To be perfectly clear, this means that the more tokens the Foundation owns, the more likely the mass of people will accept the current premine as fair.
I remind you that MAID is held only by 20k addresses - no matter how we spin it (that without these people there would be no network) 8 billion on the planet will not like such centralization in ownership and will wrongly represent it as centralization at the protocol level (countless examples for that in current cryptocurrencies).
The arguments one way or the other do seem to have a significant emotional aspect.
I’m not saying there aren’t sound arguments here, but clearly there isn’t only one conclusion to be made from the facts (man ). But the difficulty is magnified by the strength of feeling some have over their conclusion.
I do not have a strong feeling about this dispute. I’m happy with it as presented and I’d be happy with changes requested by @jlpell for example, because I see merits in both arguments.
What I do have strong feelings about are that this not further delay or undermine delivery of the network, of launch.
In general I’m also against polls on this kind of thing for more than encouraging people to engage with the process. I do not think they are robust enough to be used to make important decisions. Any one who disagrees with a poll result can I think legitimately say it was a bad way to make the decision, so I don’t think they can resolve disputes.
So where are we? I understood that this had been closed by submission to the Swiss authorities. If that’s the case I’m against change. If not, and change won’t add significant delay to launch, I’m open to MaidSafe looking again and considering a change if they think that justified in light of what has happened since they announced that.
I hope that whatever is decided that all of us can come back together in support of the project.
I think it is also important to remember that once $MAID (or whatever name it will be) reaches $10 a piece or even much more, no-one will remember this discussion because it will not matter at that point.
I do see emotional point pushing too (to some extent). Perspectives aren’t wrong because they differ to ones values. Is both perspectives wrong because of another major conceptual change that affects the network “financial” operation? No, just each of the 3+ perspectives are valid and depends on what values one wished to maintain.
Also if we were to keep pure to the white paper then we’d need to have tokens destroyed when paid to the network as that was a major feature which provided interesting effects that had great benefits. (eg disconnecting receipts and reward payments giving network great control over resourcing).
Now once tokens are created they remain, never destroyed.
To me this is the true perspective to be taken since none of the other issues will matter if the network is delayed for a further 12 months (on top of other delays) due to differing values held by the few (us).
As @Dimitar says MAID is held by very few people, 20K addresses held or were held by a much smaller number of people since many/all? have multiple addresses holding or have held MAID. Its more of a question of how many have ever only used one address to hold MAID.
As to holding completely true to a white paper? Is there any significant project (of any kind) that was able to remain 100% true to the significant points in their “white/concept paper”. The RFC still remains consistent with the “spirit” of the white paper even with significant changes EG
Yes, you get it @oetyng. My suggestions amount to keeping everything that was originally promised in the white paper EXACTLY the same except for the smallest change possible to fix the overcommitted MAID. The proposed fix for the small amount of overcommitted MAID + eMAID and the $100k worth of SNT to initial backers (that was stated in the whitepaper ) simply falls under the category of an “ad hoc” payment from the foundation’s portion of the genesis supply. Promises made = promises kept.
It’s understandable that technical implementations can vary to achieve the project vision. However, promised distributions of the economic incentive is implementation independent and should not change. A team can either allocate initial distributions according to what they originally promised and build trust in the project, or not do what they promised so that the project’s reputation is damaged and public trust is broken. The right choice seems obvious here.
This is a terrible way to view things imo. It doesn’t matter that you or I or anyone else thinks that 5% of genesis supply is “just way too much” for the core devs at this time. The fact is that Maidsafe promised this split in the whitepaper and thus the original figures should be honored. End of story.
On the other hand if the core devs feel their allocation is “just way too much”, then they can choose for themselves to donate a portion or all of it back to the foundation or any other cause if they choose after they receive the promised 5%.
If you read the whitepaper carefully it is not the same level of split going forward. The royalty to core devs is 5% if the developer pool, which is 15% of the resource reward. So the actual royalty is 5% of 15% = 0.75% of all network tokens earned shared among past, present, and future core devs. This is not a “wildly inappropriate” number.
