There are an independent legal firm.
6 Likes
fantastic, please have them post a statement.
You are free to ask them to write an opinion for you, I’m sure they’d be more than happy. Or if you’d prefer a cheaper option, you could always fall back on your own law degree.
Or, as another alternative you could wait for the judgment from FINMA.
4 Likes
My point is about supply and dilution of ICO investors, not differentiating between specific tokens.
Not accounting for the difference between ICO investors and the over-mint and bundling them all together as ‘MAID holders’ misses that in order for the ICO investors to receive 10% of the eventual supply, MAID holders need to receive ~10.5% to account for the overmint.
The current RFC would mean ICO participants receive 1:1 SNT, but the SNT has a larger than planned, which means they are diluted to the tune of about %0.5% of total supply.
It likely won’t be a huge financial issue for anyone, but I can’t see any justification for it when there’s a very obvious alternative to the dilution in @jlpell’s suggestion, which is also neater due to not altering total supply.
It was planned to be 10% of overall supply, but why should it still be 10% when more than planned were issued, there was a planned fixed total supply, and ICO investors were offered 10% of total supply, not ~9.5%?
2 Likes
I don’t want an opinion, I want an explanation of the facts related to this RFC and how its legally inline with the ICO. Which should have been included in the details provided to the Swiss financial regulator. So you already have this information.
So you won’t have them post this information? I should just trust you that its all good? That seems a little suspicious.
Seems if this RFC was included in the fillings to the “Swiss financial regulator”, i’m actually hoping it fails / gets thrown out and delays the launch of the network. What a strange position to be in.
How would having a law degree help me here?
What you are asking for here is a legal opinion. And lawyers aren’t cheap.
I see
1 Like
I agree
It’s not without its issues though, and it should be clear that this is changing the % allocations as you stated rather than trying to pretend it’s not, but I’ve taken up those points in the other thread.
2 Likes
It’s hard to legally challenge something that hasn’t happened yet, so yes, at the moment the only way my opinion is to be heard is for the swiss regulator to be of the same opinion.
I guess I should send them an email with my concerns.
I’m not pretending it doesn’t change the allocation of total supply to MAID holders; it should because of the overmint.
I’m stating clearly that ICO participants were offered 10% of total supply and the RFC allocates them about 9.5%.
MAID holders’ allocation rising from 10% to 10.5% because of an accidental and proportional overmint / dilution is clearly justifiable.
ICO participants’ allocation being cut from 10% to 9.5% is not justifiable where obvious alternatives exist.
1 Like
Oh yeah, I get that. Sorry, I was referring to jpell’s proposal in the other thread.
1 Like
Yes, his proposal increases allocation to MAID holders above 10%, but proportionately maintains the 10% to ICO participants (who’s tokens were planned to be 100% of MAID supply prior to the overmint).
(I’ll need to catch up with the comments on the other thread)
The real question at hand is where does the 0.5% come from in doing this? And which allocation should reflect it? We have:
- Shareholders
- MAID holders
- Network Royalties (Developers and Other Contributors)
- Resource Suppliers (Farmers)
The other proposal says this should come from the royalty pool (3), perhaps another suggestion could be the emission supply (4), but this RFC proposes it is spread over the full economy, all groups.
4 Likes
Feels like your tone has change a little here. Indeed, the whole thing boils down to this simple question.
If allocation came from 3/4, as nobody currently has a “skin in the game” / “funds invested”. nobody can challenge such decision, because they can’t argue they were financially impacted (even a little bit). because that knowledge would be publicly available before they participated, so they were never disadvantaged.
1 Like
Check out @Bogard comments above. Suggestion to reduce the amount of royalties or farmers rewards, to accomodate the over mint, in purpose to not damage investors or change max total supply.
If group 3 doesn’t want to be reduced by 0.5%, well as they are in the driving seat they can reduce group 4. Either way its fair, and i’m sure the community is fine with either outcome.
If a person in group 4 doesn’t like it, they don’t have to provide resources to the network, they are free to make their own choice.
Actually this RFC chooses to penalise the MAID original ICO investors, because instead of getting 10% they only get 9.5%. The 0.5% comes from them, and only them.
1 Like
Exactly. This way no MAID holder or Shareholder is diluted, and as 0.5% is a small proportion of the overall amount, the impact will hardly be felt elsewhere… but the impact would likely felt (particularly by ICO investors, as shareholders would receive the same proportion of a larger number of SNT, so no issue) if it means a ~5% dilution across the board as in the RFC.
1 Like
I believe in strong opinions loosely held. I think it’s an essential ingredient to progress.
This is the same suggestion as the other thread: it’s a reduction in the amount allocated for the royalty pool: so reducing the amount to developers and other contributors (including latecomers future contributors) but not to anyone else, such as farmers.
We could reduce that allocation though, by reducing the 70% emissions too, or instead, but there are arguments against that too.
Overall, I can’t see why the alternative proposal(s) won’t come to be seen, as others such as @TylerAbeoJordan and @Dimitar have suggested, as favouring a smaller group of people early to the party (myself included!) over a much wider group of users and contributors to the Network.
I do feel, again as many others have pointed out, that this won’t be materially felt by anyone after we launch, so is (almost) immaterial, but here we are trying to be as fair to all concerned as we can while just getting on with things.
4 Likes
Reducing the 70% emissions is not leaving the farmers at a disadvantage. They don’t have anything currently, and will provide resources and capital to the process of farming based on the emissions.
Maidsafe/Safenetwork wants to be become a regulated FINMA entity. I as an investor am unhappy with this RFC, I think it is unfair. I will raise a concern with FINMA an independant third-party, I will explain my view, link them to this thread, and have them share their view on this matter. I’m happy to post my response from FINMA to this community, or if FINMA reads this, can post what they reply directly here (without my personal details).
Either way, a professional opinion thats not from a developer is required on this matter. I’ve identified a way forward to get such an opinion. This kind of issue is exactly what FINMA is for, and I also think is important for the community to see.
@JimCollinson I’m happy to be wrong on this matter, and if FINMA sides with the view of maidsafe I will go with it. I’m not attempting to be a pain in the arse for no reason. It just this RFC feels unfair, having it viewed by a supervisory authority, will make me feel better about it either way.
2 Likes
There is a real danger that Safe copies will use the initial premine as the basis of their attack and the story of why they need to exist.
We have a real opportunity to show that we care about the people coming after us - I want to remind everyone that even if Safe is successful, generating value from Safe products will take years and the main profits for each of us will come from the next person who buys the token!
Privacy. Security. Freedom
4 Likes
Ya spend 10+ years building a fancy pants fishing boat and it’s ready to launch, everyone’s hungry for that first catch, but some folk aren’t happy with the crew assignments. It’s always the way.
I just want to get’er launched so I can eat some fish. 
4 Likes