|
human
|
 |
March 29, 2017, 02:58:33 PM |
|
So for 1 Ether we will get 1100 (1000+100 Bonus) AE tokens in the first 24h. But what if someone like to buy AE tokens with Bitcoins only? You mention on your website "Fund the wallet with ETH (or view alternatives for contributions with other currencies, such as BTC or fiat)." Will funding the wallet with Bitcoins be similar like funding it with ETH? How many AE tokens+bonus do we get for 1 BTC then?
I am wondering the same, Aeternity is not an Ethereum dapp, why accepting ETH by default for the crowdsale? For the sake of token issuance? We are working on also accepting BTC directly over the Bitcoin blockchain. |
|
|
|
|
zack-aeternity
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 17
Merit: 3
|
|
March 29, 2017, 03:02:31 PM |
|
My question got buried so I'm going to ask it again, can anybody answer this for me please? I just read the whitepaper and I don't understand the integration of the Oracle machine into the consensus mechanism.
It says that when there are competing counter claims the consensus mechanism for blocks will be used to answer the oracle. Where / who does the consensus mechanism get the answer from?
Hi Cryptorials, Here is a document explaining the motivations of the oracle mechanism, and how it connects to the block consensus mechanism. https://github.com/aeternity/testnet/blob/master/docs/oracle_simple.mdHere I explain the step by step of how the oracle works https://github.com/aeternity/testnet/blob/master/docs/oracle_design.mdYou are correct to analyze the oracle within the context of the block consensus mechanism. Every game is inside of a bigger game. |
|
|
|
|
irfan_pak10
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3234
Merit: 1654
Enterapp Pre-Sale Live - bit.ly/3UrMCWI
|
|
March 29, 2017, 04:43:22 PM |
|
First, this is not the right place to talk about bounties issue. Secondly please make only one post in 1 thread if you have any issue. Becuase it creates confusions. Why do I have 0 in weeks 2+3 : Answer about 2nd week Now come to your problem you have joined our campaign on 18/03 (Sat), also our week ends on each Saturday too and starts from Sunday. So we didn't count your post that you make on Saturday. For the 3rd week: I didn't update the sheet yet. Will update it soon. |
|
|
|
|
Cryptorials
|
|
March 29, 2017, 05:06:49 PM |
|
My question got buried so I'm going to ask it again, can anybody answer this for me please? I just read the whitepaper and I don't understand the integration of the Oracle machine into the consensus mechanism.
It says that when there are competing counter claims the consensus mechanism for blocks will be used to answer the oracle. Where / who does the consensus mechanism get the answer from?
Hi Cryptorials, Here is a document explaining the motivations of the oracle mechanism, and how it connects to the block consensus mechanism. https://github.com/aeternity/testnet/blob/master/docs/oracle_simple.mdHere I explain the step by step of how the oracle works https://github.com/aeternity/testnet/blob/master/docs/oracle_design.mdYou are correct to analyze the oracle within the context of the block consensus mechanism. Every game is inside of a bigger game. Thanks for the answers! They are a bit complex for me to understand though. What I think I got is that users must answer questions to download the blockchain, until a sufficient difficult threshold is reached at which point the answer is finalized. But if you are just asking a random group of users, who's to say they will even know the answer let alone answer honestly? Is this linked to the PoS so answers from users with a higher stake in the network and therefore more incentive to do the right thing will carry more weight? Also, if you don't know the answer what happens - are you prevented from downloading the chain. If yes then its an incentive to lie, if no then maybe people won't bother answering. |
|
|
|
|
vdramaliev
|
|
March 29, 2017, 08:13:09 PM |
|
Guys, we thought of doing uncapped, but 3 days only for the first phase of the contribution campaign. This is in order to have more network effects among the users and not to have just a few big ones. Let us know what you think. We are here to discuss a nice, pleasant campaign with you.