Regardless, our opinion of appropriateness is irrelevant at this point. One either follows through with the original promises or doesn’t. My suggestion is to keep true to the promises that we’re originally made (with absolute minimal deviations to correct for the mastercoin/maidovermint error) so that public trust in the project is maintained.
You are wrong here. It is 5% of farmer rewards which was a bottomless pit in the sense tokens were destroyed and recycled. That means there could be 10s or 100s of billions of tokens given in farmer erwarsd over time and 5% of that value was then given to core devs, upto 10% to App devs and upto 10% given to content providers. Thus over time core devs could have received more than total supply. The only constraint was that there never existed more then max supply at any one time.
The loss of destroying tokens has also caused there to be adjustments in the “royalty” too. The 5% (actually 15% royalty) for core devs is appropriate. And as Jim says its the app & core devs + content providers all rolled into one 15%
After long deliberations someone or some group always has to make hard choices. And they will inevitably irritate some other people involved. I think if you can answer in the affirmative that Maidsafe is keeping to the spirit of the whitepaper and that no one is making the decision for personal gain then you are headed in the right direction. It would be a shame if this project were sidetracked by a relatively inconsequential controversy.
Ever thought that the implementation expressed in the RFC was implementing what was supposed to be written in the white paper. Remember the white paper is not bigger than the author or the intent. If that is how it was written (english wise) then I pose to you that it was an obvious error in writing since the implementation paper/RFC showed otherwise.
It also describes how 10% of the 15% given to dev pool( which equals 1.5% of total earned if you do the math) could be automated app developer rewards.
Well not 2nd or 3rd but way down, searching found it for me. I also maintain that the truer intent was given in the initial proposed implementation.
15% of all safecoin earned will be allocated to the developer pool. This will ensure the developer community is highly motivated and rewarded for providing free-to-use applications and improvements to the underlying codebase that utilise safecoin as their revenue model. It is possible that 10% of these coins maybe recycled if a an idea of automated developer awards comes to fruition.
5% of the developer pool coins will be given to the core developement team. Without their hard work and dedication the SAFE network would simply not have been possible. A further $100k of safecoin will be allocated from the developer pool to those who gave their time and commitment to develop this white paper and for early project coordination. Without the efforts and expertise of these individuals this paper would not be as comprehensive and would have taken far longer to produce.
Why didn’t you complain with the 1st implementation (contained in RFC) of these paragraphs way back when it was discussed a long time ago.
What about the $100K? why not complain about this.
I pose to you that when the implementation was initially proposed that it was a change to what was written in the white paper.
So we have already seen an evolution of the white paper within a short time of it being published and has evolved a few times since then.
I secondly pose that to argue now about being pure & 100% true to the white paper is to trash much evolution of the project. Basically destroy the current project to revert to the white paper since even storage has changed, safesites have been added, NRS has been added, append storage, non-hopping (or limited hopping) proposed, and so on. The project has evolved in many ways.
Thus I pose that while you are trying to be true to original intentions it is not the correct path to be taking now, and the more correct path is to build a proposal that holds to what the creators and community see as the most positive way forward. Basically you are picking and choosing which items to push and which to trash/ignore.
Now that could be to keep 2^32 or to keep to MAID existing is 10% of max supply or to really go back to the white paper and revert everything back to it to keep pure & true to the original proposal, or to choose another way
That statement is not relevant because only max total supply is important, recycle coins does not affect the value, only a change of max total supply does. As long as only 5% of total max supply at any give time, meaning total supply never change, that is what is logical relevant.
This statment does not tell why it is a problem with 20k addresses. If there are markets to trade and there is interest in the project, then there will always be supply available to buy, it depends on price. If MAID reaches $10-$100 there is a good reason to expect most of the amount adresses currently hold will change hands and be distributed to the rest of the world. And as current holders will be diluted about 7-10x times when total supply is reached, there is no problem other than the dilution could be made smaller, as that will hurt original investors much. But if there are good returns within the first year or so and total supply is far from reached, then it matters less about future dilution, as long as total supply don’t change. A important thing is being able to know how much of total supply currently exists at any given time in the future.
). But the difficulty is magnified by the strength of feeling some have over their conclusion.