Poor Jim. It looks like he made the mistake of trying to be fair to the KNOWN stakeholders and the UNKNOWN, future participants. The voice of the living is loud indeed. Reminds me of some arguments related to how Social Security is paid for in the U.S.
2 Likes
I am in this camp, probably because I did not participate in the ICO.
We have to assume many ICO participants are not glued to the forum so more people likely share the dilution view.
Getting to a point now where the ICO participants don’t feel they are getting the short straw is probably best.
Not everyone is going to agree on everything but if there is any chance that future legal challenges are avoided, then this process is needed and worth it.
3 Likes
In this proposal the only “losers” are part of group 2. And they are those who were told that for every safecoin they bought, they would own 1/2^32 part of the maximum supply that would exist on the network at any given time.
Now they are told that for every safecoin they bought, they will have 1/(2^32+230.556.822) of the maximum supply. That is 94.9% of what was promised.
The rest of the groups keep intact the percentage pledged in the ICO.
Personally I am indifferent to this loss, but for the project it could turn out to be a fatal mistake.
3 Likes
Beginning to look like 1+2=.5 and 3+4=-.5.
To what end? Say you’re right (in the eyes of regulators but not every crowd sale participants) and what do you and everyone else get?
Potentially no network and no token.
I don’t think you’re right and I just want to see us move forward after reading all this. It is such a silly thing to get hung up on, and at this stage no less when the legal ball is already rolling.
Just to be right? Just to be right or for justice for you and a few? Not doing me and many others any favors by drawing unnecessary attention to the wolves. That’s what they are by the way. That’s why we should just throw them the bone and not wave it around asking questions with it in our hand.
No disrespect by the way just stating my view on the matter of reaching out to regulators.
3 Likes
It can also be fatal if the reverse happens. The Foundation I’m sure will spend tokens to develop the network - while for the holders I’m not sure they’ll buy enough resource to get things going.
We need someone to push for the common good!
In short the Foundation needs more tokens at the start of the network, the potential lawsuits will drag on for years into the future and won’t be a problem if the network is successful.
Privacy. Security. Freedom
4 Likes
Correct.
The white paper and coin sale were not legally binding documents. The first is just that a white paper with a plan, not contract or prospectus. The creation of MAID was to sell holding tokens that were to represent 10% of the max supply of safe tokens with creation and destruction of the tokens during SAFE operations. Neither amounted to a prospectus or financial contract (apart from the raised money to be used for development) so legally I cannot see anything here unless there was significant material damage to those holding MAID.
The markets already adjusted to the ~10.5% of the 2^32 (or 10% of this RFC max supply) so I don’t think any legal team would see a significant material damage to anyone in this. In fact it could be argued to keep to the ~10.5% of max supply (2^32) path is going to cause the greater damage in the markets and thus create the most material damage, but since its something in the future then it hard to argue it will be significant damage. Either way.
Just a thought here
Also the people who have MAID will get 1:1 SNT and since max supply is long term, then SNT will be distributed at the same rate whichever method is chosen. So there is no difference to the number of SNT people will hold after 1 month, 10 months, 2 years and so on. Nor difference in value since markets already adjusted to the extra MAID–>SNT existing
The markets have their price and have used the current supply of MAID as their basis, so really there should be no difference whichever method is used. No dilution of one compared to the other except the opportunity in 10 or 20 years for the world to have those extra SNT of the RFC0061. By that time the markets will have forgotten decades ago about arguments of dilution and those extra snt will be worth just as much, no sudden drop when there is 2^32+1 snt in people’s wallets.
The only thing that might be affected by which path is taken now is that markets will react to going back dogmatically to the white paper plan as that is then a materially significant change to the status quo. And with a long term project the markets may not react kindly to it. So my thought above of no difference might be affected by this consideration.
To be honest future distribution is the real issue because how it is done will have way more affect on people’s holdings and the way the market prices SNT. Too fast and the price will lower than compared to slower distribution. Or maybe the market will react the opposite. Who knows its speculation and another reason its difficult to argue which way will have the most significant damage, another thing to argue over i guess.
IIRC the last big holder sold up 2 or 3 years ago and the people from the ICO who still hold most of their ICO amounts of MAID are few and far between.
The issue is that there are problems which ever way is taken, and being unnecessarily dogmatic will not help. Also people taking the white paper as a contract is not helpful either since its just a white paper. The ICO was raising money for development and development was being done with the money. Mistakes were made with minting and the markets have worked with this and adjusted a long time ago. The project evolved and without a prospectus or contract there was no financial proposal and the closest thing to a financial promise is buy MAID from Maidsafe and the funds will go to development.
On the sale of the overmint, there was a lot of gloom and doom comments that it will destroy the project etc etc. We as a community were able to overcome it, work with it and the markets incorporated the situation happily, so these arguments of legal problems and financial contracts have all been discussed long ago too.
Personally I would be happy with the increased max supply and keeping the 10% promise (this RFC) OR happy with a suitable plan to keep the 2^32 (and ~10.5%) which has a nice ring to it as a creator of digital devices. (2^32 is a weird number to normal people the same as this RFC’s max supply number is)
Lawsuits before launch will be the death of the foundation. The costs for the foundation to be proven correct would still drain all the funds it has. Without the financial prospectus its an uphill battle to achieve anything except to totally use up the foundation’s funds.
5 Likes
The tl;dr
9.5% != 10%
9.5%==10% of nothing, every single time.
