[ANN] [GDGC] GadgetCoin | IoT | M2M |Smart Contracts on Hardware

[chocobo]

Is there another way to invest in the company besides buying VICR contracts?

[mtomcdev]

Is there another way to invest in the company besides buying VICR contracts?

Currently it is only via VICR contracts and please let us know if you have any suggestions or questions regarding to the alternatives.

We want to build a DAC with people who are interested in digital currency, IoT and the GadgetNet idea, an I imagine there will be share options for supporters who market this idea or provide technical support, but there is nothing finalized about that and such expansion of ownership will be the decision of the shareholders of the DAC.

[zsp]

I remember it was a picture in the OP and you posted a while back about a DAC (decentralized autonomous company) will be created here. Is it still on the table?

We have been organizing this structure. We have registered two companies to implement the structure. Company "A" which name is GadgetNet LLC (Delaware State File Number: 57077-25), is the DAC company which hold 100% ownership in company "B". The reason of this two tier company structure is that we will bring further investment  into the project from venture capitalists. Unfortunately, VC investor firms don't even start considering a deal with an LLC company which has many individual owners like Company "A" will have. I am not sure why, but that's how VC firms work, according to them, they tried many times, but failed to close the deal with private companies that was owned by many-many owners. Such deal is just too much hassle, wast of time for them. So we will have to bring Company B into the deal of VC investment. The VC will have to talk to one representative of Company B, which simplifies the investment process without compromising the interest of our early angel investors who owns (together with the developers) 100% of Company B via Company A, GadgetNet LLC.

We believe a serious VC investment is absolutely essential to take the GadgetNet blockchain concept to large and medium size businesses and IoT system integrators.

Company A, GadgetNet LLC will be the DAC by managing company matters (such as voting and profit distribution) via the blockchain and smart contracts.

The ownership in Company A, GadgetNet LLC will be claimed via the VICR contracts. The ownership in GadgetNet LLC comes with the VICR contract for no extra charge. The ownership isn't mandatory, it is entirely optional for VICR contract owners to claim ownership in the DAC company. VICR contract owners don't have to claim their ownership in GadgetNet LLC, but we believe such formalized partnership provides all stakeholders with many benefits. In due course we will explain to VICR owners how to send a signed message to claim their ownership.

DISCLAIMER
Please note we are not selling company shares nor it's a securities offering. The ownership in GadgetNet LLC is an extra option for free of charge to formalize partnership with angel investors who are interested in digital currency. The option of claiming ownership in the DAC company does not effect the rights of VICR owners regarding to the 5% commission nor other aspects of the contract.

Thanks for your reply. Sounds interesting, certainly different than the another 1000 alt coins. Is your DAC organized like the Bitshares? http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/DAC/Distributed_Autonomous_Company

[mtomcdev]

I remember it was a picture in the OP and you posted a while back about a DAC (decentralized autonomous company) will be created here. Is it still on the table?

We have been organizing this structure. We have registered two companies to implement the structure. Company "A" which name is GadgetNet LLC (Delaware State File Number: 57077-25), is the DAC company which hold 100% ownership in company "B". The reason of this two tier company structure is that we will bring further investment  into the project from venture capitalists. Unfortunately, VC investor firms don't even start considering a deal with an LLC company which has many individual owners like Company "A" will have. I am not sure why, but that's how VC firms work, according to them, they tried many times, but failed to close the deal with private companies that was owned by many-many owners. Such deal is just too much hassle, wast of time for them. So we will have to bring Company B into the deal of VC investment. The VC will have to talk to one representative of Company B, which simplifies the investment process without compromising the interest of our early angel investors who owns (together with the developers) 100% of Company B via Company A, GadgetNet LLC.

We believe a serious VC investment is absolutely essential to take the GadgetNet blockchain concept to large and medium size businesses and IoT system integrators.

Company A, GadgetNet LLC will be the DAC by managing company matters (such as voting and profit distribution) via the blockchain and smart contracts.

