I agree with TheMightyX.
In abstract sense there are similarities between loans and IPOs.
One difference is in level of risk, which is why people use different words "Loan" and "IPO".
Since levels of risk in loans and IPOs vary so much, we cannot say for sure that all IPOs are more risky than all loans, which supports TheMightyX point.
Just like when we have abstract classes in programming to describe something in common between derived classes, "loan mechanics" that TheMightyX was referring to is abstract class, but "Loan" and "IPO" are derived classes. So there is no point to argue about "loan mechanics" being different than IPO or IPO being different than Loan. We can argue only what specifically is in common (belongs to "loan mechanics") or different (belongs to derived classes).
While IPOs don't promise to pay $ in exchange for shares, they do promise to not run away and continue business and several other things, so that shareholders can sell those shares on free market. Those promises have something in common with promissory notes, so we could create method promise in base class.
QORA did not promise to return $ in exchange for investors QORAs, BUT here is what we hope he promised, don't we:
1 ) to not issue more than 10,000,000,000 QORAs
2 ) to be able to send and receive QORAs without consuming too much CPU,RAM,HDD
3 ) to be able to register names with QORAs
4 ) to allow exchanges to send and receive QORAs though relatively easy API
5 ) to not run away from half finished programming
6 ) to keep fixing bugs and making new features quickly (days/weeks vs quarters/years)
7 ) to keep QORA source code safe and hidden from clone masters
8 ) to not run new clones using same or similar code or same ideas by himself as competition with QORA
9 ) to not inject malware into QORA code
In addition to that it would be beneficial if he promised also one of those 2:
10 ) to not hold large amounts of QORAs and suddenly dump them all one day
11 ) if he holds large amounts then to provide price stability by establishing huge constant stable sell wall that is hard to break and would result in best distribution and price stability ever - impossible to pump => hard to dump
These are a lot of promises investors rely on.
In return investors get future opportunity to sell QORA for $.
Note that promissory note #11 can be given by any large holder of QORA especially if he is well known established user of bitcointalk, unlike QORA.
That note #11, if existed, could be very beneficial for currency future and healthy distribution.
So dear QORA whales, instead of thinking about free giveaways, think about giving promissory note #11 with some of your funds, just find the right ceiling and put huge safety wall.
There is nothing worse for inexperienced newbies with limited funds (just like me) than risk of losing it all and again. Flat price ceiling will give some assurance of liquidity and feeling of safety for all my retirement savings
That would be another vector of innovation would not it ?
From that point of view there is no big problem with "unfair" distribution as long as all whales act towards that common and simple to execute goal.
If I was creator of QORA I would keep 40% of all coins in price stability fund and make that pledge to keep price ceiling for as long as it lasts.
If investors won't trust me with that simple price stability promise then why would they trust me with more complicated implementation promises that I may not even be able to accomplish ?
Another benefit of "unfair" distribution is that whales can invest heavily into development.
It's much harder to get million people agree to support developer even if they have escrow mechanism.
I wonder if that is why NXT and BTC are so successful - concentration of capital and wise spending.
Big crowd is never wise spender or voter.
How about QORA ? We've got some concentration of capital here too. Use it to it's advantage.
Give me some through escrow and I will give you promissory note of using it to keep price ceiling.
We could even weekly vote on what price that ceiling should be set to.
Escrow could be released in chunks when existing sell wall is close to ending.
People would see Escrow balance and know that ceiling will still be there.
When Escrow balance comes to 0 - to da moon !!!
Re: "In what Universe does the valuation of a project depend on the method of funding and NOT its characteristics???"
In Crypto-Universe risk greatly depends on method of funding because good quick anonymous distribution is hard to solve problem. It's hard not only in implementation, but also in choosing general direction: equal vs concentrated.
The reason why you want equal distribution is because there is risk that evil central bankers hide behind several whales and destroy currencies by creating price waves that prevent normal use by small people for savings and commerce.
The reason why you want concentrated distribution in good hands (not central bankers) is that these hands will provide price stability and funding of development.
May be QORA and BCNext are still looking for these good hands ... are most QORAs in good hands ?
I've got good hands...
You guys really expect 70x return on an escrowed IPO with no risk?
come on guys, lets be realistic here
Did you expect a *2000ROI for NXT even though it started with a much worse client?
Wizzard I've seen you around a lot and I expect more from a Sr. member.
You know full well that NXT had no escrow, no pictures, no proof, nothing.
It was a big risk. Therefor it deserved a big reward (I will admit 2000x or more is a bit extreme and ridiculous).
What I said still stands, there was very little risk involved in the Qora IPO except for opportunity risk while your funds were tied up in escrow.
Make sure you don't fry your brain with all that highly academical finance analysis... are you even listening to yourself type?!?!?
In what Universe does the valuation of a project depend on the method of funding and NOT its characteristics???
In what world is that not a factor? On one hand you are saying that I don't understand business fundamentals and then on the other hand you are saying something that proves you don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk-based_pricingIn simplest terms:
The interest rate on a loan is determined not only by the time value of money, but also by the lender's estimate of the probability that the borrower will default on the loan.
In this instance the loan is the IPO funds, and the interest is your return (or ROI).
Risk is always a factor in determining rewards. There can be no reward without risk. Greater risk, greater reward.... I'm not sure why I had to say that.
Anyway, please stop trying to mince my words now, I'm not trying to
detract from the benefit of Qora or its feature set, I'm only questioning the thought process of listening to a group of Qora holders who got together to
arbitrarily set a price for Qora, independent of the market.
You obviously have a biased opinion on the matter as you hold Qora and its in your best interests to agree on that price.
