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

Buying tokens is not investing in anything other than the token. It is risky. It is the wild west of investments. It shouldn’t be entered into lightly and the expectation should be that you could be left with a worthless token. Buyer beware at the extreme.

There are lots of laws governing investment vehicles, but token acquisition largely falls outside of all of them**. Maybe there will be new investment laws that provide better protection to buyers, but it would certainly stifle the space. The extreme risk/reward for many of these projects mirrors this.

Personally, I’d rather people didn’t buy tokens if they weren’t prepared to accept the risks. There are plenty of retail investor friendly products out there for those who are weary of risk and want some element of protection. They tend to have lower risk vs reward to reflect this. They come with legal obligations, contracts and so forth and are much safer.

If you don’t want your tokens, sell them, just as @Jabba did. This show of bitterness isn’t doing anyone any favours.

** To add, people moan about MAID not being available on US exchanges. This is why.

2 Likes

A post was merged into an existing topic: Taxation discussion

12 posts were split to a new topic: Taxation discussions

Because the only reason Seneca has bitcoin is because he decided to speculate instead of turning the bitcoin right into $ - 5 years ago. Apparently he thought he could afford such speculation and even if bitcoin collapse to 0 to make Decorum at his own expense. This is a risk that he has chosen and gained from it. Rejoice that he is a man of honor and is good enough to buy your tokens with his money. :dragon:

3 Likes

Well, the raise was done in BTC and Maid. Those who contributed are the ones who bought BTC and Maid and decided to speculate on it. We gave Harmen much more than he needed (even at the $500k value it had at the time) so he had the luxury of being able to sit on it and know he could complete the project despite crypto swings (still massive props to him for actually doing that). We did that for three reasons, to support the SAFE network, to support Harmen’s idea and to try to make money for ourselves.

I’m not sure I understand why the fiat value should be central given the coins haven’t moved and the project hasn’t really ever started. I didn’t think of my investment in fiat terms at any point. I invested >10BTC and 200k maid (I think?). I’ve no idea what that was in fiat terms at the time really. If BTC had swung the other way to $100, SAFE failed and Harmen was refunding, having kept the BTCs, I would not be claiming I wanted a % of the fiat value back either?! That would be unreasonable.

Harmen isn’t obliged to do anything here. He could easily just decide to ignore investors and many people would do that in his position. He earned this win with his intelligence/savvy and integrity. It is his decision to make ultimately and he’s already proven that he’s pretty good at making decisions, so I trust him to make a good one here that keeps everyone happy. I don’t think it’s actually that hard to do when you’re sitting on nearly $20M lol.

Harmen has the chance to make everyone happy and leave Decorum in a GREAT position and there’s no reason this can’t be a big win-win, with everyone chuffed at the result. He was quite vocal in saying that $500k was more than he needed back after the ico. He could offer to buy back up to half his coins here at 80% of the relative remaining BTC value (let’s say, 200BTC for 25M PDCs, keeping the MAID out of it too) and still be left with >$10M in BTC/MAID (20x what he said was too much originally and 5x what MaidSafe originally raised in 2014 for the core network if I remember right?!). This would also leave him with [up to] half the PDC supply and all the liquid selling pressure absorbed with the price of it now inflated. As the only significant seller left in the market he can now basically set the price if he can create any speculative or utility demand for the token. This is a great incentive for many of us to keep some PDCs as the price could rocket with any demand at all and the project would have sustained funding if it ever got off the ground. With 300BTC Harmen would have plenty of resources to create demand for the Clikes when launched. The project needs to succeed eventually to justify its existence, so owning half the supply is also potentially huge for helping sustain its own success.

With BTC just starting this ‘price discovery’ bull run that $10M in BTC will also likely be back at $20M before the end of the year too. If the network is built and PDC manifests then that 1M Maid would also be worth millions alone. In the worst case scenario the BTC is still worth >$1M at the very bottom of a bear market. He could even afford to put $500k into fiat or usdt to offset some risk without it having any real impact on the size of his crypto holdings at this point. Doing this kind of ‘stock buy back’ equivalent would inflate the price of PDC which should make anyone invested in the project very happy to see and would leave the decorum project with the same value on the books of circa $20M in assets.

I’d be surprised if 25M coin rebuy cap would even sell out given how few people pay attention (just look at the 10m MAID abandoned on poloniex after delisting).

