Relaunched Completely

[anhpt192]

My question is, if you can sell all of 5,000,000 you can get 6,250BTC or more but at the end if you just get 10BTC (assumed), do you still run or cancel your project?

We of course still run the project then. In this case only 8000 coins would be in circulation. So then we can think about dividing each of these coins in 100 parts so that we end up with 800000 coins in circulation or so. Basically, the number of coins increases while the value of each single coin decreases, ending up in the same market capitalization.
This would be a democratic process (to be agreed between the investors) and performed in a way that none of the investors would have either a disadvantage or advantage from this.

But yes, to answer your question: we are building this coin in any case no matter how the IPO eventually looks like.

Thanks for your reply. I believe that investors need escrow!

[poornamelessme]

If you do not feed comfortable with investing in an un-escrowed IPO you have the possibility to wait all the way until the product is finished and enter the IPO then.

But if investors wait until the product is finished, they pay double for the coin, correct?

[kickstarter]

Is it possible to rent the ElastiCoin network to do advanced 3D-rendering tasks?

[poornamelessme]

Almost-correct from what I learned by a quick look at the website. The reward is declining slowly.
But I am perfectly fine with that. Those who enter earlier have a higher risk and thus deserve a higher reward.

(Almost-correct, because it depends on when exactly you think you have seen enough software to buy in. If you wait till the very end, then yes the rewards have halved. Most likely it won't be at the very end though)

Okay, thanks. That is the main part that concerns me. Although I do agree those who enter earliest deserve the higher reward (most escrowed ICOs just do a little bonus at that stage), I expect others can see how this potentially could be a red flag when a coin doesn't use escrow. Although I won't harp on ICO details as the dev asked us not to (although since this is an ICO thread, I personally see no issues with discussing ICO terms) -- it is an incentive for a dev to do the 'buy his own coins using donated btc' game before the coin hits viable product stage.

[haggis]

(our goal here is to make the process as fair as possible, and not a gamble like in the Augur pre-sale where nobody knew how many coins he would get until the very end)

Nobody cares about how much ELC one gets as long  as it is not clear how much ELC will be on the market. The only number that counts is your percentual share of the total. So, to use your words, ELC pre-sale is still gambling.

[haggis]

(our goal here is to make the process as fair as possible, and not a gamble like in the Augur pre-sale where nobody knew how many coins he would get until the very end)

Nobody cares about how much ELC one gets as long  as it is not clear how much ELC will be on the market. The only number that counts is your percentual share of the total. So, to use your words, ELC pre-sale is still gambling.

I see it differently. If you expect 5 million coins to be sold, you can easily calculate your "worst-case" percentage.
In Augur's case the number of coins to be sold was not capped, this was true gambling.
But maybe you can point me into the right direction in case i am wrong.  

If I expect 5 million coins, I'd see it will be initially valued with at least 2.5m$ (even more if some buys are made after btc block 400k). That's absolutely insane for a new unknown coin.
To make money as initial investor the intial mc must be far below. As I don't know how it will end, I have to gamble about the final numbers.

Hope you get the idea...

[haggis]

(our goal here is to make the process as fair as possible, and not a gamble like in the Augur pre-sale where nobody knew how many coins he would get until the very end)

Nobody cares about how much ELC one gets as long  as it is not clear how much ELC will be on the market. The only number that counts is your percentual share of the total. So, to use your words, ELC pre-sale is still gambling.

Hi haggis,

What would be a fair and realistic initial market capitalization to you? I mean at this stage we can think about reducing the maximum number of coins in circulation. This would not hurt anyone?

This depends on 2 factors: technical innovation and brand awareness. The first one doesn't  weight much for the initial value as we have seen over and over again. The brand awareness, however, makes up nearly everything for the initial valuation.
Since Elastic Coin hasn't got much/any public awareness, I'd see an initial market cap of max 250k$ as a fair entry point.

Disclaimer: this is only my personal general view about investments in new coins. Hope you feel not offended about the high difference.

[haggis]

Haggis,
I have fully gotten your point. I have decided to change the rewards to be ten times higher.


So now you get 8000 ELC per BTC instead of only 800 BTC.
This way the initial market capitalization should be capped at 250k USD.

All present purchases in the genesis block have been updated.
Congratulations, you now have ten times the amount! 

Just right in the moment before I posted this number you got it yourself

I guess it's a wise decision and will attract more potential investors.


Whish you all the best!

[dadingsda]

@ElasticCoin

Do you need german translation  (payment in ElasticCoins) ?

best regards

[OrsonJ]

And yes, using an escrow doesn't necessarily mean all is well. Dev can still run away (although at least they have restricted funds until dev delivers coin + wallet). And then they run away...

