[ANN] Swarm Fund 1.0 - [OFFLINE THREAD]

[fragout]

spreadsheet locked. need permission

[1714181391]

1714181391

[1714181391]

1714181391

[1714181391]

1714181391

[1714181391]

1714181391

[fractastical]

spreadsheet locked. need permission

Oops, fixed.

[fragout]

Original plan is fine.
The other plans are only increasing the stake of a second sale. The only way for that to work is to give the original stakeholders a percentage of any second sale that happens, IE if 30 million swarm are sold, distibute 15 million to the original investors and burn the rest.

[identtitentti]

Ok, let's play.

A) You calculate for Swarmcoin a value in dollars, based on how much you received start-up funding in BTC. I don't see the point of this, as the BTC start-up funding has nothing to do with value of Swarmcoin, and it is being used for gyms and rents of developers, paying the pointless legal team, creating more marketing hype etc. It's a start-up funding so developers can concentrate on developing the product and using the BTC war chest hopefully in skilfull way that would create increased value for the whole community.

B) You multiply the pointless dollar value with total number of Swarmcoins and call the sum "market cap" for some incomprehensible reason. WTF is that supposed to mean? There is no product, there is no exchange for nonexisting product, there is no market with a cap on top. Nothing, nada, zilch, so far. All there is now is this pointless discussion about pointless dollars, which is just pissing off the community and burning away the last remaining good will and trust in you, wasting everybody's time instead of working to create the product you promised and in which we invested.

C) In both cases of burning coins, the only meaningful value of the asset, the percentage of Swarmcoin total, is roughly half of what was the deal when we invested.


"White man speaks with two tongues", is that the tradition you want to keep on repeating or do you want to disrupt that legacy and keep your word? This is your chance. We are investing just few BTC and can walk away from the loss with one lesson more wise, but you developer guys are investing all your trust and social capital in the eyes of the block chain community, so for your own sake if not for ours, don't be fuck-ups by fucking this up already before the get go.

[merockstar]

btw, had a great long conversation with Swarmpath this afternoon. I actually didn't really appreciate the burning plan myself before, but he showed me some complicated pie charts with the various options and why that one might be the best. Looking forward to an open discussion about this once all the details are put together.  

I think they should be distributed back to investors proportionally, as originally promised.

You're keeping eight million anyway, on top of the funding you received, right?

burning them is a better option than keeping them, but even you admitted you were eager to get to work. what more resources do you really need all that extra money for? i hope it's not to pay the lawyers who are advising you to shit on investors...

Actually, we've been considering burning the swarm reserves as well.

Here's what we have as far as various possibilities:

https://docs.google.com/a/swarmcorp.com/spreadsheets/d/17moCJBIDkIGyvnKGuU3coJkGPnoAL4Bb2eeysptTwfA/edit#gid=0

As can be seen in the spreadsheet, the actual value of the coins doesn't vary considerably in any proposal, but some of them create a considerably larger market cap for Swarm, which presumably benefits all Swarm coin holders.

I'm honestly kind of confused.

The original plan was to distribute all the coins that didn't get sold in the fundraiser back to investors, right? that's the plan I signed up for but people apparently said in the vote that you could start now and hold some back to do a second round later (sigh).

so, under this new burn plan you're proposing, how many swarm would you hold back for this second round of fundraising? how many swarm would you keep?

if I'm understanding correctly, you just proposed burning ALL the coin, including what you planned to keep and what you planned to use for the second round, is that correct? if so then in effect it would basically be reverting back to the very first plan which would be outstanding in my opinion.

if not, then under this new burn proposal, how many would you burn? how many would you keep for a second round of funding (sigh)? and how many would you keep for yourself?

[identtitentti]

I give you three options to put your minds and hearts into, to consider with great care:

1) Distribute the swarm coins as the deal was. Get to work and create.

2) Give the BTC start-up funding back to investors, dump the project and walk away with some dignity and honor left and learn a valuable life lesson.

3) Fuck up this only chance you have as valued trustworthy and creative members of the block chain community, lose any hope of doing something awesome to tell your grandchildren about and get at best some miserable Wall Street or ambulance chaser job.

[fractastical]

I'm honestly kind of confused.

The original plan was to distribute all the coins that didn't get sold in the fundraiser back to investors, right? that's the plan I signed up for but people apparently said in the vote that you could start now and hold some back to do a second round later (sigh).

