Not sure why, but also some of my questions that are technical never were answered
That's because earlier
you claimed NONE of your previous questions were answered, and that's grossly incorrect and provocational statement. It makes you look like a
troll, better ignored because it implicates you'll accept no answer as valid. Commenting this now risks escalating your inclinations for non-constructive further argument, but maybe we can keep it down to earth.
Usually I'm careful with words. But if I wasn't, I would appreciate it if you show proof (just quote where I said that), especially if you try to mix that up with words like "troll" to justify what you say with "better ignored". And keep in mind that I started very friendly and with a honest intention for answers, because I hoped to find a project I would see as good Investment. And I was friendly in all of my first posts, even if critical. Now I may seem not to be, but I'm still factual/on topic. Plus: Keep in mind that it's needed to ask to get infos everybody should want to know about - there is no Whitepaper and the ANN is a list of "headlines" without deeper explanations about why and how.
This is what I found what I've said about questions and answers:
Post 142:"I'm kind of concerned if I ask 3 questions and the two most important ones are not answered."
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1543991.msg15557115#msg15557115Post 158:
And there are still missing answers/infos to my previous questions:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1543991.msg15556402#msg15556402https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1543991.msg15558325#msg15558325 Post 210:
"All questions I had I needed to ask and there was nearly no answer that was convincing for me personally. No problem if others have another opinion."
(...)
"There are two long posts without any answer!
About regulatory issues:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1543991.msg15561379#msg15561379About the token and the economical design:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1543991.msg15561785#msg15561785"
Post 216:
"And if I ask 3 questions and 2 are important but just the one that is not that important is answered while the other ones are ignored - what would you think?"
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1543991.msg15563436#msg155634361. Why did you chose PoS? Why do you believe it's a good solution for a project like this one?
It fits our technology well. Not so perfectly as an economic system, but technically as the consensus solution it's very robust. Also all the work on open source FIMK and NXT, which we know thoroughly, is there to be reused and leveraged. It's very hard and demanding to come up with well working consensus and p2p code from scratch. Those resources are better spent elsewhere and use the wheel that's already invented.
My concerns about PoS are basically two points, but I know that some guys who are much more experts than I will ever be, pointed out a lot of more flaws. But I will list my two main-concerns, especially when a coin starts with an ICO:
1. Over time there is no way to avoid a very unequal distribution. The big stakes are like a money-magnet, so it's a rich becomes richer - system right from the start, and that may even be more the case if the start is an ICO.
2. Costs for an attack are just one time costs - That's different to PoW.
And while the incentives to do an attack on a cryptocurrency may be not very high that could be different when it's about an exchange.
And this may be interesting for experts, which I'm not:
Excellent paper on why Proof of Stake is fundamentally flawed, linked to by Gavin Andresen in his AMA.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2jwbvr/excellent_paper_on_why_proof_of_stake_is/Why I point on that subject is because I'm really surprised to see an ambitious project starting with PoS when there are so much publications of flaws - or they are not correct.
2. Don't you believe that PoS leads into centralization over time and a weak system?
Some centralization is to be expected with time, as we know through long experience with FIMK. But no that's not our concern on business platform like HEAT. Because HEAT isn't primarily a currency, and it has very little to do with attempts of solving any distribution problems. HEAT's focus is on the tokens enabling the technology. Here it doesn't matter whether even a single entity would hold most of the tokens.
How does the token enables the technology? I understand that it's a fee-payment system. But I don't understand why it needs a token for it. Wouldn't it be possible to take just the fees of the coins that will be traded on Heat? And the fees could be paid out to those who secure the network and it would be a more like DpOS-System without a high inflation token in combination with PoS which will have impact on the economy, in a worst-case-scenario even on security.
And since you want to run some more investment-rounds - If you wouldn't do this ICO but develop something you already could show, and of course, write a Whitepaper before, you could show "proof of concept" etc. It could be really an interesting project while it now looks more as if it needs a token to do an ICO even before you write a Whitepaper. And just by the way: That's the main-point why it needs questions to come to conclusions that are based on informations.
3. Why a pretty high inflation for the first four years and a hard cut down after the fourth year?
It's part of the token distribution, which is an incentive for initial adoption and p2p network nodes through the relatively high block rewards. Your inflation figures were off BTW. It's more like this:
Year 1: 40%
Year 2: 21%
Year 3: 15%
Year 4: 8%
Year 5: 2.5%
Then getting lower each year.
So what you could do is regard the token supply of 50M HEAT as the base amount. It's only dividend for 4 years. The token supply inflation after that is very low. And we're still considering the options to even be able to burn some through one of the multiple involved fee processes.
See, I can't know why you chose such a design but just the 40% in the first year would really be enough for me to step back, even if everything else would look good in my opinion. 2 reasons:
1) ICO's are often bought up from groups who are behind the ICO. That's not meant as accusation but generally it's something an Investor can't be sure about and we've seen that several times. And to see a very high inflation rate in the first year would be an indicator for me to think about exactly that. That it could be intentionally.
2) And to say it's an incentive for initial adoption could be a wrong strategy. Because: Even if I wouldn't think about the possibility I spoke about above: What you see as incentive to buy also means high inflation! And that means sell-pressure.
Conclusion:
If I combine those two concerns out of Investor-perspective who has just the informations you provide, I would wait, even if I would believe in the project in general. I would expect to get it cheaper some time after launch on the exchange. That happens to a lot of ICO's (by the way: Also Factom was cheaper after launch for some time and I also did not buy into the ICO). And we've seen that several times just the last couple of weeks.
4. How do you plan to implement Fiat into a multisig-wallet?
Fiat will just be one base pricing asset (token), similar to a token that anyone can create on the HEAT blockchain. Those tokens will have multi-sig capability. When a licensed money transmitter operator (our JV partner, or someone else) comes to create their multi-sig tokens that represent their fiat currency operating under goverment authorized license, there we have it. Nothing difficult technically, more difficult bureaucratically. And we have exactly that more difficult side going forward well.
Okay, I understand the technical solution. What I still have doubts about is that it will be possible to get a license for a decentralized exchange - and yes, I understand that it's about the partner-company. But the EU even wants to regulate Wallet-providers what shows the tendency.
But if it should be possible I expect that you need to do all the "know-your-customer-stuff" and that contradicts in some ways what it's about to do things in a decentralized fashion. To say it with other words: I don't see much reason to not use a centralized exchange like Poloniex instead, because it's possible to use it nearly as if it would be decentralized. I buy and withdraw what I bought and I deposit to sell. And it's not EU-law.