I don’t know about anyone else’s situation, but I could really do with this atm. I wasted a lot of BTCs supporting other safe projects like n-99 and safe-fs. That was my fault ofc. I didn’t throw money at those projects because I was convinced they would be successful though; I did it (in no small part) to support development in the ecosystem. I feel VERY grateful to Harmen that he did not throw the money away like so many others did. There’s no doubt that he deserves to be in a very good position here because he has made some very responsible and shrewd choices! Since the money we sent has just sat there and swelled 40x in the meantime, perhaps we too deserve a chance to get some of it back though, now that it is soooo much more than is needed or than we would choose to invest if the project were raising today rather than 5+ years too early?

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that Harmen is in a position to create a generous win-win that’ll keep everyone happy here, including himself and all stakeholders. He isn’t under any legal obligation to do so, but given the situation and length of time that has passed I think he does have a responsibility to those who supported his idea/project and put the coins in his wallet. This is quite a serious amount of money and will have serious effects on real people’s lives, so it’s not a decision to take lightly either way. Keeping the money in crypto was shrewd and deserves to be rewarded, but it seems like 300BTC, 1M+ MAID and 25M PDC would still be an amazing situation and having very happy investors with an inflated coin value, after 5 years of not really being able to do much, would be a brilliant win for all. Decorum can basically keep the same value of assets on the books here anyway.

No investor expected to have to wait >5 years at the time of investment and the fact that Harmen has been able to sit on our money whilst waiting does put him in the position of having to decide on the fairest way to deal with that money now that it has swelled by 40x in value and he still hasn’t been able to deliver a product. Our contribution was always Maid/BTC though, it was never in USD and a focus on that is unfair, it should be a % of the crypto value being returned from the unspent address imo. Not 100% ofc, but a % nonetheless. As I said, if BTC had gone the other way and Harmen kept the BTC but abandoned the project I would not expect a % of the fiat value to be refunded, I’d also expect that to be of the crypto assets being held.

Anyway, very happy to see Harmen is going to offer some kind of buy back. And whatever the terms I’m extremely grateful that he has been so sensible and shown such integrity, maturity and restraint with his handling of the funds. Anyone holding any PDC should obviously count themselves very lucky and be very grateful that Harmen has lived up to (and beyond) reasonable expectations. I wish I had been half as responsible with my own BTCs as he has been with the ones I gave him!

4 Likes

Looking at the positives, $20m is a fantastic runway! That is a lot of dev time and marketing, right there. As soon as there is a platform to build on, @Seneca will be able to engage with additional people to make it a success. There are plenty of reasons to be optimistic!

6 Likes

You mention a lot that it is “his money”. I do understand the reasoning behind this argument but if we go with this logic then Seneca is the owner of all that extra money. That means he can now sell enough BTC to have $500k in the bank (as was the initial funding sum) and all the rest of the btc (~$17mil) he can just transfer to his own personal account and keep as his own because after all it was his own speculation. Would you personally, as an investor in PDC, be OK with this? This is what you seem to be saying, please correct me if I am wrong.
.
I do not think we investors as a whole would have blamed him when BTC had gone to 0 nor expected him to complete the project from his from his own pocket.

2 Likes

Thank you, Jabba. You said everything I wanted to say but apparently I have either not been eloquent or agreeable enough to get that across.
.
Everyone can win here and be very happy. There does not need to be any losers, any suffering. But somehow this does not seem to work for many people here and it is difficult to understand why.
.
I also have thought it would have been much more transparent and clear if every poster/commenter put a disclaimer saying if they are actually an investor in PDC or not and if they are if that amount is actually a relevant amount to them (not just few hundred dollars).

1 Like

Seneca’s commitment and therefore first priority is to deliver the project, and to maximise the value of PDC for it’s holders. Any mucking around because, for now, he’s sitting on a pile of money delays that and could jeopardise that (eg delay to market).

What’s great here is that he has a war chest. He’s not having to eak out his funds. He can start now, build up steam and when the time is right also help support the network in order to market his product.

Safe Network is the main goal here, and Decorum is as much about making Safe Network useful and successful for many of us, as anything else. If there are excess funds, there are various ways they could be used which are more aligned with Seneca’s commitment than returning them to investors.

I’m not dead against that. I’m absolutely for the priority being to maximise the value delivered to Decorum, and to Safe Network through Decorum.

7 Likes

Just to throw this in here too…

There are a number of devs already producing apps for the Safe Network. These folks are already getting skilled in Rust, WASM, Safe Network, HTML5, etc. Using this war chest, @Seneca may be able to recruit some of this talent to work on Decorum. This bodes well for the Safe Network, Decorum and the community.

