[ANN][SIM] Simcoin - A Simple Coin

[Conurtrol]

I invested in stage 2 of eXocoin and we all understood that stage 1 investors took a bigger risk. There were no problems at all.

[1714328498]

1714328498

[1714328498]

1714328498

[1714328498]

1714328498

[1714328498]

1714328498

[NxtChg]

I invested in stage 2 of eXocoin and we all understood that stage 1 investors took a bigger risk. There were no problems at all.

Ok, let's see if anybody is against it. Hard to imagine people happily giving up part of their stake, but what do I know

Also, how do you propose to do it? Calculate for each deposit? That's too convoluted.

The easiest would be to add a multiplier column into DB which depends on either account registration date or first deposit date.

[Conurtrol]

You could just say that all stage 1 investors will get 20% more SIM per BTC invested than stage 2 and do the math later.

[NxtChg]

You could just say that all stage 1 investors will get 20% more SIM per BTC invested than stage 2 and do the math later.

Do the math how? Who is "stage 1 investor" and who is "stage 2"?

[xtester]

I'm not trying to take anyone's money, but rather to help the community of which I am part to set some rules with incentives for the right things.

Right. So with this new rule, if somebody invested after you, his share becomes smaller, while yours bigger, correct? How is it not taking his money?

I don't care one way or the other, it's just more work for me, but I could factor in the account's age (how to measure it, by the way? by registration? first deposit?).

I just don't think it's fair and that it creates unnecessary mess, but if the majority of investors think it's the way to go - I can do it.

I understand your point but your examples are very funny. By the same rule you mention I am taking money already from people who will use or buy the coin later, just because "I happened to find this thread, took the risk and invested some of my money and time to help develop the project and community", right? By the same rule I could complain that you are already taking money from all of us, when in fact you are the one who puts in the hard work to make things happen.

Irrespective of whether I am taking money or not, I think we should do it the right way and set incentives for what matters. With the right incentives in place you create a natural-selection mechanism which filters investors from speculators.

Risk and reward are inextricably bound, that is how reality works. If you have a problem with that, try to change it and see what happens.

By the way, here is a very good essay on the matter: http://paulgraham.com/inequality.html

Since we are trying to build a long term project of superior simplicity and quality you can take the time and read it, I think it will be worth it.

P.S. Lets not haste to make a quick decision but a smart one.

[Conurtrol]

You could just say that all stage 1 investors will get 20% more SIM per BTC invested than stage 2 and do the math later.

Do the math how? Who is "stage 1 investor" and who is "stage 2"?

Stage 1 is now, until you release alpha. Stage 2 is after alpha until whenever you decide.

[NxtChg]

Risk and reward are inextricably bound, that is how reality works. If you have a problem with that, try to change it and see what happens.

No, I don't have a problem with it. But when you consider it on the scale of weeks and even days it becomes ridiculous - there is no reason why somebody should get more just because they saw the topic 2 days earlier. It's just random.

If you are talking months then that reasoning might be understandable, but IPO probably won't last long enough for this to become reasonable.

[NxtChg]

Stage 1 is now, until you release alpha. Stage 2 is after alpha until whenever you decide.

Oh, wait... we seem to be talking completely different time scales

No, the IPO will be closed right before I announce what you call "alpha", that's my current plan anyway.

So there will be no "stage 2".

[Conurtrol]

If you are planning on ending ipo before releasing anything tangible then all this discussion is moot because everyone will have the same risk.

edit- just saw your post above. no need to change anything then imo.

[xtester]

People seem to be missing the point. If we want to build a successful project for the long term we need to put some serious thinking into these matters and stop treating them impulsively.

There are two problems at hand, firstly, an IPO done "correctly" or in the most effective matter should take the risk/reward ratio as the primary factor to act upon. For example, at the very first point, this project seemed somewhat interesting, though very risky(that was the reasonable perception based on the available/missing facts). Reward should have been very high then because risk was. In fact people even created Simcoin scam threads expressing reasonable doubts because it almost looked like a scam. So the earliest investors took a big risk and made a bet based on what they thought and very little available info. After that there was a second stage where people saw that a lot of other people were investing and some more info became available. The dev did not run away with the money(yet) and he even proved that he could code. That was the point when the risk perception was somewhat diminished, so as a result a lot of other people decided to invest.

Now, as we begun to have a intelligent/healthy and important discussion about the matters, and progress to show some more real work done, I suspect people will pour more bitcoins into the project precisely because the risk perception is decreasing significantly and the reward may be still very high.