To quote Daniel Zakrisson, in his article "ICO 2.0 — what is the ideal ICO?" Combining the viewpoints above gives us the following elements for an “ideal” ICO: - Scam protection
- Technology check
- Proof of ability to execute
- Business viability check
- Efficient use of funds and business-based thresholds for minimum and maximum raise
- A defined legal framework
- A transparent ICO process
- Escrow
- Controlled release of funds
- Delayed founder liquidity
https://medium.com/iconominet/ico-2-0-what-is-the-ideal-ico-ee9d285a8939As someone who has contributed to a number of projects in this space, this is my 2c: I agree with Daniel Zakrisson, as I think most investors would, that it's important to set a cap based on what you actually think you need for your business. The absence of a cap raises questions about the venture's credibility. If you're simply willing to "take what you can get" (either too low OR too high), then is shows a lack of due diligence in understanding "business-based" resources required to make the project a success. If you raise too much, you're diluting the value of the project out the gate, and setting the bar unnecessarily high for the project to gain value. The adage heard often in business holds true here: "under commit and over deliver". If you raise significantly more than other projects in this space, you will be viewed as having made a very large implicit commitment to the community. The bar will be set very high, which is not a good place to be in the early stages of your development. In the long run, a low/reasonable raise, followed by exceptional execution, is more likely to earn investor trust; this is likely to cause your project to rise in value more quickly, and be worth more in the long run. I would think the highest appropriate cap would match the max raised in Ethereum's ICO (~$18M USD). Many investors are going to valuate this project against Ethereum anyway due to the similarities of the project and Yani's relationship with Vitalik. I think a more attractive cap for investors, and a safer raise in terms of justification of resources required, would be $7.5M to $10M. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest_funded_crowdfunding_projectsAnother reason I would say a cap is a must now is that (more) VC's (e.g. Blockchain Capital) have very recently begun backing crypto projects. As one of the first projects that I imagine will be both available and attractive to the new VC's, your project is very likely to be over-bought if uncapped, and susceptible to the problems mentioned above. https://www.wired.com/2017/03/initial-coin-offering-stock-thats-not-stock/Lastly, I don't understand the point of a "Friends, Family and Real Innovators" contribution period, unless there is some way to validate those individuals. If anyone can invest during that period, then it seems to be misnamed, and the question of a cap is as relevant here, as it is to the whole project. I'm extremely excited about your project, and look forward to April 3rd! Hey, I asked our founder Yanislav to provide you with a reply, but he is quite busy with the campaign, so I will do it. First of all, thank you for the reply. We really appreciate your comments and find them quite relevant. Let me address your points. We decided to have no volume cap so that anyone willing can participate. We believe that if more people have AE the value of the underlying system will increase. No cap was also Ethereum's approach and that was quite successful. The name "Friends, Family and Real Innovators" might not be the best choice of words, but this is how we imagine the first people supporting us. I believe Yanislav, being quite sentimental at times, tried to express "closeness" with the first contribution campaign participants. We definitely see your "over-bought" point. However, organizing a campaign such as this one will always be a balancing act. We are building a public blockchain and we want as many people as possible to use it. This point is further stressed by Yanislav's idea to distribute 1% of AE tokens, created during the backing campaign, to most (technical limits apply) BTC and ETH users by "attaching" ownership to public addresses. Again, thank you for the comments and thank you for the good words in the end. We appreciate both. Vlad |
|
|
|
|
|
Elevated
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 37
Merit: 0
|
|
March 30, 2017, 07:10:47 AM |
|
Hey, I asked our founder Yanislav to provide you with a reply, but he is quite busy with the campaign, so I will do it.
First of all, thank you for the reply. We really appreciate your comments and find them quite relevant.
Let me address your points.
We decided to have no volume cap so that anyone willing can participate. We believe that if more people have AE the value of the underlying system will increase. No cap was also Ethereum's approach and that was quite successful.
The name "Friends, Family and Real Innovators" might not be the best choice of words, but this is how we imagine the first people supporting us. I believe Yanislav, being quite sentimental at times, tried to express "closeness" with the first contribution campaign participants.
