[ANN] Swarm Fund 1.0 - [OFFLINE THREAD]

[sparta_cuss]

Short interview here, but excellent questions in the comments.

http://panampost.com/belen-marty/2014/07/04/move-over-kickstarter-swarm-crypto-equity-is-the-next-frontier/

[deliciousowl]

NOTE: People who are not interested in the SWARM itself should still remember that SWARM is essentially campaigning for Bitcoin financial freedoms. So if that is something you support, then looking into Swarm may not be such a bad idea anyway.

[dulac97]

Hello, smaragda. I know you've had some thoughtful exchanges on here about the vote and funding. Can you explain why you voted "NO"?

Sure...  I voted NO because the initial plan is straight-forward in regard to what happens with the unsold SWARM...  the devs have two fundraising phases with an announced cap...  if the cap isn't reached...  remaining SWARM get distributed to the holders. 

Locking the coins away without specifically stating what will happen to those coins if a second fundraising phase never takes place is unacceptable IMHO.

I agree with smaragda.

Plus, what if 4500 BTC is never reached....

[Paws1t1veEV]

Is there anyway to see the balance of either of the swarmvote addresses?

[Malibusparky]

This is truly unacceptable if I am understanding this correctly. I thought the vote was to satisfy those who believe Swarm was too ambitious in its fundraising. If a yes vote means
fundraising stops after phase 1 then all remaining coins should be distributed equally and Swarm is born. If you want to lock the unsold coins and reopen more fundraising later on that is so ludicrous. Do you really think any investor wants the potential of their investment diluted at any time looming over their head? Now if you are saying it will probably take more money or else Swarm will eventually fail then go on with the original plan. This vote should only go on if YES means fundraising stops after phase 1 and coin distribution is final. Maybe I am not following correctly some things so please make it clear for everybody.

[fractastical]

Is there anyway to see the balance of either of the swarmvote addresses?

The easiest way is to create a new address in a Counterwallet as a "watch address."

[fractastical]

If a yes vote means fundraising stops after phase 1 then all remaining coins should be distributed equally and Swarm is born. If you want to lock the unsold coins and reopen more fundraising later on that is so ludicrous. Do you really think any investor wants the potential of their investment diluted at any time looming over their head?

This may seem strange in the cryptoworld but this is exactly how investment is normally done. See this paper of mine for an early attempt at explaining how this could work in a crypto context. In these cases, people accept dilution because the overall valuation of the project is expected to increase substantially via future funding (i.e. Peter Thiel's small percentage of Facebook grew smaller over time, but turned into rather a lot of money in the end because Facebook became massive).  

[fractastical]

Oops I accidently sent my Swarmcoin instead of my Swarmvoteone coin!

Is there anyway to get it back or am I screwed ?

Done. Should be on the next block.

[Malibusparky]

If a yes vote means fundraising stops after phase 1 then all remaining coins should be distributed equally and Swarm is born. If you want to lock the unsold coins and reopen more fundraising later on that is so ludicrous. Do you really think any investor wants the potential of their investment diluted at any time looming over their head?

This may seem strange in the cryptoworld but this is exactly how investment is normally done. See this paper of mine for an early attempt at explaining how this could work in a crypto context. In these cases, people accept dilution because the overall valuation of the project is expected to increase substantially via future funding (i.e. Peter Thiel's small percentage of Facebook grew smaller over time, but turned into rather a lot of money in the end because Facebook became massive).  

Yes in cryptoland this is not the norm. But Swarm is some kind of hybrid I suppose. I strongly believe you should just nix the whole vote and do what YOU think is the best move
for SWARM's overall success. What if everybody votes yes and it wasn't what you were leaning towards. Who knows what's best for the project better than you at this point?

[Bonobo]

Am I doing something wrong?  I am trying to vote but when I attempt to send my SwarmVoteOne coins CounterpartyWallet does not accept the address.  The address field turns red and there is a message "This field must be a valid Bitcoin address".

[fragout]

did the goldenticket thing. heard noting since. vote yes/no where and for what ?