Secondly, it seems from the beginning you have tried to avoid speculators and attract investors. In order to do so, you have tried to keep the date of the IPO secret so as to avoid massive last second speculation. But the same thing could have been done more effectively with the method I've described above. You don't have to keep the end date secret and worry about the last second speculation if there is a strong incentive for early investors to join, contribute and help build the project and community. Indeed, this may be the most effective way to reach the desired result.

[NxtChg]

People seem to be missing the point. If we want to build a successful project for the long term we need to put some serious thinking into these matters and stop treating them impulsively.

...

I would argue that not much changed in this month. Investors could do their due diligence from the beginning and make sure I was "able to code", my account had some history.

The work displayed so far is rather trivial. In fact, if I were a scammer, that's precisely the kind of "work" I would be doing to make it look like a real project

I also don't understand what your proposed change in rules would achieve. It will not bring more investors, that's for sure.

[xtester]

People seem to be missing the point. If we want to build a successful project for the long term we need to put some serious thinking into these matters and stop treating them impulsively.

...

I would argue that not much changed in this month. Investors could do their due diligence from the beginning and make sure I was "able to code", my account had some history.

The work displayed so far is rather trivial. In fact, if I were a scammer, that's precisely the kind of "work" I would be doing to make it look like a real project

I also don't understand what your proposed change in rules would achieve. It will not bring more investors, that's for sure.

And I would agree that objectively not much has changed. But I think the majority of investors would agree that the risk perception has changed a lot and the fact that a lot of them have been increasing their investments speaks for itself.

If you remember the discussion began when I said that it would be good improve the rules keeping to things in mind: 1) need to keep the IPO open to make the distribution as wide as possible and 2) find a way to achieve the 1st point without doing it at the expense of the early investors.

So what my proposed change would bring is an incentive for the investors to organize, strengthen the community and spread the word about the IPO because it's not conflicting with their self-interest. Secondly it would also create an incentive for investors to join the community, invest as soon as possible and renounce further speculation on the last IPO day. Moreover, the IPO end date could be published without any worry and set as long as desired if implementation of more stages would be possible.

As a caveat I think with some skin in the game the problem would look a bit different to you too. As these two problems arise(distribution and stakeholder dilution) you seem to have skin in the game(meaning could be affected) only by one of the problems. And since you are not exposed to any downside by further dilution of the stakeholder part, a bit of indifference may arise in dealing with the problems at hand.

[NxtChg]

And I would agree that objectively not much has changed. But I think the majority of investors would agree that the risk perception has changed a lot and the fact that a lot of them have been increasing their investments speaks for itself.
...

Ok, so here's the concise version of your post (and I wish you'd spent more effort condensing your thoughts):

1) Protect current investors, so they would promote Simcoin better.

2) This allows you to publish the end date too.

Here's my response:

1) Unless new investors get 0, current investors will still lose some part of their share, so there's no incentive for them to promote IPO at all.

There is a big incentive to create more "Simcoin is scam" topics, what we currently observe.

Meanwhile new investors will be less attracted because of significantly reduced reward. I very much doubt it will be a net positive change.

2) I don't need to publish the end date.

[sonysasankan]

I agree with the dev. Skewing the distribution by weighing in the early investors is unfair in a scenario where its mutually agreed upon in the beginning that there will be no incentive to invest early. The risk factor being the unanounced closing date, he's basically put the decision making in the hands of the investor. The longer you wait, the higher the probability of you being rejected a share. The early investors mitigated that risk my investing early, and the late investors gambled (and still are) by waiting for more updates.

I don't see why then the early investor needs to have a bigger share of the pie. They decided to invest early because they did not want to further their chance of being rejected. Its perfect.

EDIT: And if you are thinking about the early investors taking a risk because of the lack of escrow, that's a risk the late investors are taking as well. Its a risk everyone is taking, that kinda cancells itself out of the dilemma.

[xtester]

And I would agree that objectively not much has changed. But I think the majority of investors would agree that the risk perception has changed a lot and the fact that a lot of them have been increasing their investments speaks for itself.
...

Ok, so here's the concise version of your post (and I wish you'd spent more effort condensing your thoughts):

1) Protect current investors, so they would promote Simcoin better.

2) This allows you to publish the end date too.

Here's my response:

1) Unless new investors get 0, current investors will still lose some part of their share, so there's no incentive for them to promote IPO at all.

There is a big incentive to create more "Simcoin is scam" topics, what we currently observe.

