Good luck with that.
A suggestion for how to distribute tokens that doesn’t appear to do anything illegal isn’t in my opinion going to get a in depth response.
There is no real legal requirement to hold to a white paper that cannot be adhered to anyhow because of the way the project progressed/evolved.
Also white papers rarely if ever get implemented the exact way that its written anyhow, government, business or otherwise.
It would be nice, I just don’t think they’ll give you one … and I suppose I fear government types in the same way the Hobbit’s fear the eye of Sauron.
If they don’t give me one, then thats okay, but the value it will provide if they do will be significant for both sides of this discussion.
If you want a legal opinion on a hypothetical, you need a lawyer, not a regulator.
(you may also want to brush up on your French 
)
But again, to reiterate, if we want to have any chance of getting launched this year, we need to get rolling.
We don’t have another X weeks to ponder things, the time has come for action.
I’ve never had contact with an authority that sits down and gives thorough guidance, that could be interpreted as a decision, on complicated questions.
Their way of answering such questions, is through applications. That’s the standard answer: “Send in the application and we will see.”
There are some that provide like an advance notice, that then is a very good authority. Not the common one IME.
Well if FINMA tell me they can’t help, I’ll post that here as well. So nobody else tries this route.
FINMA maybe turn out to be a valuable resource and help provide useful information in relation to this RFC.
I’m a uneducated retail investor, that has a question, if FINMA can’t help, then maybe they can tell me someone who can.
Isn’t the solid reason very clear?
ICO participants were expecting 10% of the final supply when they invested. The RFC effectively allocates them about 9.5% instead of 10%.
It does this because rather than expanding the MAID allocation of final supply in proportion to the overmint to keep ICO participants’ share of total at 10%, it instead expands all other allocation to ensure the total MAID holder (ICO participants + overmint) allocation of final supply is 10%, turning ICO holders’ initially temporary dilution into a permanent dilution that carries over to the live network.
Do you not “get it” regulatory bodies look for reasons to stop applications so right wrong or just pestering, then you seem to want to cause harm. I say go ahead but don’t pretend to support this project any longer.
I am sorry but I am busy and this pretentious and entitled approach you have is nothing short of childlike. The threats tell all.
So go ahead. I have heard enough from you and your “expert financial views”. I am sure there are many like you, thousands in fact. Build nothing, want everything and sit there in your throne of gold. I say just flush it man, and have done with it.
Enough is enough, build, support or move aside.
Okay, I will not send a email to FINMA until after the application has been completed. Is that fair?
In exchange could your lawyers provide some kind of legal view on the situation.
I don’t care, honestly I am done speaking with you on this matter.
You cannot make threats, call yourself an “uneducated retail investor” and spout this crap. You are wasting my time, and I have to build. So no, do what you wish in all your legally threatening glory.
I think you will find FINMA as caring of you as I am now.
Ther are always counter arguments, that don’t say much.
It comes down to not hurting investers who took huge risk over a very long time, to not direspect them and make them feel cheated by reducing opportunities that they felt was proposed to them in the beginning. Future farmers and others won’t know the difference, me as you included.
Even if it is not a very huge % that are a lost in opportunity, it is very symbolic and not insignificant.
I won’t comment on others but many here have shown lack of economic and logical knowledge. I have a bachelor in economics which gives me solid ground to make valid statements about economics and rational logic. I believe @oetyng @Bogard and maybe a few others also have shown great skills, from the past to the present, when it comes to rational logic and economy, making valid claims that are backed by good rational logic and should be considered.
^^
This (from @zeroflaw ) folks is why being open is hard. The more open you are, especially anywhere near money or perceived money and you get these threats and nonsense. It’s not easy to share and be open when folk like that are lurking.
I’m not making threats, as nobody has done anything wrong. If nobody has done anything wrong, nothing bad can happen.
Stop saying it’s a threat.
How is asking questions a threat? because you don’t like the question?
The issue is that their are sound reasons for both proposals. Both have pluses and minuses. And there are folks on both sides. So I will repeat again, unless there is a legal or technical reason for Jim to change it, then it should stay as it is.
If one person sending a simple, “Is this Okay?” question to FINMA gets your application thrown out. Then what the hell is the point of a supervisory authority? The whole point is to make sure that decisions which are made, that have financial implications (no matter, how small) are deemed fair. You would simply have to change the allocations of the safe network to be regulatory compliant as deemed by the regulator.
Throwing an entire application out because of a RFC seems unlikely, and trying to make me out as some kind of enemy of the network is a massive red flag to me.
I want this to be reviewed by an independent third-party, one you have chosen to regulate yourselves. This somehow makes me the worst person in the world? something is very wrong.
I mean I did ask first for your lawyers to provide a legal opinion, but that hasn’t okay either.
To everyone
This process looks like it may take a long while, it may never finish. We need to decide on putting a halt to the whole FINMA application process here. We are going to be beginning many months of work so there is a cost.
So am asking in all honesty what we want here, how do we get an RFC we can all agree on, is it even possible or will we fall on some 0.5% of nothing at this stage.
I am open to any serious ways of taking this forward.
From all the disagreements and folk with absolute certainty there way is right, how do we get closure and move forward?
Serious question, no malice here, but who is the most right and who writes the RFC for others to not change?
Fantastic so this is acknowledgement that you also see that there could be a legal issue with the RFC in its current form?
Make a vote of all the different options that have been suggested in this thread.
I’m pretty sure you’re not asking me … but as an Anarchist, my answer is plain and simple - grift and control of the marketplace in support of the established oligarchy.
For you own sake, don’t put much faith in the State and it’s agencies. They aren’t there to help most of the time. There are good people, but there are a lot of bad ones too.
That is not at all what he said.
All you are doing is derailing the thread now. Please stop that and let folk have a meaningful discussion over an important issue.
There is NO LEGAL impediment to the RFC as proposed.