We definitely see your "over-bought" point. However, organizing a campaign such as this one will always be a balancing act. We are building a public blockchain and we want as many people as possible to use it. This point is further stressed by Yanislav's idea to distribute 1% of AE tokens, created during the backing campaign, to most (technical limits apply) BTC and ETH users by "attaching" ownership to public addresses.
Again, thank you for the comments and thank you for the good words in the end. We appreciate both.
Vlad
Vlad, thanks for your reply. We both desire greater community benefit, including accessibility, and I think there are a few more points to consider: We believe that if more people have AE the value of the underlying system will increase. I think the focus is too much on "our family now", at the expense of the larger segment "our eventual family (e.g. two years out)". The vast majority of people, including weekend crypto enthusiasts and the later stage adopters, will find out about AE well after the crowdsale. If the crowdsale cap is low, them the opening market cap for the coin will be congruent with a very early stage startup. That congruence will be more likely to attract attention (and investment) as it will be seen as an investment that makes sense. The project and price are then more likely to grow as a function of the merits of the project, and demonstrations of what's being produced - items that will justify a higher market cap. The sustainable returns will create positive community attention and media attention, which will fulfill your goal of getting more people involved. Conversely, if an unbounded sale raises $50M for example, for an immature product, I think you're likely to see a panic sell as soon as AE tokens are on the market, as people realize they've paid too much, and don't want to wait two to three years for a $50M market cap to make sense. An immediate large drop in your market cap makes for bad news, and will likely further deter investment and raise questions about the team's decision making. Additionally, the people that are losing money in that situation include your earlier adopters. An event like that would taint the project from the start, and impede your growth. No cap was also Ethereum's approach and that was quite successful. I don't believe this is an appropriate comparison. The Ethereum crowdsale was 2.5 years ago, when the cumulative market cap for Crypto was around $ 7B. It's now worth 3.5x more, at ~ $25 B. This has attracted many more investors, and as I mentioned earlier, even mainstreem VCs are now on the field. Moreover, the market is extremely bullish now. I think an uncapped crowdsale now is likely to raise more than Ethereum did. The second point on the Ethereum crowdsale is that a good outcome doesn't necessarily equal a good decision. The name "Friends, Family and Real Innovators" might not be the best choice of words, but this is how we imagine the first people supporting us. I think it's excellent to be close to your users, and I think this point deserves more consideration: If the team indeed has the best interests of their "friends, family and innovators" in mind, I believe an important action would be to minimize the risk of them paying too much for tokens, and potentially losing money if they need to sell tokens in the first year or two, by not capping the sale at a level appropriate to the business needs of the project. To have an uncapped sale is to allow your friends and family to contribute their hard-earned savings, blindly -- they will have no idea of the worst-case price of their tokens at the time of contribution. In other words, an unbounded sale allows the risk of extreme dilution if a new entrant VC decides to flood you with Eth, at the expense of all the backers. For both the benefit of your project, and the protection of your backers, I encourage you to reconsider putting a cap on the project that is aligned with your business needs, and will protect your backers from an over-bought token. |
|
|
|
|
may_flava
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 17
Merit: 0
|
|
March 30, 2017, 12:37:52 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sotisoti
|
|
March 30, 2017, 01:58:56 PM |
|
We decided to have no volume cap so that anyone willing can participate. We believe that if more people have AE the value of the underlying system will increase. No cap was also Ethereum's approach and that was quite successful.
By putting no cap on the crowdsale you are essentially putting the investors at risk. It's like a crowdfunding campaign without goal or telling the investors "I don't care, just give me all your money". I understand that you want to raise as much as possible, but I really hope you will reconsider your decision on this. |
Bitrated user: sotisoti.
|
|
|
may_flava
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 17
Merit: 0
|
|
March 30, 2017, 02:20:32 PM |
|
We decided to have no volume cap so that anyone willing can participate. We believe that if more people have AE the value of the underlying system will increase. No cap was also Ethereum's approach and that was quite successful.
