Not really, fundraising is very time intensive and with a NO vote I will probably spend most of the time up until the 20th on marketing/fundraising/PR. If we get a YES vote I will spend the next week just developing the product, hopefully with a working prototype by the 10th of July.

I'm actually quite tired of fundraising so I hope people vote YES.

That's the general idea although any specific proposal will need to be adopted via a vote.

There was a CSS issue with the address sent via our newsletter that automatically uppercased all of the letters. The correct addresses can be found here.

We sent out an email to folks who signed up for our newsletter. It had a link to the blog post.

Yeah, well we have to do what we promised originally, so even if our plan was not the best one I think we have to stick to it unless SWARM holders approve a new one.

I also see this as an interesting demonstration of the potential power of our model of engagement. It's really the first time something like distributed voting was possible. I see a lot of potential applications, but the only way to identify the highest value ones is to try it out and see how it works.

Done. Should be on the next block.

This may seem strange in the cryptoworld but this is exactly how investment is normally done. See this paper of mine for an early attempt at explaining how this could work in a crypto context. In these cases, people accept dilution because the overall valuation of the project is expected to increase substantially via future funding (i.e. Peter Thiel's small percentage of Facebook grew smaller over time, but turned into rather a lot of money in the end because Facebook became massive).  

The easiest way is to create a new address in a Counterwallet as a "watch address."

Thanks. I'm curious to see how people will vote.

News today.





Official GOLDTICKET announcement




Swarm in the Economist




Swarm in the Keiser report

Agree.

Here's an article on the vote in CoinTelegraph. 

Best option is that they get burned. Currently this feature doesn't exist in Counterparty but i've talked the core devs and it's possible to add it. If not the 68M SWARM are just locked.

Let me be more clear. A proposal to cap the current fundraising cycle at 4500BTC while leaving open the possibility of a future funding round (to be approved via the same voting mechanism).

 

My pleasure. I do what I can.


I agree. Among other things that's why we created this proposal to cap the amount.  


Could be. I was probably unduly influenced by Marc Andreessen's comment to "Raise as much money as possible" as well as advice from those who had conducted previous crowdsales. I also wanted to be significantly better capitalized than our competitors.

Correct.



Also not applicable. People will not be taking funds primarily in SWARM.



They aren't.



This would indeed be idiotic and we wouldn't do this to anyone... even ourselves.



It's really not applicable because SWARM is not the primary token for actually executing the crowdsale, that will be Bitcoin and/or fiat. SWARM grants other privileges that are detailed in our manifesto.



I actually agree that for a normal startup this would be a ridiculous amount of money, but compared with setting up a VC fund it's quite small. VC funds start at $50mm or so and even $50mm would be small.

Now I'm entirely sympathetic to the viewpoint that we shouldn't be attempting to fund startups but simply providing the infrastructure. The more I've gotten involved with this the more I'm convinced that the overhead of managing that process is not desirable at present given the immediate technical needs and already complex legal space.

That said, this was our original model and our fundraiser was structured around those goals.



I actually think all of your concerns were and are completely valid, it's just that you misunderstood the value of SWARM and this caused other mistaken conclusions.

As for the funding goals, I actually wish in retrospect we set a smaller target that we could meet quickly and get back to my preferred business of product development. That said, we picked our number based on the early advice of Bitangels/DApp fund/etc. and we are stuck with that particular number.

The best I can do at this point is make sure we manage the funds received responsibly and deliver on our pledge to deliver an amazing product on schedule.

Of course, we do have an active proposal to cap the amount at a certain smaller amount.

What aspect of our materials do you think are weak? What sort of clarifications and clear communication would you like?

As proposed on the main thread we have a plan to restrict funding.

It's worth noting that even if the distribution of coins is not a significant economic benefit the Swarm coin has other associated benefits. Since these are all fairly new things it is tricky to fit them into a spreadsheet.

This is fairly clear.

100,000,000 - 24,000,000 SWARMPRE - 4,000,000 founder - 4,000,000 bounties = 68,000,000 available for future rounds.

I suppose this is really up to SWARMPRE holders at this point.

Would you prefer us to set a lower cap and reserve coins for a future round (to be approved by coin holders)? This would allow us to worry less about marketing in the next couple weeks and stay focused on building product.

Or would you prefer that we try to raise as much as possible now and not leave any future funding option open? This might result in a short term benefit to SWARMPRE holders but could limit the future coin potential.

It's not necessarily an easy decision but it was the primary point of critique that has come up on bitcointalk and other places.

Frankly, I'm also personally tired of fundraising and am looking forward to getting back to building product.

"Equity" is a term that has a very specific legal meaning in many jurisdictions which includes a specific set of rights attached to a pre-existing legal framework. What we are providing is "cryptoequity" a programmable set of rights that is customizable depending on the project. This does include some degree of giveback as specified in our manifesto.



This is basically correct, although it is worth noting that the 'dividend' feature of Counterparty which we are using does not necessarily correspond to dividends in the traditional sense. The type of giveback to the people who fund the project probably will likely substantially depend on the type of project (and on legal jurisdiction).



We will be issuing our June report soon. I have no plans for an external audit but I'm very open to suggestions as to how to do this.