Your arguments are tiresome, but I suppose it’s your game, and I hope you are sitting happily in your ignorance.
Go and write your letters to finma and whatever lawyers you know. Nobody cares, and you have to accept that.
7 Likes
Not picking sides as I see the argument even though I don’t agree that it is worth fighting for.
Give me the network over .5% any day, damn I’ll give way more than that if it meant speeding things up.
What seems odd though is that you joined in 2018, are you an ico participant or just standing this ground for the sake of it?
6 Likes
Thats a stretch. Some of us have not spoken up on this possibly for several reasons
I think @neo sums it up well
Not getting at you in particular @wydileie but can we just get on with delivering a working network? We have trusted @JimCollinson judgement before, I’m ready to go along with what he thinks is best for the project.
5 Likes
I already said multiple times that if changing now would slow down the project, then I would be in favor of keeping this proposed path. However, considering it is an RFC, I would think nothing has actually been proposed to the regulating body. In such a case, I would support the move to the alternate proposed path.
It’s not that I don’t trust people or that I think they are trying to screw us over. I just legitimately think the alternate solution is the lesser of two evils in the face of the earlier mistake being made.
I’m not going to kick and scream about it either way. They proposed an RFC, so I am commenting per their request. I put in my $0.02 and will gracefully back out of this conversation.
8 Likes
me too 
2 Likes
That may be the big problem that the foundation may encounter.
Among the four actors concerned:
Shareholders
Holders
Developers
Farmers
The first two, and in particular the holders, are the ones who have a real possibility to take legal action against the company or the foundation for their possible losses.
As this RFC only generates real losses on the holders, it significantly increases the likelihood of this occurring.
In fact, if I had the resources and did not want this project to go ahead, it would be the simplest way. Own some safecoin and sue the company and the foundation for fraud.
Is it worth taking this risk when we could simply take back the overspent safecoin from the farmers’ total?
6 Likes
This is not true, the sale of the over-mint never breached the original contract. Therefore no legal problems could have occurred, meaning nothing could have been overcome.
Is English not your first language? That is the only reason I can think of why you did not read what you quoted. Otherwise you deliberately created a strawman to make an argument against. You quoted me saying what historical event occurred.
Yes I can read, the contract ends with delivery of 10% of all safe-coin, for the amount sold at the ICO, on the launch of the network. Suggesting that the sale of the over-mint is a or could have been legal problem is untrue. There was no problem with selling additional tokens. The same as taking the loan of 10 million MaidSafeCoins and selling those on the market. No legal problems there either.
Those who don’t care are obviously happy either way, so there’s a majority happy for the RFC to be implemented as is 
David has confirmed (above) that further debate and change is causing delay and the longer we do this the more disruptive it will be.
The last update states that it has already been submitted:
Every single post, especially ones that are ill informed makes this worse.
4 Likes
I don’t share the view that Maidsafe are allow to “do whatever”, in order to not delay the network and launch. If doing the compliant and legal option takes additional time. Then they should spend that additional time. I’m Okay with a delay, I’ve waited almost a decade, a bit longer won’t hurt.
If someone shares a different view, are they ill informed?
1 Like
As I said before I am of the opinion that with both solutions suggested (RFC0061 and RFC0061A) there will likely be no significant difference in real outcomes, only in perceived terms/%ages. My reasoning is along these lines :-
The market already accepts there being 10% of 2^32 + approx 23 million MAID existing and in the hands of holders. That is ~10.5% of RFC0061A or 10% of RFC0061
The SNT in the holders hands at launch will remain the same as there is that much MAID and its 1:1 exchange for all MAID
The increase in SNT will be the same for both assuming the same algorithm for distribution is used. Needed for fair comparison since distribution algorithms can change this by large amounts depending on the algorithm. And as I suggested before the algorithm for distribution of the remaining SNT is the real area that needs to be addressed if you are looking for potential significant material losses and 0.5% of speculative amounts is not going to attract real attention. Its spitting in the wind so to speak since markets can change by 20% or 50% or 100% because the “wind” changes.
Since the markets see the current MAID as what it is and the increase in SNT is the same then the markets will behave the same when the quantity increases by the same amounts. IE no material losses at all no matter which RFC is used.
The real loser though is the current & future core/app developers (and content creators perhaps) because the foundation will have less real funds (getting only ~14.5% of SNT initially in real terms for the RFC0061A) to distribute to pay them
I did point out that changing back to the dogmatic version and manipulating the foundations %age can cause the markets to react badly to the news of reverting back to old system that doesn’t account for the evolution of the project and regulations the world now has 8 years after the dogmatic version.
This reaction will have a negative effect on holders and in speculative terms be real damage to holders.
But of of course real loss is also speculation and the effect may be zero after a short period because the market may care less about reverting back to the original.
This little thought experiment I think should be considered carefully as the real effect between the two will only be felt in 10 to 20 years (depending on distribution algorithm) and of course by then there is no way to determine if there was any difference between the two because of the highly speculative nature of the market which can change by 20% or 50% or 100% in days or weeks let alone 10 years.
Then by arguing something I did not say means gaslighting and trolling. The quote you used was me speaking of factual history event.
Strawman argument. You and I know they cannot, the foundation is bound by Swiss law. And they have not acted that way.
Strawman again since that is not what @happybeing said. You strawmanned it by switching the logic around to make a different statement to argue about.