I agree that the whitepaper does say that. But the whitepaper is a blueprint not a legal document or contract.
If you bought at the crowdsale, you bought into an unregulated financial instrument. Compared to the majority of ICO’s that have happened, this project has been THE MOST HONEST and ABOVE BOARD project out there.
But that doesn’t mean they got the white paper perfect to the what we get in the end.
Again, show me a contract.
It was a financial promotion document… that may seem trivial to you, but it isn’t when $7m exchanged hands based on it.
So it’s okay to be dishonest this one time, because they have been honest up to this point?
Stupid argument.
Unregulated market. If you want the security’s offered by a regulated market, then why did you buy at an unregulated one?
Unregulated means no enforcement of contractual rights. No clarity on what your “rights” even are. You chose to buy in that market - so the risk is on you.
I don’t care which prop wins here as trivial outcome. But if you think you had rights when you bought at the ICO, you should have consulted a lawyer - they’d have told you that you’d have only the ability to sue if there was fraud. This doesn’t look like it to me - certainly not intentional.
So why don’t we just wait to hear what the legal team says. And stop bickering about it for a few weeks.
Amen, brother. No reason to put the cart in front of the donkey.
It’s not dishonesty it a difference of opinion.
Changing the meaning of 10% is a difference of opinion? what?
Stop it - you know very well the difference of opinion by this point. You’r calling yourself a fool if you don’t – how many times do we have to go over it again? This sort of arguing is why you’ve been called out for trolling.
edit - I’m off to bed. I have no need to get in the last word. So have at it. G’night all. 
How long is 10% of a piece of string… stupid arguement.
Well this piece of string was sold at 10% of 4294967296. Details matter.
Calm down 
I love the crypto wild west, but legal systems exist, and many lawsuits have been brought against companies who carried out ICOs, even if the market is unregulated.
I don’t want that to be more likely for MaidSafe by them unintentionally diluting ICO participants who were promised ‘10% of all Safecoin’ ahead of their transactions… and I also prefer the idea of not being diluted by 5%.
If the network is successful I really won’t care if my Safecoin is up 1000x or 950x, but you can guarantee that some people would try to make a case.
Words salads… if you are going to make a valid arguement it has to be explicit.
How does it matter?..
The full ball of string doesn’t roll out immediately and the how it rolls is still to be resolved.
If what existed now was cast as 20% of the real safenetwork’s coinage, would it matter?.. the value of that would resolve because of the utility of the network… and over time the continuity of the market would kick in.
You’re arguing for disrupting what exists and troublemaking… zerovalue and flawed.
How can you say it’s dishonest when they have acknowledged your argument but think there is a better alternative?
If I understand correctly Jim said they will look at 10.5%.
@zeroflaw and anyone thinking of involving legal/authorities/etc., why not take a step back and let the community (hopefully) resolve things?
@maidsafe, let me just be blunt. I’m honestly a bit dismayed by the wound that you guys are self-inflicting here. Given the foundation path you’ve chosen, you shouldn’t be taking any action that opens the project up to legal action. And from a risks standpoint, future potential participants that aren’t even presently aware of the project can’t sue. But past/existing participants that have already exchanged value for the tokens have standing to. It shouldn’t need spelling further which should be taking precedent from a risk standpoint.
To give another example of risk, a dilution of the MAID portion not only injures the holders of MAID but also benefits anyone holding debt denominated in MAID in that their debt is reduced, particularly since the number of future tokens per shares of Maidsafe goes up. It might not be intended, but that’s the effective outcome. I won’t elaborate this point further, but I hope I’ve said enough to catch the risk.
Notice that I’m not even talking about optics and morals. Just cold hard risks. If your lawyers didn’t catch these, you should consider changing firms.
To hopefully move things along and because it appears the MAID dilution is the key point of contention for folks, @jlpell, would it be a good compromise for you to take Maidsafe’s current RFC and update only the Max Supply and your proposed fix for the MAID overprint and posting that instead as the alternative RFC?
Most here seem satisfied with the RFC.
A few are not and have been heard but some, not necessarily all seem unwilling to accept anything except that they get their way on this or that specific point.
Whether all those unhappy with the RFC can find a formula that is good enough to satisfy all of them and is able to be implemented, is doubtful to me and we can’t continue debating this in the hope that they will.
Some have tried very hard to find that but I’m not convinced the community can come to a consensus in a reasonable time, if at all.
By now it should be apparent that this is going to delay what we all I hope, put top or very high on our priorities: a working network as soon as possible.
I ask everyone to consider what their priorities are here. Be honest with yourself if not in public and set aside grumbles or personal ideas and feelings and be willing to accept whatever Jim decides next. Whether that is some changes or no changes.
I am willing to trust him to do his best for the project here. Are you, and if not are your actions helping or harming it?
I’m not sure any other project would open themselves up in this way. I’ve not seen it done anywhere else myself so we can appreciate that and not let it get in the way of delivery because that is much more important than anything said on this topic - because without it none of this matters.
He’s done that here: RFC 0061A - Safe Network Token Distribution (Dogmatic Edition)
Good work to move things along @jlpell!
I would say “most” is a stretch. It seems about 50/50 with others not really caring one way or the other.
I’m not sure why it would delay anything. David already stated the devs are more or less hands off on this.
If it’s already been submitted, then whatever, just let it ride and we’ll see what comes of it. That doesn’t seem to be the case, though, from what I’m reading here. Since they asked for opinions and people gave them I’m not sure why people are getting upset.
Perhaps one or two people are a little overzealous on calling out the staff for some kind of malfeasance or deception, but I generally think people just believe another path is the better way forward, myself included. I think that posts like this that basically sound like a loyalty pledge trying to discredit concerns feeds more cynicism, not less.
Admittedly I joined the debate late, but it seems to me that everyone who is highly critical of the RFC is focusing on the same blocker (the dilution of ICO participants).
If this is the case, workable solutions have been proposed (RFC 0061A - Safe Network Token Distribution (Dogmatic Edition)), and I expect all / most of the critics could support something along those lines (with any required tweaks MaidSafe can add).
I’d be happy with the current RFC as-is, except with minimal re-jigging to ensure MAID holders receive the ~10.5% of total supply needed to keep the promise of ICO sales = 10% of total supply.
I hope that proposal can be a catalyst to find a solution the vast majority can reasonably get behind.