Meanwhile new investors will be less attracted because of significantly reduced reward. I very much doubt it will be a net positive change.

2) I don't need to publish the end date.

Wrong. Here is the condensed version of my post.

1)It is good to keep the IPO open as long as necessary to increase the distribution of the coin.

2) Up to a point dilution is inevitable and may in fact raise the value of the coin so it's not a bad thing.

3)Since dilution is inevitable, and even desirable(for the sake of good distribution), find a way to reward the investors who took the most risk in a slightly different manner.

4)I'm not saying we should change everything now. But an improvement would be good and desirable.

A raw example would be to say announce that stage 1 of the IPO will end in 3 days and stage 2 will begin. Since  you don't seem to intend on keeping the IPO open for 3-6 moths as I mentioned above, 2 stages would do the trick. In this case stage 1 would receive 20% more coins than stage 2.

I guess some variation of this example may solve the problems mentioned above.

[seek4dream]

And I would agree that objectively not much has changed. But I think the majority of investors would agree that the risk perception has changed a lot and the fact that a lot of them have been increasing their investments speaks for itself.
...

Ok, so here's the concise version of your post (and I wish you'd spent more effort condensing your thoughts):

1) Protect current investors, so they would promote Simcoin better.

2) This allows you to publish the end date too.

Here's my response:

1) Unless new investors get 0, current investors will still lose some part of their share, so there's no incentive for them to promote IPO at all.

There is a big incentive to create more "Simcoin is scam" topics, what we currently observe.

Meanwhile new investors will be less attracted because of significantly reduced reward. I very much doubt it will be a net positive change.

2) I don't need to publish the end date.

Wrong. Here is the condensed version of my post.

1)It is good to keep the IPO open as long as necessary to increase the distribution of the coin.

2) Up to a point dilution is inevitable and may in fact raise the value of the coin so it's not a bad thing.

3)Since dilution is inevitable, and even desirable(for the sake of good distribution), find a way to reward the investors who took the most risk in a slightly different manner.

4)I'm not saying we should change everything now. But an improvement would be good and desirable.

A raw example would be to say announce that stage 1 of the IPO will end in 3 days and stage 2 will begin. Since  you don't seem to intend on keeping the IPO open for 3-6 moths as I mentioned above, 2 stages would do the trick. In this case stage 1 would receive 20% more coins than stage 2.

I guess some variation of this example may solve the problems mentioned above.

bullshit!
Dev wants to keep the IPO open longer, investors want it stop now. As simple as that.

[teamshow]

I heard from my Chinese friend,
they said this coin is scam.
What is your opinion guys?

[NxtChg]

1)It is good to keep the IPO open as long as necessary to increase the distribution of the coin.

2) Up to a point dilution is inevitable and may in fact raise the value of the coin so it's not a bad thing.

3)Since dilution is inevitable, and even desirable(for the sake of good distribution), find a way to reward the investors who took the most risk in a slightly different manner.

4)I'm not saying we should change everything now. But an improvement would be good and desirable.

1) This is going to happen anyway, so "1)It is good to keep the IPO open as long as necessary to increase the distribution of the coin."

2) This is just an observation, not a point, so "2) Up to a point dilution is inevitable and may in fact raise the value of the coin so it's not a bad thing."

3) That's essentially your wish to have more money. Aren't we all wishing this?

As I've explained earlier, I see no reason. You provided one in your previous post as "investors will promote Simcoin better" (which I refuted), and now you seem to back away from it.

So now we're back to "I just want more money", thus going in circles. Either provide me with another valid reason to give you more, or we're done here. You seem to be in minority anyway.

4) No reason given why it will be "good or desirable", so "4) I'm not saying we should change everything now. But an improvement would be good and desirable.".

You have to understand, that I will not give in to short-term enrichment goals of some investors/speculators.

I don't condemn it, but allowing such people to side-track the project is a grave mistake. That's what we see in the corporate world, where a new CEO essentially drives the company into the ground just to pay more money to himself and shareholders and then bails with a golden parachute. Not gonna happen.

So if there is no reason, other than "I want more", I suggest we close this discussion.

[sonysasankan]

And the stake of those who believes in this project will rise, thus decreasing some tensions. The only problem is that their stake is most probably tiny. It's the people with 0.001 BTC who shout the loudest...

LOL.... Fact of the day!!

[NxtChg]

Why the hell did they remove the noob restrictions?

This placed turned into a carnival of sockpuppets and retards...