3 Likes

That’s right, we paid him in advance for the work. Just like we paid David in advance. Just as people who bought ethereum paid Vitalik in advance and as many other examples as you want. We paid for making a product, not for owning the product.

The money is 100% his and his only obligation to us is to make the product, he has no obligation to spend that money to promote the product or buy your tokens.

1 Like

And if he says now that he is tired of all this Decorum stuff and wants to quit and he will now sell enough BTC to only give back 500k dollars to investors and keep 17mil dollars then this is also 100% correct in your eyes and you still consider it all moral and acceptable? Because this is also within the logic you are arguing for.
.
So all those crypto companies who raised a lot of ETH or BTC when the prices were low are now all justified in your eyes to quit whenever they feel like it, to back out of their agreement by only returning the dollar amount to investors at the time of investment. And that would be totally within their rights to do so? In some instances some crypto companies could literally keep hundreds of millions of dollars and give only back maybe 5-10 mil dollars.
.
I am not saying you point of view is wrong I am just trying to understand and test its limits because you are vocal about you opinion. I do not personally share this opinion.

2 Likes

Are you familiar with Mt. Gox case? They must return the fiat value.

I am a creditor of MtGox so yes I am very aware of it. They are returning back fiat for the fiat claims and BTC for BTC claims or to be more precise the BTC clams can choose to be paid either their BTC value in fiat (the trustee will sell the btc before distribution) or be given back BTC - proportionally from the leftover BTC pool (~150k iirc).
.
The trustee of the MtGox assets (fiat+btc+bch) will distribute ALL the assets back to the creditors not just the dollar (or yen) equivalent when MtGox went bust.
.
In the beginning MtGox went into bankruptcy proceedings and there came a moment when the BTC assets began to be worth enough to pay all the creditors back 100% respective of the japanese yen value of BTC at a fixed moment when bankruptcy was announced and then by Law all the leftover value (which was only getting higher as BTC was in a bull trend) was supposed to go back to the shareholder by Law - or more precisely to Mark Karpeles, who was the culprit responsible for the collapse of MtGox!
.
That obviously made the creditors very angry and upset and so very soon it was proposed and made so that MtGox be pulled out of bankruptcy and into civil rehabilitation so that all creditors could get their assets back, not just the yen equivalent at time of collapse.

1 Like

Well, we bought into him building a protocol and us owning the value creation aspect of that. He hasn’t been able to build that protocol or any value creation, but the frozen funds we sent have made a lot. It’s not unusual for a startup to reward seed investors with a chance at a partial exit when their investment is suddenly worth 30-40x. This isn’t equity and we aren’t seed round investors, but given the actual circumstances I think Harmen is quite right to offer the buy back and put more of the PDC in his control whilst keeping investors happy. Since he’s already said he’s going to do this the only question now really is what are the terms of it? If he goes from % of BTC contributed/held then we’ll probably all be happy, if he goes from factors of fiat I suspect some people might feel a bit aggrieved. As I said before, it would be unreasonable to expect a fiat relative refund if he held in crypto and that crashed. I don’t think anyone here would be doing that.

1 Like

How do you know he holds Bitcoin? There is an address where the bitcoin has been moved, but it may not be his. I haven’t read anywhere that he confirms that he holds $ 18 million in bitcoin?

I’m working under the assumption that this is the case. If it is not then yeah, that would change things. :man_shrugging:

Just to be clear. If he had made a less savvy decision with our money and kept 100BTC and turned the rest into fiat, then in the circumstances of a buy back offer I would also expect that to be relative to the actual value of what he held as a result of whatever decisions he had made.

Agreed, and one of those ways—which @Seneca has already done—is supporting MaidSafe and the Safe Network. There may even be further opportunities to support MaidSafe in effectively targeting developers & end users.

6 Likes

If you believe in the future success of PDC and SAFE then the founders and stakeholders do better by owning 25M PDC than by owning 200 more BTC in the long term. If PDC gains traction then they will be able to fund operations for longer from half the PDC supply than 200 extra BTCs. If they fail then investors lose less by hedging some out at this stage too. It’s just a no-brainer imo. PDC do not need to give away anything here, they just need to buy up the liquid supply, creating a floor for the token price and giving themselves a bigger interest in the token itself. It’s generally better for stakeholders if the main developer also has a big stake in the project and is more vested in its success.

1 Like