Wrong. If it mattered to the degree you think it does the whole of it would be shut down. It’s fraudulent to sell unregulated securities and in the present that is what the ICO would have been doing.
I don’t see anyone going to jail - it’s been grandfathered in. Same with Ethereum.
Correct answer
I believe paperwork to the Foundation, based on the original JC-stated method, has already been submitted so, yes, there inevitably will be a delay. Not to mention the rough waters being presented to the authorities, giving them, perhaps, a reason for deeper inspection, thus another delay.
Wrong answer, the sales wasn’t illegal because they were not regulated in 2014. Upto this very moment the original agreement for 10% of the network for the ICO 429million has not been broken.
If they become FINMA regulated, and in-act this RFC, they are no longer upholding the conditions in which they sold the initial 10%. Which I feel is a breach of regulation. Let’s ask them?
The tokens aren’t created yet - none except the MAID. So by that logic creating any new tokens is a dilution.
You have to consider what the white paper said - it’s not a contract, but that was the aim of the project. And in the white paper is said MAID would be 10%. That’s what this RFC is making happen. Therefore there is no dilution if we are being honest.
Very important point imo.
You keep repeating this - where is this mythical agreement that the ICO would only be 10%? I’ve only every seen it stated that MAID would be 10% - links? – and no, cointelegraph articles are not legally binding.
Yes says MAID would be 10% and they attempted to honour that by only selling 429,496,729 of the current 452,552,412 MAID tokens at the ICO.
The additional sale of 23 million tokens does not break the agreement of the first sale, but lets ask FINMA?
MAID was initially supposed to represent 10% of the total supply, and all of that would be sold to ICO investors.
But, an extra quantity of MAID were produced and later sold, so assuming no change to the total supply, this means over 10% of the total supply is represented by MAID.
Squashing this back to 10% means the tokens sold to ICO investors now represent only ~9.5% of the total supply, hence the dilution, which can either be fixed at this stage, or compounded unnecessarily.
It’s a factor now because ~$7m of tokens were sold in 2014 on the premise that they will become 10% of the final supply of Safecoin / SNT.
The RFC turns this into ~9.5% because the overmint is not being allowed to increase the MAID 10% up to ~10.5% in line with the additional MAID issuance. But, viable alternatives have been put forward that maintain the 10% for ICO participants, and maintain the initially planned max token supply.
I know a 5% dilution of tokens isn’t the biggest financial deal in the world, but when it’s very much possible as shown by other proposal, why not honour the 10% for ICO participants & keep the total supply as planned?
read the above.
I simply don’t agree. If the ICO participants were told they were buying 1 out of 2^32 tokens, and now they are not, that is dilution. I don’t see how it could be any other way. If for ~8 years, people are trading under the assumption the max supply is 2^32, there’s defacto dilution there, as well. Maybe not literally, in that case, but certainly psychologically.
I also just think having a max supply of 2^32 is much cleaner and simpler, so there is an element of that in my opinion, as well. Having some random number be the max supply pains me at a fundamental level.
Did you not read my post? cointelegraph articles are not legally binding - you don’t even know if anything in there is truthful.
Show me where they were told this.
It’s inferred if the max supply is 2^32 and they were sold 10% of 2^32 tokens.
A quantity of 429,496,729 coins will be available for purchase, this equates to 10% of all safecoins
From: https://github.com/maidsafe/Whitepapers/blob/master/Project-Safe.md
So, the issue is that because of the overmint of ~0.5% of total supply, for the ‘coins available for purchase’ / ICO coins to equal 10% of all safecoins, the current supply of MAID needs to equal ~10.5% of the total supply, which it doesn’t in the RFC, hence the complaints.
As far as I can see the only serious issue people have with the RFC is this dilution of the ICO coins, so if that is sorted, I expect agreement will be broad and things can just move on.
10% - there’s that number again - read it carefully - does it say more than 10%? does it say 10.5%? Nope. You get 10%. This RFC makes that happen.
Again where in any contract does it say you get more than 10% of supply?
OMG 10% of the max supply was offered in exchange for 429,496,729 maidsafecoins. At the crowdsale.
This RFC makes those last two words a total and complete lie.
This seems like an odd semantics argument, and still doesn’t really apply since the ICO amount is no longer 10% of the total.
I just quoted the whitepaper laying out that the tokens sold in the ICO were to represent 10% and showed why the RFC doesn’t fulfil this promise due to the overmint.
Extra tokens were produced that were not sold in the ICO, which are now part of the MAID supply.
So, in order for the tokens sold in the ICO to represent the 10% of total supply promised, the current MAID supply must represent ~10.5% of total supply.
Do you see this yet? I don’t know how to make it clearer!