What to (still) expect from PDC in the future?

We can use the law as a shield to justify this or that. But I am appealing to the humanity of Seneca. He can easily walk behind the law and have 10 reasons why not to give anything back to anyone and maybe be totally justified from a legal standpoint. But we are all people here with our own lives and stories, hopes and dreams and sufferings also and we are not just anonymous figures behind a screen. What is being asked from a humane point of view is nothing absurd or inconceivable or unjust. People may disagree but disagreeing does not invalidate this opinion.
.
Another important point has been raised - Seneca has remained committed for the last 5 years. To offer up such a big part of one’s life especially when someone is young. With a heavy heart I must say that sometimes there are times to fight and sometimes there are times to accept the lessons and move on. I hope Seneca sees that looking at this objectively that he could not be blamed for wanting to move away from this project and move on with his life if it comes to that in any point in the future. This is a difficult thing to take in for this forum and community, a painful thing to digest, but nevertheless no one wants to remain trapped in something which keeps on going on year after year. He has taken on tremendous responsibility for something that he had basically no control over. I hope he sees this and understands this.

Believe me, I went through hell for just over 2 years. We are not behind the law, if the tax authorities investigate you, morality, honesty and integrity are merely targets for them. They will eat you alive. I would say never ever think otherwise. I used to think honesty and integrity mattered, but in fact it’s a weakness these monsters will use to cripple you.

I did a nice decent thing and received Zero income and was almost bankrupted and homeless.

20 Likes

I wish I’d not bought some MAID with BTC a few years back too. You pays your money, you takes your choice. We all have investments that have turned out better than others.

Would you be giving back the profits had it worked out the other way? No? I thought not.

I don’t mean to sound rude/harsh, but we must own our decisions. It is unfortunate the way it has turned out, but it isn’t always someone else’s fault or their responsibility.

10 Likes

Of course this is life. But this time the investment hasn´t gone totally sour - the btc is still there. There is no reason for anyone to be hurt (besides of course people who unfortunately sold their PDC for loss). This makes this very different. All the parties involved could be happy. I would call that a successful investment.
.
Besides I am sure Seneca also put his own money into the crowdfunding as an investor. He would now have the option to take out at least a part of the investment in this case.

2 Likes

If Harmen paid you out in BTC he would be taxed on disposal of an asset at today’s price. So the increase from him receiving it is counted as the money he has. Regardless of what he does, as soon as that BTC becomes a different thing or is sent to somebody else, he is screwed.

If @Seneca paid all the BTC back today he would be bankrupted and possibly jailed. It’s that simple. I was charged in the same way, it’s real and believe me it’s hell. Even if he gives you 1BTC he has to pay tax on that, even if you are a charity. As soon as he moves that BTC he has incurred a tax bill. It is very clear.

9 Likes

Could he use that BTC to buy back PDC coins on the market? As a stock buy-back? So effectively giving investors maybe a few months or maybe longer the option to sell their PDC on the market for a specific price that he puts his BTC wall at.
.
Anyway if that does not save him from a Tax bill then the tax will be so that it would be taken out of the investors buyback amount. I have no doubt there are solutions that will be acceptable to both parties.

Not without having a huge tax bill. There is no escape, the tax authorities can tax you (and do) on zero income transactions. My issue was almost exactly this (I used BTC → maid as a way to get BTC into MaidSafe) and honestly it’s a massive shock, but it’s how it is.

1 Like

Not all countries work this way. In Germany, if you have kept a token for more than 12 months, you do not owe tax. In Bulgaria you owe tax only if you turn tokens into fiat money.

1 Like

That’s true, residency and domicile does matter. Portugal I think has zero tax on crypto, however even then you cannot move to a country to take advantage. At least from UK.

2 Likes

It shows incredible discipline and integrity that @Seneca has not spent these funds. Compare his behavior to the many ICO projects of 2017 that made off with what they raised with nothing to show for it.

Communication facilitates transparency. That Seneca has spoken and provided an update is a positive thing, which would alleviate my concerns had I participated in the PDC ICO. I can understand the frustrations of those that did, but what would the conversation be if the price of BTC had declined?

16 Likes

If I understand it correctly, you can move to Portugal to take advantage as long as you don’t make the disposal until you are resident in Portugal. But, you then can’t move back to the UK fully within 5 years, or you’ll need to pay CGT on the disposal. I have no idea how it works for a company moving to Portugal, or CGT for companies.

Irrespective, I’m glad Decorum has a massive budget because they have held the funds responsibly & not blown it unnecessarily. It’s also great to hear how they’ve used and offered their funds to support Maidsafe when it was helpful.

I’m looking forward to seeing what the team can do with the funds once there’s a clear route forward, and I’m excited to see the network taking big steps toward a working product.

6 Likes

I’m very sorry to hear how HMRC treated you. I hoped they’d take a reasonable stance on crypto, especially when it comes to retrospective action. Dissapointing, and sad to hear what they put you through.

7 Likes

There would not be an conversation.

7 Likes

Well, conditional tense never makes for a sound argument, I can tell you this much.