That's right. We originally said that we would do a typical one shot takes all fundraiser, but then people voted to lock some coins and make them available for future fundraisers. I think it was assumed by some of the Swarm founding team members that we would distribute all of the 24mm coins to whomever participated in round one on the basis of their SWARMPRE holders, but this wasn't discussed as a team and so our communication on this point was not  consistent.

Although it seems nice to have more coins, it's not clear that this positively affects the value of the coins either in the immediate term or in the long term. There are various arguments to be made about having a higher coin market cap, and the potential negative price movements that can happen when you have an asset split (which is effectively what we we are doing). So some founding team members thought we should work out some other solution.

Since Counterparty now has an asset burn feature, this was proposed as an option. Obviously it's not fair to burn unsold coins but leave the founders with a larger share, so we also discussed and agreed to burn our own share.

That said, it's still not overwhelmingly obvious to me at least that this is the best option. Among other things, there's a clear communication gap since some people were expecting us to distribute more coins at the end of the fundraiser. I'm not sure what percentage of the overall coin holders thought this was going to happen though. I assume it is higher here on bitcointalk since these issues were discussed more throughly and since I was primarily handling the communication and assumed (perhaps naively) that this was the best solution.

As for my part, I was never completely convinced of the burning proposal, but I don't think it is unreasonable if the founders burn their coins in the same proportion to the folks who participated in round one.

That said, I think any shift in direction this complex requires a lot of discussion and a vote.

The best option I see at present is to actually shelve this discussion for a bit and focus on building the platform and our next couple coin launches. The team is gathered, our office is nearly setup, budgeting is set, accounting is nearly up to date, and we have our first few launches lined up.

Btw, this also brings up the larger goal I wrote up on one of my longer pieces on cryptoequity, of having an elected representative of swarm coin holders who participates in the decision process of swarm and periodically audits our books to make sure we aren't doing stupid things with the money we've raised or violating the interests of swarm coin holders.

I'm not sure if there is anyone here who is interested in volunteering for this role at present, but I think it would be good if there was someone who served as an interface for the interests of people who have swarm coin. This person would also be responsible for shaping any proposal that goes up for a more general vote, so that we don't inappropriately structure a proposal to serve only our own interests.

[fragout]

The only real reason for this burn idea was to increase the percentage of swarmcoin available for the second sale. Burn some of the investors stake. Burn some reserves but the only way we are going to be able to pay for gym memberships over the next 5 years is to have a larger reserve (second sale coins) which we can sell for Bitcoin.
Why wait. Have the vote now, but you already know the answer you will get.

Original plan with a vote on what to do with the second sale.

[EcoChavCrypto]

The only real reason for this burn idea was to increase the percentage of swarmcoin available for the second sale. Burn some of the investors stake. Burn some reserves but the only way we are going to be able to pay for gym memberships over the next 5 years is to have a larger reserve (second sale coins) which we can sell for Bitcoin.
Why wait. Have the vote now, but you already know the answer you will get.

Original plan with a vote on what to do with the second sale.

Agreed.   Get this out of the way as soon as possible to get investor confidence back and then continue building the platform and launching the start ups (hell, I just want some Kale Chips) .  As suggested before regular updates, screen shots etc.. for the community would be a really good idea.  I think having an investor representative is a great idea.  A board of investor representatives would be a much better one.

[iaminitnow06]

Since Counterparty now has an asset burn feature, this was proposed as an option. Obviously it's not fair to burn unsold coins but leave the founders with a larger share, so we also discussed and agreed to burn our own share.

Don't give a shit about Counterparty new burn feature. Just go with the original plan and be a man & keep your words.

The best option I see at present is to actually shelve this discussion for a bit and focus on building the platform and our next couple coin launches. The team is gathered, our office is nearly setup, budgeting is set, accounting is nearly up to date, and we have our first few launches lined up.

No way!! We need this decided now. Your credibility is pretty fucked up now, and you need to put up a VOTE ASAP.

[iaminitnow06]

The only real reason for this burn idea was to increase the percentage of swarmcoin available for the second sale. Burn some of the investors stake. Burn some reserves but the only way we are going to be able to pay for gym memberships over the next 5 years is to have a larger reserve (second sale coins) which we can sell for Bitcoin.
Why wait. Have the vote now, but you already know the answer you will get.

Original plan with a vote on what to do with the second sale.

Agreed.   Get this out of the way as soon as possible to get investor confidence back and then continue building the platform and launching the start ups (hell, I just want some Kale Chips) .  As suggested before regular updates, screen shots etc.. for the community would be a really good idea.  I think having an investor representative is a great idea.  A board of investor representatives would be a much better one.

