What an astute observation. You're very perceptive. Yes, that is the logical conclusion of anyone who asks questions. They are nefarious baddoers and should be banned from the echo chamber.

If that is in reference to myself, well you need to pay closer attention

That bolded part is wrong. He received a considerable amout of UNITY for those "assets".

Ignoring the content and purpose of the actual conversation and creating diversionary sidetracking is also trolling. So either we're both trolls or neither of us are. Once again. jl777 is able to handle the questions and he is who they are directed at and meant for. If you don't like it, please avert your tender eyes.

If you believe what I'm doing is trolling, then you are hopeless. Again, if you don't like the conversation don't join. jl777 is a big boy. He can handle himself.

If you don't like the conversation feel free not to join it. This is a legitimate line of questions. How could investors do their due diligence if this information was not made clear before, during or after the ICO even up until now. It seemed to be clear. But now that the moment is potentially upon us things are seeming quite muddy.

You were compensated how many 10's of thousands UNITY for those assets? And still more meaningless saying you "gave" them for free or below market value when they are fantastically shallow markets on totally unproven assets. I think you are doing good work, but lets not be silly James. You created a bunch of assets that had and still have no present function, make a bunch of promises about them, toss them onto an ICO that investors piled 6k BTC into and take a sweet piece of the pie. Additionally, the non-dilutive aspect of your bonuses makes this piece of the pie much, much larger. And now we are going to play with numbers and say 2.34x is 3x. On top of this, you continuously remind us that you are becoming everyday diminishingly important to the process, progress and future success of this whole thing. Please do not take my words to be cynical. I am just calling something what it is in a blunt way. You are a visionary and prolific coder and laying a foundation for something amazing. If this all actually works out it will be a monumental feat. To repeat, I think you are doing good work if it all works, but lets not be silly and play games with the numbers.

Could you please show us how you came to the calculation of 0.0234 BTC/UNITY.

Okay. So 573715.89 UNITY were bought/created during ICO @ 0.01 btc per. That puts the initial market cap at 5737.1589 BTC. Then there is the 10% non dilutive incentive bonus for jl777 (5% for each goal, x3 this 2014 and x10 2015). Now if these extra 10% get counted to the initial marketcap (actually 8160.61 BTC) then they of course must be counted to the goal marketcap, which means the x3 goal is 24481.83 BTC.

Then logic clearly follows if these 10% UNITY do not count in the initial market cap, they don't count in the 3x calculation either. This puts the initial marketcap at 5737.1589 BTC and the goal marketcap at  17211.4767 BTC.

What does not get done is: Calculating the 10% UNITY for the initial marketcap, but then do not calculate them for the goal marketcap. Clearly it is obvious why this makes no sense. It is just padding the starting cap and reducing the goal cap with no actual progress. It's a trick.

The price started at 0.01, so logic follows that a tripling of marketcap means a tripling of price, as Supernet does not have an inflating share supply.

Now the above comments I'm responding to are not from jl777. So, I think we need an official statement from jl777 as to how this gets calculated and a justification for that. This should corroborate what was stated at the beginning of the IPO & not include any "funny" accounting like outlined above.

Thanks for the clarification.

Is an actively staking/(unlocked) wallet more vulnerable is some ways than a passive/(locked) wallet?

To holders or to active stakers? And in what form are the fees paid (assets, btcd, btc, something else)? If Btc for example (or anything other than btcd), where are they paid to?

If there was a proper funding framework in place this could be improved significantly. These hodgepodge funding methods that have been going on are not going to cut it. Yes I know, it's an open project & I should do it instead of blabbering about it. Well I don't have the skills & knowledge, but it's obvious it is greatly needed to further ensure XMR's survival. Myself & surely others could put up a bounty for someone to implement a in-depth bounty & funding framework. Per-task bounties, funding current dev's, hiring more/full-time dev's & paying for professional services such as code review, cryptography review, etc need to be covered in a way that donators know exactly what features, tasks, initiatives they are funding, how much & why they cost, priority that they will receive, etc, etc, etc. This can act as a voting system for feature prioritization as well. The amount of donations features & tasks receive speaks more honestly that any other consensus IMO (yes in ways it is still vulnerable to a wealthy enemy, most things are.) This is about as sybil-resistant a voting system as we can get. Anyways, Mike Hearns Lighthouse Project (http://blog.vinumeris.com/2014/05/17/lighthouse/)  comes to mind when thinking what this might look like. Build the network of investors/donators & developers working on the coin with a frictionless platform to connect, inform & enable them, accelerating the development, attracting more investors/developers/community members. It becomes a self feeding, accelerating loop.

What about even forking Lighthouse for XMR. Possible? (http://blog.vinumeris.com/2014/05/17/lighthouse/)

a

1