The ownership in Company A, GadgetNet LLC will be claimed via the VICR contracts. The ownership in GadgetNet LLC comes with the VICR contract for no extra charge. The ownership isn't mandatory, it is entirely optional for VICR contract owners to claim ownership in the DAC company. VICR contract owners don't have to claim their ownership in GadgetNet LLC, but we believe such formalized partnership provides all stakeholders with many benefits. In due course we will explain to VICR owners how to send a signed message to claim their ownership.

DISCLAIMER
Please note we are not selling company shares nor it's a securities offering. The ownership in GadgetNet LLC is an extra option for free of charge to formalize partnership with angel investors who are interested in digital currency. The option of claiming ownership in the DAC company does not effect the rights of VICR owners regarding to the 5% commission nor other aspects of the contract.

Thanks for your reply. Sounds interesting, certainly different than the another 1000 alt coins. Is your DAC organized like the Bitshares? http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/DAC/Distributed_Autonomous_Company

Essentially it is organized in the same way. Our blockchain is a transaction ledger and all company data, finances, profit distribution are via the blockchain and using PPK infrastructrure.

I think the main difference is - apart from the fact that Bitshare is a matured technology with an enthusiastic, strong and active community - that in our case a physical, legally registered company attached to the virtual shareholdings of DAC. A virtual Distributed Autonomous Company (DAC) is a perfect field to play company ownership as well as allows company management in an exciting new way, but to provide services for real businesses, manage the intellectual property, bring in VC investment, deal with authorities and enforce shareholders' rights in the court of law, we need a legally registered physical company. We start with this structure, everything is clear from the beginning: the virtual DAC shares and rights are in correlation with the legally registered company.

[mtomcdev]

[mtomcdev]

We have received many user requests regarding a lower priced VICR contract. The main purpose of the VICR contract is to build a community and get new users into P2P video streaming technology, and we understand the 1.1 BTC price currently prevents many users from being involved with GadgetNet tech. So we are rolling out a 10 hours VICR contract which will cost around 0.11 BTC.
The new contract will be available tomorrow.

[albert_mt]

what is the story with the exchanges? when the models are active we can easily achieve the USD 5 price, but we need to be on the exchanges. without the exchanges a higher price never going to happen.

btw, my transaction is completed but I haven't received my ores.

[chocobo]

will the combined small and large contracts still = 200k GDCish?

[mtomcdev]

what is the story with the exchanges? when the models are active we can easily achieve the USD 5 price, but we need to be on the exchanges. without the exchanges a higher price never going to happen.

btw, my transaction is completed but I haven't received my ores.

Yes, we will be on the exchanges permit that an exchange will list this completely new blockchain.

Please double check your ore balance. The system completed all deposits about 30 minutes ago and all users should have received it.

[mtomcdev]

will the combined small and large contracts still = 200k GDCish?

Yes, it will be a "max_sell_amount" field in the base contract and the system will stop accepting orders at 200k, and then no more coin will be issued until the 200k is burned.

[chocobo]

will the combined small and large contracts still = 200k GDCish?

Yes, it will be a "max_sell_amount" field in the base contract and the system will stop accepting orders at 200k, and then no more coin will be issued until the 200k is burned.

There wont be anymore contracts after these ones for acquiring ore correct?

[mtomcdev]

will the combined small and large contracts still = 200k GDCish?

Yes, it will be a "max_sell_amount" field in the base contract and the system will stop accepting orders at 200k, and then no more coin will be issued until the 200k is burned.

There wont be anymore contracts after these ones for acquiring ore correct?

No, there won't be more VICR contracts. The streaming nodes will receive ores for streaming the video, but those ores will be at a later stage deposited once the VICR coins are gone and burned.

[chocobo]

will the combined small and large contracts still = 200k GDCish?

Yes, it will be a "max_sell_amount" field in the base contract and the system will stop accepting orders at 200k, and then no more coin will be issued until the 200k is burned.

There wont be anymore contracts after these ones for acquiring ore correct?

No, there won't be more VICR contracts. The streaming nodes will receive ores for streaming the video, but those ores will be at a later stage deposited once the VICR coins are gone and burned.

So no other ores will be convertible to GDC until all of the contract GDC is burned?

[mtomcdev]

will the combined small and large contracts still = 200k GDCish?

