Thanks CfB, but I have more than 1%, and I want to keep some IOTA still, so we would need to split the account, I hope that is possible.

A few people have asked for exact valuation numbers, my calculations are as follows:

ICO funds raised
930.96 btc
Jinn 41297 * 0.0063 = 260.1711 btc

total bitcoins = 930.96 + 260.1711 = 1191.1311

1% = 11.911311 btc

If I have made an error we will adjust figures

Thanks CfB, but I have more than 1%, and I want to keep some IOTA still, so we would need to split the account, I hope that is possible.

A few people have asked for exact valuation numbers, my calculations are as follows:

ICO funds raised
930.96 btc
Jinn 41297 * 0.0063 = 260.1711 btc

total bitcoins = 930.96 + 260.1711 = 1191.1311

1% = 11.911311 btc

If I have made an error we will adjust figures

I want 25X if the trade happens after the foundation gets funded, but 20X if the deal happens before that is known. Escrow through CfB if he agrees.

Read what David said himself.

Both would be a breach of trust. My goal is to ensure my investment in IOTA continues, so I can accept a premine as it will work, and i see the need for the foundation to be funded.

How about this for a plan - an extra 5% is held in an account on top of any donations. If someone wants to get back their share of the extra 5% fund they can ask for it back by posting in this thread. An opt out mechanism means it wouldn't be a premine, and it's still a 'donation', and this system would have a better chance of raising the funds needed for the foundation. It's ethically not very pretty, but CfB and David's recent decisions show they don't seem to be too worried about that anyway, and it would probably work. An opt out system means everyone not following the thread pays the 5%, and the embarrassment of asking for refunds will prevent many from doing that, so more will get raised than with an opt in donation system. I think the goal is to be 100% sure the 5% target is reached, otherwise even the good guys who donate risk having their whole investment in IOTA become worthless.

If someone is interested in my 1% offer let me know. I want to get out of IOTA either way under the current management.

Read your statement above and imagine you are the CEO of a large company considering investing with CfB and David.

Would a 'deal' made with these guys be worth much knowing what they've done with previous business partners?

Time to call a spade a spade. Working with people who change conditions with threats is very risky

Either way something is being included that wasn't mentioned in the ico:
1- 5% premine
2- 5% donation

1- ensures original IOTA investors are part of the future

2- does NOT


which is better for you?

both are new developments that weren't disclosed during the ICO

You didn't read my post did you.

I am perfectly happy to donate my 5%, and will.

BUT, I am NOT happy to have IOTA forked if the target isn't reached, even though I DID donate my 5%.

That's what CfB and David aren't ruling out. Read the thread before you decide who to criticize. You might realise you agree with me.

Do you want to donate your 5% and then lose the other 95% when the target isn't reached?

Would you prefer a 5% premine instead that guarantees the foundation gets funded?

Lots of people wont even be following this thread, or will but wont donate. I AM DONATING!

Just do a 5% premine

@CfB, those links didn't restore my faith in the direction you and David seem to want to take IOTA in, but it's your project, so I wish you both well.

I believed I bought tokens for the IOTA network, and I want that network to succeed, and I believe all those who work behind the scenes deserve compensation, and I think a 5% premine is the way to achieve that. Up until a couple of days ago I believed in the direction you guys were headed.

However, things have changed in the last few days. I don't like being handcuffed to a potential outcome I can't control where the 5% target isn't met, so you and David fork IOTA, and even though I paid my 5% donation, my investment in tokens/software is worthless through no fault of my own, and, a new corporatised reboot of IOTA exists that I hold no stake in, even though I sent you bitcoins in good faith.
 

I didn't know about this condition for a 5% community donation for the foundation or you go into partnership with corporates, and it feels most definitely like a threat to me. I understand your time is valuation and needs to be respected, but I used my time to earn money that I sent off to the IOTA ICO, and I don't believe you and David respect that fact, otherwise you wouldn't be raising the possibility of there being a fork that dosn't include the original ICO investors. You're refusal to clarify that matter shows a lack of respect for the original supporters of IOTA.