I second this. We want to see some updates on the SWARM platform. Also as your 1st fundraising is over, now we want a full and clear description on your so-called big legal problems and why you need such legal advisors

[IamNotSure]

I don't see why we should vote.

- Distribute the coins in the initially advertised proportions (24% of the coins to be distributed among today's SWARMPRE holders)

- Build the platform

And everyone will be happy

[identtitentti]

I don't believe in nor support majority "democracy" - the 51% attack as we call it -, and representative oligarchy is far more worse, no one else represents me. I believe in block chain consensus of peer-to-peer communication. Remember that little thing anymore?

This is block chain community. Not US Congress made of 100% Byzantine Generals, so stop acting like the most loathsome institution in the world. You have received your producer credit, now build the block chain platform you promised so we can crowd fund through peer-to-peer block chain consensus what we like and want.

[identtitentti]

Let's learn from this.

To program with blockchain algorithm succesfully you need also to be programmed by blockchain Byzantine fault tolerance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault_tolerance) to internalize how block chain consensus works.

Block 1) You send a block chain message of promise of reciprocal transaction, a promise of fixed amount of asset B for as many asset A you will receive.

Block 2) The message was received correctly and you received as many asset A as you got.

Block 3) Then, instead of responding to the message you received correctly, a bug enters your computation process and you start sending Byzantine commission failures.

Blocks 4, 5, 6) ALARM!!! BYZANTINE COMMISSION FAILURE!!! Trust in decentralized calculation of consensus ledger in danger!!!

Now what? It is in your power to make 51% attack side fork and destroy the consensus. What is your choice? Will there be Block 7?

[fractastical]

Just go with the original plan and be a man & keep your words.

This would be simple if I was the only decision maker, but our founding team has very different views on the matter and hasn't been able to reach consensus yet. Besides somewhat different ideas on the optimal situation (e.g. the relative importance of the coin market cap), we also disagree on how the community feels about this issue. As you can see I spend a lot of bitcointalk where the majority of posters so far have said they want us to go forward with the original plan, but there was only a single negative comment sent back after our newsletter went out to approximately a thousand people.

Right now we have no mechanism to resolve our disagreement and this is one reason why I think a swarm coin holder representative is extremely important.

[IamNotSure]

IT IS SIMPLE! We all voted for the original plan when we sent you money during the fundraiser. Issue over. 100% consensus right there. You, nor the rest of the team have any right deliberating on how you're going to play out a bait and switch. Hell I bought 200k swarmpre and I received no newsletter. I had no idea there was a vote about shit. Not that knowing about it would have made retroactively changing the deal okay. After the fact a vote will just result in a percentage of a percentage exerting their decision over the rest. Let me repeat in bold: YOU RECEIVED 100% CONCENSUS ON THE ORIGINAL DISTRIBUTION PLAN WHEN EVERYONE SENT YOU MONEY ON THE BELIEF THAT THAT WAS THE DEAL! To go any other route is unethical and depending on what choice "the team" makes, possibly plain thievery. What are you talking about "the relative importance of marketcap"? The only reason "the team" would be so concerned with manufacturing the highest possible market cap (which is absurd in its own right. Build a great product and the market will make itself) is so you can all dump swarm on everybody. What is more "the teams"  concern? To appear to have integrity by doing what you say you will do and building a groundbreaking crowdfunding platform, or to dick around with investors and play kindergarten economics?

+ 1000

I think a discussion of refunds is in order. This is not what I invested in.

not sure about that

And what the hell is a "coin holder representative" Someone who will represent the coin holders ?? In a trustless decentralized environment ? Do you realize how impossible this idea is ?

[fragORA]

This burn newsletter stated that all unsold swarm will be burned. This implies that the 68 million will also be burned and the last one was a link to your spreadsheet which just shows 3 options.
The coinmarket cap will be based on the the first buy or sell of swarm and not on the sale price and what do you think everyone will do if you continue with this line of bullshit - DUMP asap.

Also how many positive comments did you receive?
your founders disagree on how the community feels about this plan. Are you kidding? You are cutting their stake.
Where are the founders and why are they not communicating with their investors?


I cant understand how your completely missing the point that you made a pitch to get investors with clearly defined percentages of swarm offered and after the sale you decide that this dosnt mean anything. Why not just give us 1% and and out the scam.

How do I go about getting a refund ?