By putting no cap on the crowdsale you are essentially putting the investors at risk. It's like a crowdfunding campaign without goal or telling the investors "I don't care, just give me all your money". I understand that you want to raise as much as possible, but I really hope you will reconsider your decision on this. Why do you think this is a problem? "Overbought" is a speculative term for day traders who want to sell ASAP, lol. IMHO, if you truly believe in the project's potential you want as many other people to take part as possible for bigger network effect. Caps are like soft private sales - you restrict the number of potential backers and users in order to make 10 people rich. It's all in the family. |
|
|
|
|
|
sotisoti
|
|
March 30, 2017, 02:53:49 PM
Last edit: March 30, 2017, 03:15:28 PM by sotisoti |
|
Why do you think this is a problem? "Overbought" is a speculative term for day traders who want to sell ASAP, lol.
Sorry I don't daytrade, maybe it's just you. Why do I think this is a problem? I'm just trying to protect my potential investments from being relentlessly diluted, that simple. IMHO, if you truly believe in the project's potential you want as many other people to take part as possible for bigger network effect. Caps are like soft private sales - you restrict the number of potential backers and users in order to make 10 people rich. It's all in the family.
By setting up a crowdsale, you are already on your way to make 10 people rich, let alone the campaign itself is uncapped. What about someone who's broke and couldn't afford to participate in the crowdsale? If you truly want as many other people to take part as possible for bigger network effect, you should go ahead and set up a faucet or airdrop the tokens instead. |
Bitrated user: sotisoti.
|
|
|
|
Motivator
|
|
March 30, 2017, 03:02:07 PM |
|
Hey, I asked our founder Yanislav to provide you with a reply, but he is quite busy with the campaign, so I will do it.
First of all, thank you for the reply. We really appreciate your comments and find them quite relevant.
Let me address your points.
We decided to have no volume cap so that anyone willing can participate. We believe that if more people have AE the value of the underlying system will increase. No cap was also Ethereum's approach and that was quite successful.
The name "Friends, Family and Real Innovators" might not be the best choice of words, but this is how we imagine the first people supporting us. I believe Yanislav, being quite sentimental at times, tried to express "closeness" with the first contribution campaign participants.
We definitely see your "over-bought" point. However, organizing a campaign such as this one will always be a balancing act. We are building a public blockchain and we want as many people as possible to use it. This point is further stressed by Yanislav's idea to distribute 1% of AE tokens, created during the backing campaign, to most (technical limits apply) BTC and ETH users by "attaching" ownership to public addresses.
Again, thank you for the comments and thank you for the good words in the end. We appreciate both.
Vlad
Vlad, thanks for your reply. We both desire greater community benefit, including accessibility, and I think there are a few more points to consider: We believe that if more people have AE the value of the underlying system will increase. I think the focus is too much on "our family now", at the expense of the larger segment "our eventual family (e.g. two years out)". The vast majority of people, including weekend crypto enthusiasts and the later stage adopters, will find out about AE well after the crowdsale. If the crowdsale cap is low, them the opening market cap for the coin will be congruent with a very early stage startup. That congruence will be more likely to attract attention (and investment) as it will be seen as an investment that makes sense. The project and price are then more likely to grow as a function of the merits of the project, and demonstrations of what's being produced - items that will justify a higher market cap. The sustainable returns will create positive community attention and media attention, which will fulfill your goal of getting more people involved. Conversely, if an unbounded sale raises $50M for example, for an immature product, I think you're likely to see a panic sell as soon as AE tokens are on the market, as people realize they've paid too much, and don't want to wait two to three years for a $50M market cap to make sense. An immediate large drop in your market cap makes for bad news, and will likely further deter investment and raise questions about the team's decision making. Additionally, the people that are losing money in that situation include your earlier adopters. An event like that would taint the project from the start, and impede your growth. No cap was also Ethereum's approach and that was quite successful. I