Well, use an IPO that lets you buy in when coin + wallet are actually there and you have the same situation.
Just like this one  

My point is, i (see my arguments above) don't see a real benefit of using an escrow because there are shady poor devs and shady rich devs.
The only thing that protects you from losing on an investment is to refrain from coins with no future.
But this should be the No1 premise of investments anyways, escrowed or not: only invest in coins which you think DO have future. This way you should be good to go.

I think the concerns that poornamelessme has brought up are of the utmost importance. With access to the BTC before the IPO is over you are able not only to buy a portion of the IPO funds for free (as with an escrowed IPO), but can use the same funds to do this several times, for instance under the pretense of "hiring devs". You say that not everyone around here is a bad person, but the fact remains that about 98% of IPOs conducted here have been outright scams. In an ideal world the concerns raised would be sticked in big bold writing at the top of every IPO thread.

The concept does sound interesting, but at the moment the nature of the crowd-funding is putting me off. Could you tell me if you would be willing to reveal more about yourself personally, perhaps by linking to a public profile in order to assuage the fears of potential investors and show that Lionel Keys is in fact your real name. To be frank, the project reminds me very much of the work of a prolific scam dev who was very active here in the past. I'd feel a lot more comfortable investing knowing this is your true identity and so that you are not him. Thanks.

[Makingsure]

And yes, using an escrow doesn't necessarily mean all is well. Dev can still run away (although at least they have restricted funds until dev delivers coin + wallet). And then they run away...

Well, use an IPO that lets you buy in when coin + wallet are actually there and you have the same situation.
Just like this one  

My point is, i (see my arguments above) don't see a real benefit of using an escrow because there are shady poor devs and shady rich devs.
The only thing that protects you from losing on an investment is to refrain from coins with no future.
But this should be the No1 premise of investments anyways, escrowed or not: only invest in coins which you think DO have future. This way you should be good to go.

I think the concerns that poornamelessme has brought up are of the utmost importance. With access to the BTC before the IPO is over you are able not only to buy a portion of the IPO funds for free (as with an escrowed IPO), but can use the same funds to do this several times, for instance under the pretense of "hiring devs". You say that not everyone around here is a bad person, but the fact remains that about 98% of IPOs conducted here have been outright scams. In an ideal world the concerns raised would be sticked in big bold writing at the top of every IPO thread.

The concept does sound interesting, but at the moment the nature of the crowd-funding is putting me off. Could you tell me if you would be willing to reveal more about yourself personally, perhaps by linking to a public profile in order to assuage the fears of potential investors and show that Lionel Keys is in fact your real name. To be frank, the project reminds me very much of the work of a prolific scam dev who was very active here in the past. I'd feel a lot more comfortable investing knowing this is your true identity and so that you are not him. Thanks.

^^ this
and i got scared when they said "prime number" thing, made me think is this the next cube? i smell a spot somewhere haha.
anyways watching, won't be investing in a newbie account with no escrow but hey good luck! i may get in once hit exchange!

[OrsonJ]

The concept does sound interesting, but at the moment the nature of the crowd-funding is putting me off. Could you tell me if you would be willing to reveal more about yourself personally, perhaps by linking to a public profile in order to assuage the fears of potential investors and show that Lionel Keys is in fact your real name. To be frank, the project reminds me very much of the work of a prolific scam dev who was very active here in the past. I'd feel a lot more comfortable investing knowing this is your true identity and so that you are not him. Thanks.

I can assure you that I am no "prolific scam dev".
We will put up a detailed list of the core development team along with their pictures and short CVs online pretty soon  

If you do not like the idea of crowdfunding (which i totally understand and accept) please make use of the advantage that this "development and IPO proceed simultaneously" scheme has: you always have the chance to wait until the product is finished, and if you like it buy directly into the genesis block.  See, you can totally avoid any risks because once the product is out and working, it cannot be a "scam" right?

I'm not against crowdfunding per se, but crowdfunding without escrow with an (for the moment at least) unknown dev who's possibly using a pseudonym gives me pretty serious pause for thought. So if you could put up those CVs and pics I'd personally be very grateful. If you could do it before the IPO reward drops that would be good too, as it doesn't seem fair that there should be greater rewards for the people reckless enough to invest in this at the very start when that information isn't publicly available.

[schnötzel]

1: Why no escrow
2: Spend my money and have to wait almost 1/2 yr is "frightening"

[poornamelessme]

 See, you can totally avoid any risks because once the product is out and working, it cannot be a "scam" right?