Btw, had the btc price declined, you would be very much having this conversation, because safe network would be a complete flop, and even more people would be curious as to how / if they will be compensated for pdc.

This is what attracted me to MaidSafe and the Safe Network. I’m not surprised that it has attracted developers with these same traits.

12 Likes

There are only a few people who complain, but most speculators are aware enough that this is the crypto world - I fully understood the level of risk and that the responsibility for my speculation was mine when I speculated on the purchase of PDC 5 years ago…

If I make money from my speculation - I can only thank myself or if I lose money I am responsible, Seneca has nothing to do with this.

14 Likes

Dimitar, from reading you posts I see that clearly your mind has been made up and will not change. I accept that and I see there is no reason to start arguing with you but I also see that Seneca has liked your post so I feel a response is necessary.
.
Yes of course we all must take responsibility for our actions. If I invest into bitconnect out of pure ignorance and good faith because a good friend recommended it to me and then get taken advantage of then even in such a scenario I will still be responsible for my own actions. No one held a gun to my head. So naivete is not an excuse. So in a broad sense one must always take responsibility for one’s actions and accept when to let go and take the lesson otherwise one falls into a blame and victim game and that is just a deep dark hole.
.
So I accept the responsibility for my speculation/investment. That means that if I get back a big fat zero then I accept that. But that does not mean that as an Investor I will completely give everything up and be at the total mercy of the founder and not raise my voice even once. This I find echoing in your hard handed post Dimitar. Correct me if I misunderstood.
.
Seneca might have written into the contract terms that this is just a token that the investors are getting nothing more. Whether it was actually legal for him to do that or not is also a question. But he obviously did just this, took advantage of the then culture of this unregulated risk-free ico starting. I’m sure he did not do that in bad faith but just that it was a very convenient risk-free way to do it but was it actually a good honest way? Now is the time for this to show. Right now is the actual judgement point/junction in my eyes. Will he take advantage of this “risk-free” clause that he wrote into the contract or will he feel a moral obligation to respond in a different way. He seems to already go a more compassionate route rather than hide behind the unfair (in my eyes) contract.
.
And it is not like there were only naive investors on one side, there was plenty of naivete to go around for all the parties involved. The SEC has been cracking down on these kinds of ICO´s that took advantage of the investors who only gave tokens and no equity. And how many actually read through the terms and conditions when investing? So one might argue if one did not read through it then it’s their fault. But then how many people who read through them actually had the capacity and experience to understand the ramifications of this? I sure did not possess that capacity. Actually I am only starting to realise this more clearly through this conversation so I am thankful for this learning experience.
.
Everyone just invested in good faith. In the real world there are regulations in place to protect people who do not have this capacity (the majority of us here I’m guessing). Because the rules were or are ignored in the crypto space does this make it justified?
.
So the main point I am seeing come up is that it´s your risk and your fault. Stop complaining, Seneca has zero obligations to give anything back. This is how everyone does it. It does not matter if it does not make sense or is unjust. This the norm, just accept it and shut up. Well how about no, thank you.

1 Like

Seneca has an obligation to launch a product.

He has no obligation to buy your tokens with his own money.

His money is his money.

If he don’t release a product sue him and I’ll get involved too.

But it is extremely wrong of you to ask him to buy your tokens, but as he said he is ready to show understanding to you and buy your tokens at a slightly higher price than you paid in fiat.

1 Like

Another point that has echoed quite a bit is about Seneca being the sole owner of the money. And even then we as Investors only paid in btc which should only be taken at $ value at time of investment and not account for the appreciation of the btc price (which some have argued should wholly belong to Seneca).
.
I think it is a good idea to examine money topic more deeply for clarity.
.
Seneca made a deal with the investors - one side gives money, the other side gives a working product. Since the product is not delivered and cannot be delivered maybe for a long time (who knows) how can he be the owner of the money? He may be the keeper, the guardian of the money to use it wisely to work on the product but rightfully, morally not the owner IMO.
.
The deal is completed when both parties receive what was agreed upon. Until then I do not feel one can say with absolute certainty that it is Seneca´s money and there is not question about it.
.
Another point being made is that at most we should get back the dollar equivalent of what we invested. But why? Because of the law? Because that is how the legal system interprets this? That the invested BTC immediately magically turned into dollar because the accounting Law says this even thought the BTC remained as BTC in a wallet? Maybe true from a legal point but this is not in good faith and common sense of this community here I think.
.
This community and the whole crypto community wants cryptocurrencies to become legal recognized tender in the world. So if we dream of this why should we in this case start to vehemently argue against this? Now we say that cryptocurrencies are not legal money because it suits our opinion better?
.
So from one side we forget about the “Old world” rules and established frameworks and say we get tokens for our investment forget about anything else and then the next moment we say the “Old world” rules actually do apply and say BTC is not money and one should forget about any appreciation of BTC price because it was never BTC but Dollars we invested. I do not find this particularly fair.

1 Like

That’s just crowdfunding really, no old or new. In terms of the old world treatment of crypto then …

You’re not alone and it isn’t fair. Far from it.

1 Like