[Its About Sharing]

Just go with the original plan and be a man & keep your words.

This would be simple if I was the only decision maker, but our founding team has very different views on the matter and hasn't been able to reach consensus yet. Besides somewhat different ideas on the optimal situation (e.g. the relative importance of the coin market cap), we also disagree on how the community feels about this issue. As you can see I spend a lot of bitcointalk where the majority of posters so far have said they want us to go forward with the original plan, but there was only a single negative comment sent back after our newsletter went out to approximately a thousand people.

Right now we have no mechanism to resolve our disagreement and this is one reason why I think a swarm coin holder representative is extremely important.

IT IS SIMPLE! We all voted for the original plan when we sent you money during the fundraiser. Issue over. 100% consensus right there. You, nor the rest of the team have any right deliberating on how you're going to play out a bait and switch. Hell I bought 200k swarmpre and I received no newsletter. I had no idea there was a vote about shit. Not that knowing about it would have made retroactively changing the deal okay. After the fact a vote will just result in a percentage of a percentage exerting their decision over the rest. Let me repeat in bold: YOU RECEIVED 100% CONCENSUS ON THE ORIGINAL DISTRIBUTION PLAN WHEN EVERYONE SENT YOU MONEY ON THE BELIEF THAT THAT WAS THE DEAL! To go any other route is unethical and depending on what choice "the team" makes, possibly plain thievery. What are you talking about "the relative importance of marketcap"? The only reason "the team" would be so concerned with manufacturing the highest possible market cap (which is absurd in its own right. Build a great product and the market will make itself) is so you can all dump swarm on everybody. What is more "the teams"  concern? To appear to have integrity by doing what you say you will do and building a groundbreaking crowdfunding platform, or to dick around with investors and play kindergarten economics?


I think a discussion of refunds is in order. This is not what I invested in.




Edit:

Right now we have no mechanism to resolve our disagreement and this is one reason why I think a swarm coin holder representative is extremely important.

Do you think trying to insulate yourselves from your investors is going to solve this? No. Not reneging on the original deal and following through with what the investors were told when they sent you money OR issuing refunds are the only ways this plays out without your credibility and this project imploding.

+1
I am a bit confused why there is even a discussion here. I didn't realize the starters even had a chance in changing the original agreement. At this point I think it is fair to mention, by name, which of the "founders" are wanting to go against the original plan.

I think this change of heart from the original founders arose because not enough pre-swarm were sold in their eyes. But this doesn't really matter when an agreement was already in place. I don't want a refund, a new vote, a chance at another re-launch, etc., just stick to the original agreement. What are we missing? Not meaning to be hard, but again, how is this change even being discussed?

[EcoChavCrypto]

I am not really interested in the price of a SWARM coin, I invested to get a percentage of the start ups launched using the platform.  I am also planning on investing more on start ups I like in the future and maybe even launching my own projects using SWARM, sending friends your way etc...  I really think you should stick to the original plan and distribute the remaining coins.  If this burn goes ahead then I might as well have stuck to speculating on alts.  The whole reason I invested was to help start ups, getting their coins and potential dividends.  I am sure loads of other community members invested for the same reason.  For me its the about a supporting revolutionary crypto equity project while getting a percentage of start ups (no mater how small) not the dollar value of a SWARM coin.  I really think the burn is a BAD idea.  I have spent some time with you guys, really like the project and have defended SWARM from those calling it a scam.  Please don't destroy the project and make me look like a complete mug.  I can already hear a lot of people telling me "I told you so".

[identtitentti]

I am not really interested in the price of a SWARM coin, I invested to get a percentage of the start ups launched using the platform.  I am also planning on investing more on start ups I like in the future and maybe even launching my own projects using SWARM, sending friends your way etc...  I really think you should stick to the original plan and distribute the remaining coins.  If this burn goes ahead then I might as well have stuck to speculating on alts.  The whole reason I invested was to help start ups, getting their coins and potential dividends.  I am sure loads of other community members invested for the same reason.  For me its the about a supporting revolutionary crypto equity project while getting a percentage of start ups (no mater how small) not the dollar value of a SWARM coin.

+1

I liked the revolution manifesto and thought the developers might have vision and passion to see it come true. But no big loss if it was just hype to get bucks, pity the developer team that collapses into internal disagreement when they see few dollar pictures, crowd funding platforms don't depend from this one project, from what I know NXT and FIMK front looks very promising now also on that front, and I don't know much about other evolution lines.