don't believe this is an appropriate comparison. The Ethereum crowdsale was 2.5 years ago, when the cumulative market cap for Crypto was around $ 7B. It's now worth 3.5x more, at ~ $25 B. This has attracted many more investors, and as I mentioned earlier, even mainstreem VCs are now on the field. Moreover, the market is extremely bullish now. I think an uncapped crowdsale now is likely to raise more than Ethereum did. The second point on the Ethereum crowdsale is that a good outcome doesn't necessarily equal a good decision. The name "Friends, Family and Real Innovators" might not be the best choice of words, but this is how we imagine the first people supporting us. I think it's excellent to be close to your users, and I think this point deserves more consideration: If the team indeed has the best interests of their "friends, family and innovators" in mind, I believe an important action would be to minimize the risk of them paying too much for tokens, and potentially losing money if they need to sell tokens in the first year or two, by not capping the sale at a level appropriate to the business needs of the project. To have an uncapped sale is to allow your friends and family to contribute their hard-earned savings, blindly -- they will have no idea of the worst-case price of their tokens at the time of contribution. In other words, an unbounded sale allows the risk of extreme dilution if a new entrant VC decides to flood you with Eth, at the expense of all the backers. For both the benefit of your project, and the protection of your backers, I encourage you to reconsider putting a cap on the project that is aligned with your business needs, and will protect your backers from an over-bought token. Well said, agree with everything you stated. Also, can you buy the ICO using BTC? Why limit it to ETH if you cant? |
|
|
|
|
|
autada
|
|
March 30, 2017, 03:10:24 PM |
|
We decided to have no volume cap so that anyone willing can participate. We believe that if more people have AE the value of the underlying system will increase. No cap was also Ethereum's approach and that was quite successful.
By putting no cap on the crowdsale you are essentially putting the investors at risk. It's like a crowdfunding campaign without goal or telling the investors "I don't care, just give me all your money". I understand that you want to raise as much as possible, but I really hope you will reconsider your decision on this. Why do you think this is a problem? "Overbought" is a speculative term for day traders who want to sell ASAP, lol. IMHO, if you truly believe in the project's potential you want as many other people to take part as possible for bigger network effect. Caps are like soft private sales - you restrict the number of potential backers and users in order to make 10 people rich. It's all in the family. Waves is overbought, Lisk is overbought, I don't know how much Aeternity will raise, but what I confirm is over 10k btc is overbought, hope only 1-5000 btc so that investors can make money. |
|
|
|
|
may_flava
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 17
Merit: 0
|
|
March 30, 2017, 03:25:28 PM |
|
We decided to have no volume cap so that anyone willing can participate. We believe that if more people have AE the value of the underlying system will increase. No cap was also Ethereum's approach and that was quite successful.
By putting no cap on the crowdsale you are essentially putting the investors at risk. It's like a crowdfunding campaign without goal or telling the investors "I don't care, just give me all your money". I understand that you want to raise as much as possible, but I really hope you will reconsider your decision on this. Why do you think this is a problem? "Overbought" is a speculative term for day traders who want to sell ASAP, lol. IMHO, if you truly believe in the project's potential you want as many other people to take part as possible for bigger network effect. Caps are like soft private sales - you restrict the number of potential backers and users in order to make 10 people rich. It's all in the family. Waves is overbought, Lisk is overbought, I don't know how much Aeternity will raise, but what I confirm is over 10k btc is overbought, hope only 1-5000 btc so that investors can make money. Does any of these projects cost less than during crowdsale? Why do you think this is a problem? "Overbought" is a speculative term for day traders who want to sell ASAP, lol.
Sorry I don't daytrade, maybe it's just you. Why do I think this is a problem? I'm just trying to protect my potential investments from being relentlessly diluted, that simple. IMHO, if you truly believe in the project's potential you want as many other people to take part as possible for bigger network effect. Caps are like soft private sales - you restrict the number of potential backers and users in order to make 10 people rich. It's all in the family.
