3 ms·

Are you objecting to the high amount held by the developers? Why wouldn’t you want to incentivize development? An actual bad ICO split would be where they sell

by woah 9y ago

Are you objecting to the high amount held by the developers? Why wouldn’t you want to incentivize development? An actual bad ICO split would be where they sell 100% of the token and have no more incentive to build the app.

fastball 9y ago
I'm objecting to all sorts of things. 1. 20% in a token sale and 30% to fund immediate development are basically the same thing, except it seems like the designers (I won't call them developers yet because I haven't seen any development) are trying to make more money by waiting until their token is on an exchange, then selling the remaining 30% for what the hope is a higher price. If your goal is to be fair and fund development, at least make it 50% ICO and 50% ongoing dev at an emission rate, but don't muddy the waters by pretending the whole point of a token sale isn't to fund immediate development. 2. As mentioned above, I don't see any actual development work, plans, or roadmap, so what justification to they have for the claim that they will need 125,000,000 WOOLF to fund ongoing dev? ICOs right now are the real bubble in cryptocurrency, as it's literally another dotcom bubble. People who have no idea what they actually need or are actually worth are just throwing out random numbers because they can and people are buying into it. They don't know what their ongoing development is going to involve at this point. This is a bunch of guys getting together at Oxford saying "let's have an ICO, what can we get away with?" Just look at their backgrounds! 3. And finally, the truth is that you really don't need a "Token Fund" to fund ongoing development. 100% distribution in an ICO should be fine. What encourages you to continue development is people actually using the platform in the future, and you can charge them for it. This is supposed to be a University, right? So students are already paying educators for their time, why shouldn't they pay developers? If you have a website that is creating these smart contracts (presumably yes) and needs to be maintained, then charge an access fee for the website which covers development. Then, if people want to negotiate or write the smart contracts between themselves and educators without paying the platform fee, they can. Most people won't, but they could. That's kinda the point of doing this on the blockchain. Otherwise you might as well have a "SQL database powered university".

by woah 9y ago

fastball 9y ago

I'm objecting to all sorts of things. 1. 20% in a token sale and 30% to fund immediate development are basically the same thing, except it seems like the designers (I won't call them developers yet because I haven't seen any development) are trying to make more money by waiting until their token is on an exchange, then selling the remaining 30% for what the hope is a higher price. If your goal is to be fair and fund development, at least make it 50% ICO and 50% ongoing dev at an emission rate, but don't muddy the waters by pretending the whole point of a token sale isn't to fund immediate development. 2. As mentioned above, I don't see any actual development work, plans, or roadmap, so what justification to they have for the claim that they will need 125,000,000 WOOLF to fund ongoing dev? ICOs right now are the real bubble in cryptocurrency, as it's literally another dotcom bubble. People who have no idea what they actually need or are actually worth are just throwing out random numbers because they can and people are buying into it. They don't know what their ongoing development is going to involve at this point. This is a bunch of guys getting together at Oxford saying "let's have an ICO, what can we get away with?" Just look at their backgrounds! 3. And finally, the truth is that you really don't need a "Token Fund" to fund ongoing development. 100% distribution in an ICO should be fine. What encourages you to continue development is people actually using the platform in the future, and you can charge them for it. This is supposed to be a University, right? So students are already paying educators for their time, why shouldn't they pay developers? If you have a website that is creating these smart contracts (presumably yes) and needs to be maintained, then charge an access fee for the website which covers development. Then, if people want to negotiate or write the smart contracts between themselves and educators without paying the platform fee, they can. Most people won't, but they could. That's kinda the point of doing this on the blockchain. Otherwise you might as well have a "SQL database powered university".