Well the logic is that the white paper had max supply 2^32
MAID 10%
Shareholders 5%
core devs + app devs + content providers 15%
Now what happened is
MAID ~10.5%
Shareholders 5%
core devs + app devs + content providers 15%
Share holders and devs saw no difference so no need to change their %age since they were promised those %ages
And the MAID is the issue.
Your (alternative?) which has ~10.5% + 5% + 15% of the max supply (2^32) as the initial allocation not only accounts for the error in minting but also is giving exactly what was promised to the others.
The (future) quantities from purchases is correct too at 70/30%
No one is being disadvantaged with this method and maid holders get full valued SNT and shareholders get their promised SNT.
Everyone is “disadvantaged” equally from the slightly less than 70% (~69.5%) future emissions promised. Everyone being the original holders, the node operators, the core/app devs, and the foundation.
Now the shareholders still get their once only 5% as promised. No losses.
Remember the markets already assume that there was the ~10.5% MAID existing.
Except, as you can see from the breakdown, at the point of genesis, shareholder would get proportionally less than set out in the original white-paper. So if the complaint on the original RFC of the crowdsale purchasers is to be upheld, so should the same of the shareholders… especially as they are material investors in the project which could not have happened without them.
The share holders were only ever promised 5% and they get the full 5% promised. There was no stipulation of changes due to market value. The only difference to them is market value, but that is speculative and it all depends when they sell.
Even if there could be a difference in market value due to overmint, its not a concern to the white paper and they get their promised 5% of SNT.
The complaint when you increased the max supply and thus the actual number of SNT each share got was based on the increasing the max supply. Now that max supply is back to 2^32 then there is no change to the white paper’s promise to them
It was always a matter of interpretation and opinion and it always will be. To me the difference is moot, I just want Jim and the team to be allowed to get on and do productive work.
I get that people want this to be as right as possible, but there is no single right. Is that dawning on people yet?
@JimCollinson I understand that the shareholders may feel like they are at a loss and if that perception is an issue then increase the 5% by the same ratio as the MAID supply was increased (~5.25%) resulting in a higher genesis supply.
Quite frankly this is all an argument over perceptions at this point and people need to realise that delays is having a much greater effect on their back pocket than any differences a 0.5% in Genesis supply will ever make
Jim you have done a terrific job so far trying to get it right for people and the 10.5+5+15 %ages of 2^32 from your RFC (alternative?) is the closest to the white paper that I can see.
Its very simple no convolution. If the shareholders feel they are losing due to ~10.5% (increase from 10%) is being given out then to relieve their perception of loss then just increase their allocation by the same amount. While not accurate and true to white paper, it does relieve a perceived loss by the very people who made the project possible. (without them there is no project to start with)
That is where the ~5.25% comes from.
Honest quibbles over the 0.25% is like spoilt children complaining their brother got an extra penny.
I’ve read the changes, and from an outcome point of view, risks associated caused by a violation of the law have be mitigated. I’ve included and referenced what I believe, in my opinion, is the applicable risk below, simply for the sake of clarity.
The language you’ve used, seems rather sour, like you been made to suck on a lemon. Again, all just my opinion. The below mostly is me nit-picking, and I’m not all that bothered. At the end of the day, only the real-world impact matters.
This is an increase from the allocation of 10% described in the original project white paper, accounting for an additional 23,055,683 MaidSafeCoins issued during the crowdsale.
These coins were not available at the crowdsale, and did not feature in the pledge. To be fair this is acknowledged further down, if you squint:
However, this may have had the potential to adversely affect those individuals who purchased MaidSafeCoin during the crowdsale but before the over-issue of tokens occurred.
While the ending “suggests” the sale of additional tokens were not part of the crowdsale, and its own event, this contradicts the first mention.
Holding onto the idea, it only impacts the individuals who purchased during the crowdsale. Is the wrong language, it’s also confusing, anyone who purchased MaidSafeCoin at the crowdsale, or on open market before the “over issued tokens were sold”, and an RFC implemented that dilutes their holdings, is impacted. What I’m trying to say is, as you can’t sperate the owners of MaidSafeCoin into different classes. Therefore, you must increase the allocation, because additional coins were sold after the initial pledge had been made. All beating around the bush just feels like the RFC is reluctant to accept that it must change in order to be compliant with laws and regulations.
To be clear of the risk, disclaimer, I’m not a lawyer, I could absolutely have misunderstood the below.
Quoted from the Swiss Foundation code:
All applicable legislation must be observed when accepting assets. The harmonisation of Swiss legislation with international standards must be taken into consideration in this respect. This results in an obligation on the part of the foundation board to ascertain the origin of larger contributions. In this context, “origin” refers to all processes associated with the creation and transfer of the assets in question. In particular, the foundation board must investigate any potential connection between the assets and terrorism, money laundering, corruption or other crimes (Art. 305bis Swiss CriminalCode (StGB)).
Any debtor who, with the intention of causing loss to his creditors, appropriates, uses without authority, damages, destroys, reduces the value of or renders unusable property subject to a pledge or lien shall be liable on complaint to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty.
1 Any person who with a view to securing an unlawful gain for himself or another wilfully induces an erroneous belief in another person by false pretences or concealment of the truth, or wilfully reinforces an erroneous belief, and thus causes that person to act to the prejudice of his or another’s financial interests, shall be liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding five years or to a monetary penalty.
2 If the offender acts for commercial gain, he shall be liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding ten years or to a monetary penalty of not less than 90 daily penalty units.
3 Fraud to the detriment of a relative or family member is prosecuted only on complaint.