What makes the situation doubly concerning is the donations are totally unnecessary, as a premine achieves the fund raising outcome we all seem to agree on perfectly well, so as I speculated, I think the reason for your preference for donations is not related to neutralizing the 'bystander effect', but more likely for some other legal reason, which is fine by me, but why wont you guys be upfront? This obfuscation of the facts, combined with David's threatening and insulting tone to supporters like myself recently is a red flag.

I can handle David insulting me and others, but I don't like his chances of navigating the path ahead for IOTA with such an overly macho and immature style. That style from a project manager doesn't work unless he's also the code guy, in which case people have to suffer in silence and put up with the BS. In David's case he'll simply be replaced by a more professional person at a later date, but by then he will have had plenty of time to poison the well with key stakeholders and partners. I've been in business for 20+ years and that's the way it works. Managers can only act like David if they're irreplaceable, and David is easily replaced, so eventually key interests will want him removed, and that's going to be messy. He wont go quietly and will try and lob grenades as he goes. His involvement from here on with IOTA makes the future less certain.

So I am selling a 1% stake in IOTA token supply for a 25x return. If CfB agrees he can act as escrow. That'll leave me with a small stake which I'll gladly donate 5% from. If anyone wants to own 1% of IOTA let me know. I don't agree with what's happening with the foundation funding from donations, but for those who feel comfortable with that, here's a chance to get on board. I know IOTA is not at 25X yet, but when it is I want to move on regardless of what happens from here.

I participated in the IOTA crowdfunding, so like it or not, we have a 'business relationship', or should have if you are attempting to act professionally.

You stated the following:


I'm challenging that statement above where you use a '20x return' as evidence of you doing 'everything right'.

The 20x return claim is NOT consistent with your previous statements that you were only selling software.

I am not happy that after the crowdfunding you are threatening to fork IOTA and leave the original participants with nothing if you don't raise 5% through an inadequate method like donations when a premine is simple and fair. I speculated this might be to get around securities issuing regulations. There's no trolling here, I just disagree with your position, and I questioned your use of abuse and bad language when communicating, which IMO shows you are inexperienced in business and a bit rattled when adults challenge you respectfully, but firmly.

My frustration at your position and behavior is genuine, calling it trolling is a poor excuse at avoiding my criticism.

OK, let readers decide if my post deserved a serious response . I owe them nothing, but YOU do as the so called leader of this project. Many people are upset, not just me.

Your inability or unwillingness to answer is telling. You look to be out of your depth now.

@CfB, can you explain how someone can be 20x on a purchase of software?

edit:when someone in business resorts to insults and bad language you know they're struggling

they don't have to rig anything, they just borrow bitoins and buy WAVES in the ICO, then pay back the loans with bitcoins they KNOW they've got coming to them when the ICO funds are released. net effect is their own share of waves is a lot higher, and the actual funds raised is smaller, but with the amount they had 48hours ago they know they had plenty for development.

every ICO is prone to this, but maybe WAVES insiders are a bit too obvious.
I don't even know if it would be illegal, but obviously unethical

Can you explain how we got a 20x return on the purchase of software? 20x only makes sense when you're talking about the IOTA token, but you insist you only sold software. Your previous statements are contradictory.

If you sold software nobody received 20x, and if you fork and IOTA token MK1 becomes worthless then all the people who trusted you make 0x.

Reputation is everything, and no amount of word games and semantics can spin the fact that most IOTA supporters believe you are being tricky and deceitful.


edit: are donations for foundation needed to bypass securities issuing laws? why not 5% premine? The 'bystander effect' will be exactly the same with donations as with premine. bystanders don't become active just because they donated

This last minute acceleration in buying looks like insiders buying with borrowed bitcoins ... they knew this ICO was successful days ago so they've got plenty of ICO funds to pay back loans. I just don't believe FOMO explains the last 24 hour surge

Wonderful! Would be awesome if NOXT could surf either/both of those WAVES!

where is your proof of this claim?

A bootstrap helps adoption heaps guys! Needs to be updated regularly by trusted community member

must have been a typo (months)

Good question, I'd like to know status of JINN

Anyone who thinks they know which way LISK is heading is probably taking out their ass ... I know I don't, so best to HODL