Actually no.

The issue is that early investors get up to twice the value of the coin than later investors. So by waiting until the product is out and working they are already at a major disadvantage. Then add in the fact that if you were scamming people (not by not releasing the coin, but buying in on your own coin using donated btc instead of hiring devs), you would have done so early most likely.

So if going into evil dev mode, you take early donations, and since there is no escrow you buy-in on your own coin using that btc, and by the time the product is released you have both the original btc plus the elc worth double (ish) the initial rate.

[poornamelessme]

@poornamelessme: Regarding your evil dev thingy ... would it help if we ask the developers for a commitment not to touch the funds until some certain point in time?

Yep, although if going that route, it'd make more sense to use proper escrow.

As for early investors gaining greater rewards, I am fine with it. Usually it's not like double the rate, however, and it does add an extra red flag when not using escrow.

[mikhael]

@poornamelessme: Regarding your evil dev thingy ... would it help if we ask the developers for a commitment not to touch the funds until some certain yet-to-be-defined future point in time?

I hereby officially state, that we will not touch the funds located in the crowd sale address until the reference client is implemented and running in testnet mode.

Initially, is it possible to put those funds to a trusted escrow in order to build more trust?

[poornamelessme]

Initially, is it possible to put those funds to a trusted escrow in order to build more trust?

I may be in the minority here, but if the dev is willing to not touch the funds until a certain date, I see no logical reason not to use a trusted escrow instead.

[poornamelessme]

I may be in the minority here, but if the dev is willing to not touch the funds until a certain date, I see no logical reason not to use a trusted escrow instead.

And if the escrow runs the coin is totaled    If the devs agree not to touch the funds and makes everything transparent, i see no problem in doing this that way.

The idea is to use a trusted escrow... not some dubious form of escrow. I trust exchange escrows more than most devs (and that is saying something after the Cryptsy debacle). But yeah, if escrow runs away, coin is totaled. And if dev runs away, coin is totaled. Guess it depends who you trust more, a form of trusted escrow or a dev with a newbie account.

[poornamelessme]

You claimed before, that waiting until the testnet launches is not safer in any way. Would you please explain that to me?
I tried to think of multiple scenarios but all I come up with is that you should be good to go if you wait until the coin is actually working (the product has been delivered) and you take a look into the crowdsale address and no funds have been moved (which you feared could be used to by the developers to buy over and over again).

Thanks.

Waiting is the safest way to go without some form of escrow. The issue then is that investors are paying around double the rate for the coin compared to earlier investors. I do agree that early investors should get greater rewards, but double is a bit much, at least compared to most other ICOs. So it's safe in regard to scam potential (well, safer, anyway), but not exactly the best way to invest in an ICO. One almost might as well just wait until the coin hits the exchange at that point.

I recall ICO coins on Polo that did the two tiered ICO thing (early investors got coin for half the cost of 2nd tier level)... and then when the coin was active for trading, pretty much everyone who bought early dumped  for around double the profit.  And I don't mean 2x the profit of 2nd tier guys, I mean 2x what they invested... they eventually sold below 2nd tier ICO levels and still made a nice profit. That is the issue with double the rate for early investors, they can sell when the coin hits the exchange way below testnet ICO levels, driving the price down. And why waiting, although safest, may not make sense investment-wise.

Anyway, I will drop the issue and just keep an eye out on the coin. Apologies if it seemed like I was harping on things; only reason I did so was because I was considering investing in the coin.

[poornamelessme]

I will enter before the reward drop. I will get some more so you can have a couple from me for the original pre-drop price if you decide to come on board.  
Regarding the other comment: you are aware that the client (at least according to the time schedule) will be online WAAAAAAY before the ICO reward halves? I thought I had pointed that our earlier, but maybe i missed it.
And still don't got your "everyone will drop their double reward coins"? Who exactly will drop? Only 11 BTC worth of coins have been sold, and the reward will start dropping soon. So there are no such "masses" in my eyes. I get a feeling that you only want to see the evil even if obvious evidence speaks a different language.

Either I misunderstood your reply (or you misunderstood my question) when I asked earlier about how the ICO pricing works. I assumed by the time the product was ready the coin would be double-ish the cost. If not, then yeah, it could work out.

As for dumping coins, right now, nope, nobody has really invested, so it doesn't matter. A lot of time left and it's probably safe to assume there will be a lot more than 11 btc invested before the reward lowers.

And I don't see evil, just seeing things through jaded, crypto eyes. Again, will drop it, and just watch how things go.