and solid funding for all IMO.
And as a bonus, we could donate a chunk of money to Maidsafe to help them along.
If we market ourselves (honestly!) as a foundation dedicated to the development of youtube and facebook like apps that put security, anti-censorship, anonymity, & anti-spam at the top of the list and that we will build all apps on SafeNet … and we have a board of directors composed of highly respected SafeNet people and a large group of advisors from well respected long term SafeNet people … we could possibly pull in well over $50MM … that’s a respectable endowment and could go a long way toward helping SafeNet achieve it’s aims.
What do people think?
I would suggest that to start we’d need to get a good lot of people here on the forum to sign up as project advisors … and this group can select a more dedicated group as the board of directors … and that group will hire a team to manage the the foundation, and vet apps for development.
Has anyone started something like this already? I’d like to hear thoughts pro and con.
A suggestion in the safenet Riot chat that such a foundation should have a limited lifespan - I agree. Possibly if funding was though an ethereum contract, then a limit could be placed such that funds not used by a certain time (a decade?) would be donated to something else? Or if possible returned to investors? I don’t know how it might be done, but sounds like a cool idea.
Nice idea but in my experience (of working on an ICO) most of the funding comes in either via big private investors (existing contacts) or joe crypto public who are in it for the short / medium term rise once it’s listed. I don’t see how either would get deeply involved with this particular model, unless I’ve misunderstood it. I have no doubt there’s legs in this though, but I just wouldn’t expect to bink $20m. But if even $1m works, then why not? I’d happily help out and also contribute.
You might say “NVO raised 7m” but it’s apples and oranges.
Unless the model creates some utility or is linked to value or specific app progress somehow, It’ll be hard to break the mould of “what’s in it for me?” But if you can do it, amazing. And as I said, I would happily do what I can to help.
Well if ICO investors get a piece of every app and those apps earn revenue from the safe network PtD system … then there is one model. I’m sure there are others … I don’t mean to say that there won’t be rewards for investors, we’d need that to bring in money (opportunity cost and all) … so bring it on, post some ideas
I’m not coming in here with a fully fledged idea … i just wanted to see if there was interest and if so we can work out the rest. Reasonable people can come to find solutions. Of course maybe there is a critical bug in my thinking (wouldn’t be the first time) … which is why I’m here asking for comments.
Yea absolutely, I appreciate that. I’ll have a think. But in the end, if this doesn’t get the stamp of approval from Maidsafe, there’s not much point in pursuing it. Let’s see what the more cynical / critical (and rightfully so) forum members think
It would also need to avoid appearing like an indirect investment round for Safe, I suspect.
People took issue with how the money was to be handled. They didn’t like the idea of a central party. But it was a bit different, you can find it by searching CIP
I don’t know that the stamp of approval from Maidsafe is needed … but certainly I think we’d need many well respected community members here to be a part of the advisory and even better, the board. As for donations to the maidsafe team, that would be up to the board and it wouldn’t be the priority IMO as just funding great apps will in and of itself facilitate the networks adoption … that said if maidsafe runs out of funds at some point and they were too ask for a grant … I doubt they’d get a ‘no’!
As far as funds go … what I would recommend is that the board would manage a multi-sig wallet and disperse funding to the staff quarterly and the staff would pay out to each approved project - possibly based on project milestones being achieved. So effectively the community (who advise the project and elect the board) would manage the funds. I think if we select very well known and respected community members we’d be alright with funds management. There are always possibilities for fraud but I believe there are a lot of people here who hold a lot of respect from the community who are quite trustworthy.
To be honest I’m not looking for a role here … I’ll help if I’m useful … but have a lot of my other things to do to. I would just like to facilitate organizing this - if it is appears a reasonable thing to do and can gain community support.
Perhaps we could have different models for investor payback that developers could select from - create a little diversity. Different apps might have different needs … idk.
That’s what The DAO was, just for ethereum instead of SAFE. It showed that DAO technology still has quite some ways to go before it’s mature enough for something like this.
An interesting idea. I might suggest a philanthropic donation as well. If this goes through we will need a legally binding document with an executor for destruction and dismantling. Happy to help with this if it comes to fruition. There will be some challenges if you want to set this up as a trust or foundation, but all can be overcome with some due diligence.
I suggest that we make a donation bitcoin/eth address to explore this opportunity. To collect money for 1 week аnd to describe tasks. Then declare a prize for each task
A few things I think of:
Offering and voting for founders of the foundation
Legal bases (It is now fashionable to open an ICO firm in Estonia whit e-residency https://e-resident.gov.ee/ Maybe we can also create a foundation)
I believe that to have a successful ICO, it’s important to follow the models that are out there. The best ones IMO all have a strong group of advisors … and while in most cases the team/founders came first and then selected advisors, I don’t see a problem with that happening the other way around.
I agree that advisors should be allowed to vote/rank projects … but in a way we already have a nice list of projects that are ranked, so a great starting point I think. Advisors could also select a board from their ranks - people who have more time to devote to the foundation - I may be repeating myself here from the O.P. …
As to how and where a foundation is created e.g. DAO and/or legal foundation organized in country xyz … for the time being I don’t think we need to decide that … I think that should be decided by the board of directors as chosen by the group of advisors - that way, it will have the advisors and most of the community behind the decision by default.
So, while I am still open to hearing criticisms of the foundation idea in general, allow me to propose that anyone who is interested in being an advisor to the foundation, please raise your hand now in this thread by saying so.
I, for one, would like to be an advisor.
I will compile a list of those interested. If we get a good group of people - particularly well respected (long time) forum members to sign up to this, then we can go from there, else I will message some of them directly and see if I can get them on board.
Basically though, I don’t want to front-run any decisions on what this foundation may be without the consent of such a group.
I am wondering if it would be better for the forum members to suggest the advisers then narrow the list down to maybe twice as many as you want then approach them privately and see if they are interested. No problems initially to have more advisers than required since some will drop out due to some reason. That way there is noone pushing to be an adviser and promoting themselves. It will be up to the members of the forum to decide and not self promotion. The best leaders are not those who push to be “elected” but the ones others promote. There is a word for this …
Not a bad idea … I had been thinking that the advisors would elect a board and nominations for the board shouldn’t be self-promoted … but advisors aren’t that huge a thing so I’m really open personally to anyone who wants to do it who’s has been on the forum for at least … idk, say 9 months? In any case, I don’t suspect many are going to put their hand up, so I will probably create a list this week from the forum users and ask directly.