By setting up a crowdsale, you are already on your way to make 10 people rich, let alone the campaign itself is uncapped. What about someone who's broke and couldn't afford to participate in the crowdsale? If you truly want as many other people to take part as possible for bigger network effect, you should go ahead and set up a faucet or airdrop the tokens instead. Nice idea by the way. It's up to devs though. Still, I think incentives for backers are different than when you get tokens for free. There are opportunities to get your fair share of tokens of every each project eg. bounty campaigns like the one you take part in right now. That's ok that participants want to have their piece of pie bigger by capping the crowdsale. However, it also makes sense to aim for a bigger pie, so the project develops faster and everyone's share becomes bigger in terms of value. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
bswinner
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 1
Merit: 0
|
|
March 30, 2017, 06:56:56 PM |
|
Hey, I asked our founder Yanislav to provide you with a reply, but he is quite busy with the campaign, so I will do it.
First of all, thank you for the reply. We really appreciate your comments and find them quite relevant.
Let me address your points.
We decided to have no volume cap so that anyone willing can participate. We believe that if more people have AE the value of the underlying system will increase. No cap was also Ethereum's approach and that was quite successful.
The name "Friends, Family and Real Innovators" might not be the best choice of words, but this is how we imagine the first people supporting us. I believe Yanislav, being quite sentimental at times, tried to express "closeness" with the first contribution campaign participants.
We definitely see your "over-bought" point. However, organizing a campaign such as this one will always be a balancing act. We are building a public blockchain and we want as many people as possible to use it. This point is further stressed by Yanislav's idea to distribute 1% of AE tokens, created during the backing campaign, to most (technical limits apply) BTC and ETH users by "attaching" ownership to public addresses.
Again, thank you for the comments and thank you for the good words in the end. We appreciate both.
Vlad
Vlad, thanks for your reply. We both desire greater community benefit, including accessibility, and I think there are a few more points to consider: We believe that if more people have AE the value of the underlying system will increase. I think the focus is too much on "our family now", at the expense of the larger segment "our eventual family (e.g. two years out)". The vast majority of people, including weekend crypto enthusiasts and the later stage adopters, will find out about AE well after the crowdsale. If the crowdsale cap is low, them the opening market cap for the coin will be congruent with a very early stage startup. That congruence will be more likely to attract attention (and investment) as it will be seen as an investment that makes sense. The project and price are then more likely to grow as a function of the merits of the project, and demonstrations of what's being produced - items that will justify a higher market cap. The sustainable returns will create positive community attention and media attention, which will fulfill your goal of getting more people involved. Conversely, if an unbounded sale raises $50M for example, for an immature product, I think you're likely to see a panic sell as soon as AE tokens are on the market, as people realize they've paid too much, and don't want to wait two to three years for a $50M market cap to make sense. An immediate large drop in your market cap makes for bad news, and will likely further deter investment and raise questions about the team's decision making. Additionally, the people that are losing money in that situation include your earlier adopters. An event like that would taint the project from the start, and impede your growth. No cap was also Ethereum's approach and that was quite successful. I don't believe this is an appropriate comparison. The Ethereum crowdsale was 2.5 years ago, when the cumulative market cap for Crypto was around $ 7B. It's now worth 3.5x more, at ~ $25 B. This has attracted many more investors, and as I mentioned earlier, even mainstreem VCs are now on the field. Moreover, the market is extremely bullish now. I think an uncapped crowdsale now is likely to raise more than Ethereum did. The second point on the Ethereum crowdsale is that a good outcome doesn't necessarily equal a good decision. The name "Friends, Family and Real Innovators" might not be the best choice of words, but this is how we imagine the first people supporting us. I think it's excellent to be close to your users, and I think this point deserves more consideration: If the team indeed has the best interests of their "friends, family and innovators" in mind, I believe an important action would be to minimize the risk of them paying too much for tokens, and potentially losing money if they need to sell tokens in the first year or two, by not capping the sale at a level appropriate to the business needs of the project. To have an uncapped sale is to allow your friends and family to contribute their hard-earned savings, blindly -- they will have no idea of the worst-case price of their tokens at the time of contribution. In other words, an unbounded sale allows the risk of extreme dilution if a new entrant VC decides to flood you with Eth, at the expense of all the backers. For both the benefit of your project, and the protection of your backers, I encourage you to reconsider putting a cap on the project that is aligned with your business needs, and will protect your backers from an over-bought token. I agree. The risk of being overbought with subsequent price crash and/or stagnation is high. This poses a threat to the success of the coin by putting at risk the very community that will, in many ways determine the success of the coin. Further, I almost wonder if it could backfire. Certainly, a limitless crowdsale could dissuade large scale investment from VCs and the like. It's hard to imagine that a VC would invest without having at least some idea of their ownership stake. Obviously, any investment in a crypto crowdsale is risky - I understand that. But having no cap increases uncertainty around ownership stake and the required holding period to receive any return on investment. That does not seem healthy to me. Would it be possible to at least consider a cap on phase 2 based on the results of phase 1? |
|
|
|
|
|
vdramaliev
|
|
March 31, 2017, 08:13:25 AM
Last edit: March 31, 2017, 08:37:29 AM by vdramaliev |
|
Hey, I asked our founder Yanislav to provide you with a reply, but he is quite busy with the campaign, so I will do it.
