The market didn’t “work it out” the market paid additional capital for the additional supply.
423 million tokens - Sold at ICO in exchange for capital
23 million tokens - Sold for additional for capital
So 10.5% was sold to the market. 89.5% unissued supply isn’t enough left over for the network to survive on for some reason. So let’s create another 230,556,824 tokens so the other side to make it up to 90%. See the problem, what was only 0.5% (23 million tokens), becomes over 50% of the MAID supply.
An insignificant rounding error, get multiplied into significance. In the name of protecting the farmers, which don’t exist and have nothing to protect.
As @dirvine has said, no legal implications with the above. Just waiting for him to provide the details and proof of such a claim.
Just to add … the next big event is the boot of network… frankly how many tokens exist is moot. The market will resolve at that point and going forward what the value of tokens is… the count of them really matters not.
I would argue it matters from a legal and regulatory point of view. Which if I get the proof this RFC is compliant on both fronts, then I have no argument.
You’re not arguing it… you’re obliging others to prove a negative?.. you should assert what you believe. How could it matter?.. it seems obvious that it would not. The value is something the new network will resolve regardless of the total count… its a hill of beans at this point. The value now on market is stable relative to the market participants perception but that is different to what will be too.
Legal and regulatory perception is about assurance against manipulation, not an indulgence of it!
Not a dilution. We were promised 10% we are getting 10%. You say one part (that total supply is increasing), but leave off the other.
There isn’t anywhere in the white paper or otherwise that promised they’d give more than 10% if they overprinted MAID - but that’s what you’re asking for.
I don’t mind either way, but there is no reason to change it.
It’s no measurable loss in any case. PROVE ME WRONG!! - you can’t.
The increase in tokens comes into existence over decades … the concern our tokens are going to be worth less is arguing over 0.000000001 pennies worth value. It appears to me to be ridiculous.
So IMO this is all much ado about nothing. Surely there are more important things to worry about.
No ICO isn’t important - there was no regulatory framework for ICO’s when Maidsafe did there’s … if they tried to do it today it’d be a different matter, but back then there weren’t any regulations on it.
I’m not an ICO guy. I got my first tokens in 2016, so I’m not as directly affected by this as others here may be. I still believe the dilution to the ICO holders (and to some extent, everyone operating under the assumption the max total supply was 2^32) is the wrong way forward. I agree with the alternate proposals to take the stream of tokens from “future” people or the developer pool and leave the total at 2^32.
I understand the dilution is a negligible amount in the scheme of things, and I’m not overly concerned if this proposal is the one that is decided to move forward. However, I find it more troubling that there is some statements being made in another thread that there is no dilution occurring. Obviously there is, there has to be. To claim there is not is a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation, which when someone presenting an RFC says that, it raises some understandable concerns.
In the end, I think keeping the max supply at 2^32 and making adjustments elsewhere is the correct solution. I’m not going to make a big deal out of it or join some class action suit, but it seems like the obvious best course of action to me, personally. If such a change would significantly delay the implementation of the network, I would favor this RFC proposal over a delay.