Did you get an email from Swarm?

nope. no email received

[Malibusparky]

So if Yes vote wins and you develop SWARM successfully and need more funds I assume you will not be selling more SWARMPRE but a different asset that represents the unsold swarmcoins? Then, after the second fundraiser is complete 92 million swarmcoins will be equally distributed to SWARMPRE and "SWARMPRE2" holders? I also assume the second round of funding will be at a much higher price if for no other reason than fairness to SWARMPRE buyers.

[fractastical]

This may seem strange in the cryptoworld but this is exactly how investment is normally done. See this paper of mine for an early attempt at explaining how this could work in a crypto context. In these cases, people accept dilution because the overall valuation of the project is expected to increase substantially via future funding (i.e. Peter Thiel's small percentage of Facebook grew smaller over time, but turned into rather a lot of money in the end because Facebook became massive).  

Yes in cryptoland this is not the norm. But Swarm is some kind of hybrid I suppose. I strongly believe you should just nix the whole vote and do what YOU think is the best move
for SWARM's overall success. What if everybody votes yes and it wasn't what you were leaning towards. Who knows what's best for the project better than you at this point?

Yeah, well we have to do what we promised originally, so even if our plan was not the best one I think we have to stick to it unless SWARM holders approve a new one.

I also see this as an interesting demonstration of the potential power of our model of engagement. It's really the first time something like distributed voting was possible. I see a lot of potential applications, but the only way to identify the highest value ones is to try it out and see how it works.

[fractastical]

did the goldenticket thing. heard noting since. vote yes/no where and for what ?

Did you get an email from Swarm?

nope. no email received

We sent out an email to folks who signed up for our newsletter. It had a link to the blog post.

[fractastical]

Am I doing something wrong?  I am trying to vote but when I attempt to send my SwarmVoteOne coins CounterpartyWallet does not accept the address.  The address field turns red and there is a message "This field must be a valid Bitcoin address".

There was a CSS issue with the address sent via our newsletter that automatically uppercased all of the letters. The correct addresses can be found here.

[fractastical]

So if Yes vote wins and you develop SWARM successfully and need more funds I assume you will not be selling more SWARMPRE but a different asset that represents the unsold swarmcoins? Then, after the second fundraiser is complete 92 million swarmcoins will be equally distributed to SWARMPRE and "SWARMPRE2" holders? I also assume the second round of funding will be at a much higher price if for no other reason than fairness to SWARMPRE buyers.

That's the general idea although any specific proposal will need to be adopted via a vote.

[sparta_cuss]

Hello, smaragda. I know you've had some thoughtful exchanges on here about the vote and funding. Can you explain why you voted "NO"?

Sure...  I voted NO because the initial plan is straight-forward in regard to what happens with the unsold SWARM...  the devs have two fundraising phases with an announced cap...  if the cap isn't reached...  remaining SWARM get distributed to the holders. 

Locking the coins away without specifically stating what will happen to those coins if a second fundraising phase never takes place is unacceptable IMHO.

I agree with smaragda.

Plus, what if 4500 BTC is never reached....

Ok, I'm more inclined now to vote "NO" myself.

@fractastical, With a "NO" vote, I assume your team will be developing the software even while you continue fundraising, no? 

[fractastical]

@fractastical, With a "NO" vote, I assume your team will be developing the software even while you continue fundraising, no?  

Not really, fundraising is very time intensive and with a NO vote I will probably spend most of the time up until the 20th on marketing/fundraising/PR. If we get a YES vote I will spend the next week just developing the product, hopefully with a working prototype by the 10th of July.

I'm actually quite tired of fundraising so I hope people vote YES.

[fragout]

did the goldenticket thing. heard noting since. vote yes/no where and for what ?

Did you get an email from Swarm?

nope. no email received

We sent out an email to folks who signed up for our newsletter. It had a link to the blog post.

Yes, I got the email. sent the 0.00******* goldtickets. sent the email. but no confirm or what to do next

[fractastical]

Yes, I got the email. sent the 0.00******* goldtickets. sent the email. but no confirm or what to do next

You will get another email with instructions, probably on Monday.