First of all, thank you for the reply. We really appreciate your comments and find them quite relevant.
Let me address your points.
We decided to have no volume cap so that anyone willing can participate. We believe that if more people have AE the value of the underlying system will increase. No cap was also Ethereum's approach and that was quite successful.
The name "Friends, Family and Real Innovators" might not be the best choice of words, but this is how we imagine the first people supporting us. I believe Yanislav, being quite sentimental at times, tried to express "closeness" with the first contribution campaign participants.
We definitely see your "over-bought" point. However, organizing a campaign such as this one will always be a balancing act. We are building a public blockchain and we want as many people as possible to use it. This point is further stressed by Yanislav's idea to distribute 1% of AE tokens, created during the backing campaign, to most (technical limits apply) BTC and ETH users by "attaching" ownership to public addresses.
Again, thank you for the comments and thank you for the good words in the end. We appreciate both.
Vlad
Vlad, thanks for your reply. We both desire greater community benefit, including accessibility, and I think there are a few more points to consider: We believe that if more people have AE the value of the underlying system will increase. I think the focus is too much on "our family now", at the expense of the larger segment "our eventual family (e.g. two years out)". The vast majority of people, including weekend crypto enthusiasts and the later stage adopters, will find out about AE well after the crowdsale. If the crowdsale cap is low, them the opening market cap for the coin will be congruent with a very early stage startup. That congruence will be more likely to attract attention (and investment) as it will be seen as an investment that makes sense. The project and price are then more likely to grow as a function of the merits of the project, and demonstrations of what's being produced - items that will justify a higher market cap. The sustainable returns will create positive community attention and media attention, which will fulfill your goal of getting more people involved. Conversely, if an unbounded sale raises $50M for example, for an immature product, I think you're likely to see a panic sell as soon as AE tokens are on the market, as people realize they've paid too much, and don't want to wait two to three years for a $50M market cap to make sense. An immediate large drop in your market cap makes for bad news, and will likely further deter investment and raise questions about the team's decision making. Additionally, the people that are losing money in that situation include your earlier adopters. An event like that would taint the project from the start, and impede your growth. No cap was also Ethereum's approach and that was quite successful. I don't believe this is an appropriate comparison. The Ethereum crowdsale was 2.5 years ago, when the cumulative market cap for Crypto was around $ 7B. It's now worth 3.5x more, at ~ $25 B. This has attracted many more investors, and as I mentioned earlier, even mainstreem VCs are now on the field. Moreover, the market is extremely bullish now. I think an uncapped crowdsale now is likely to raise more than Ethereum did. The second point on the Ethereum crowdsale is that a good outcome doesn't necessarily equal a good decision. The name "Friends, Family and Real Innovators" might not be the best choice of words, but this is how we imagine the first people supporting us. I think it's excellent to be close to your users, and I think this point deserves more consideration: If the team indeed has the best interests of their "friends, family and innovators" in mind, I believe an important action would be to minimize the risk of them paying too much for tokens, and potentially losing money if they need to sell tokens in the first year or two, by not capping the sale at a level appropriate to the business needs of the project. To have an uncapped sale is to allow your friends and family to contribute their hard-earned savings, blindly -- they will have no idea of the worst-case price of their tokens at the time of contribution. In other words, an unbounded sale allows the risk of extreme dilution if a new entrant VC decides to flood you with Eth, at the expense of all the backers. For both the benefit of your project, and the protection of your backers, I encourage you to reconsider putting a cap on the project that is aligned with your business needs, and will protect your backers from an over-bought token. I agree. The risk of being overbought with subsequent price crash and/or stagnation is high. This poses a threat to the success of the coin by putting at risk the very community that will, in many ways determine the success of the coin. Further, I almost wonder if it could backfire. Certainly, a limitless crowdsale could dissuade large scale investment from VCs and the like. It's hard to imagine that a VC would invest without having at least some idea of their ownership stake. Obviously, any investment in a crypto crowdsale is risky - I understand that. But having no cap increases uncertainty around ownership stake and the required holding period to receive any return on investment. That does not seem healthy to me. Would it be possible to at least consider a cap on phase 2 based on the results of phase 1? Guys, thank you for the comments and thank you for having æternity's best interest in mind. I have forwarded all your points and considerations to Yanislav. To me personally, they make sense, but the final decision rests. He consulted a number of people in order to reach this decision and I believe that his mind is already made up. Let's see. After consultation: We are not that into getting big VCs in. Anyone can contribute at the last hours/minutes of Phase 2 (for example), when he has more information about how the contribution campaign went. Regards, Vlad |
|
|
|
Mercurius777
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 48
Merit: 0
|
|
March 31, 2017, 11:15:46 AM |
|
We decided to have no volume cap so that anyone willing can participate. We believe that if more people have AE the value of the underlying system will increase. No cap was also Ethereum's approach and that was quite successful.
By putting no cap on the crowdsale you are essentially putting the investors at risk. It's like a crowdfunding campaign without goal or telling the investors "I don't care, just give me all your money". I understand that you want to raise as much as possible, but I really hope you will reconsider your decision on this. Why do you think this is a problem? "Overbought" is a speculative term for day traders who want to sell ASAP, lol. IMHO, if you truly believe in the project's potential you want as many other people to take part as possible for bigger network effect. Caps are like soft private sales - you restrict the number of potential backers and users in order to make 10 people rich. It's all in the family. Waves is overbought, Lisk is overbought, I don't know how much Aeternity will raise, but what I confirm is over 10k btc is overbought, hope only 1-5000 btc so that investors can make money. Hi Autada, I can see why you feel that way. But the primary objective of the backing campaign is not to make money, but to build something anyone on the world can profit from if they put energy, time and their mind into it. And the missing cap should show the reflection of how willingly the world is to build something like this. best regards Dan |
|
|
|
|
|
Wexfgy12
|
|
March 31, 2017, 12:19:38 PM |
|
I'm pretty interested in making a sizable investment, and I strongly agree with everything Elevated has said.
The stuff about how its difficult to make a sizable investment without knowing how much of a stake you will have is all valid and true, but the really important point for me is that an uncapped ICO makes me think the developers dont know how much money they need : they just want "everything they can get" and figure it out later. I would much rather invest in a project with a determined budget, where they have a good idea what they can do with X amount of money, rather than raise it all and figure it out later.
It betrays a lack of business acumen and savvy and makes you look a bit more like you jus want to raise as much as you can get, rather than what you NEED.
The stuff about wanting as many people to take part has some validity, but its equally open to everybody even with a cap, and the token swill be trad-able immediately so people can get involved whenever they want, so I dont think thats a good argument
The arguments of
a) it does not look good to potential investors : makes you look simply like money grabbers without a specific plan for doing X with Y raised, and doing Z if W is raised, etc
b) It makes it much more difficult to make a large investment in the early rounds because you dont know how much is going to be raised so therefore cant evaluate it properly (as an investor)
are much stronger imo, and should be adhered to. The fact ETH was uncapped 2+ years ago really isnt relevant anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