Yes, it will be a "max_sell_amount" field in the base contract and the system will stop accepting orders at 200k, and then no more coin will be issued until the 200k is burned.

There wont be anymore contracts after these ones for acquiring ore correct?

No, there won't be more VICR contracts. The streaming nodes will receive ores for streaming the video, but those ores will be at a later stage deposited once the VICR coins are gone and burned.

So no other ores will be convertible to GDC until all of the contract GDC is burned?

There won't be any more forging until the VICR related coins are burned, there will be a start time clause in the streaming nodes' contract. However please note if there are no streaming nodes then there is no live show streaming on the network. Once the video streaming start, the streaming nodes will be very important for the network and we need to incentives streaming nodes to broadcast the video. The network need the VICR contracts to set-up the streaming and the VICR owners need the streaming nodes to create an excellent user experience for viewers which will increase the trust in the network and consequently the price of GDC.

[mtomcdev]

We received quite a few messages and questions regarding to the physical company and I just want to clarify

Our plan is to implement the structure which was posted in this thread earlier. We have been organizing the set-up, but we are still waiting further clarification to be certain that such structure is legal in the US and the business is not breach of US securities laws. Therefore, we can't guaranty and don't promise that the two tier structure will be implemented in the described way or it can go ahead at all. We are trying to organize a DAC, but we hear as many opinions as many lawyers we ask, and if such DAC is illegal in the US then we will have to organize it somewhere else, for example in the UK or Ireland.

We are not offering shares in a physical company with the VICR contract. If the structure can be implemented legally then the VICR owners will be able to claim their ownership in the physical company if they wish to do so, but we can't guaranty and promise anything regarding to this - with those posts we only informed the community what we are up to regarding to this matter, and that we try our best to create a community driven DAC.

[mtomcdev]

We will roll out a new contract in the next 1 hour. It requires a system update and the wallet will be offline for short period of time.

[mtomcdev]

A new VICR contract has been rolled out at US$ 30.00 unit prices to get 5% commission for 10 Hours video streaming and 90 ores deposit.

[altcoinUK]

I am a VICR owner, I had a few questions about the process and I had an (email) chat with the devs earlier today. I just want to put forward to other VICR owners or interested parties what was my suggestion regarding to the exchanges.

I think the devs are completely wrong about the exchange issue, this currency must be listed on the exchanges. I strongly believe that being listed on the exchanges is in the best interest of all coinholders. From models' viewpoint doesn't matter what the price is. After all, the models pay the 5% network fee after a FIAT amount upon cash out, in the meantime the network in my opinion has a tremendous potential if it really can serve real businesses, which means the price most likely will go up. There is a very limited supply of coin, and I think the price will increase from the current 0.333 without forcing the models to buy the coin for a USD 1.00  price. I understand the devs want to stabilise the price with a centralized control, but unfortunately the enforced USD 1.00 price prevents all further price increase. Perhaps the price would go to 2,3 or 4 USD, but we will never know if that's the case as the price is controlled with a centralized process.

Can VICR owners vote on this issue?

There are quite a few user requests about the exchanges. It seems there are more pros than cons for listing the coin on the exchanges.

OK, sounds good, lets do this then.

Have you seen this? http://bit.ly/1Uh35YF

Should the GadgetCoin development board use a Trusted Zone chip?

It should and we have been working on it. We tested this one http://www.atmel.com/products/microcontrollers/ARM/sama5.aspx?tab=overview and it seems this is a good choice.

The only reason we have not using it on the current board is that Trust Zone mcus were not available last year when we designed the development board. The new version will be with Trust Zone ARM.

I have just read the datasheet. LOL This mcu is a freak, it's fantastic.

http://www.atmel.com/products/microcontrollers/ARM/sama5.aspx?tab=overview

Did Atmel designed it specifically for your secure video use case? :-))))))

- Built in crypto, but not only symmetric, alsoasymmetric crypto
- Built in video decoder with h.264 and VP8
- Trust Zone

So called security experts are worried about software vulnerabilities only, while the most dangerous security vulnerabilities come from hardware hacks, and the only solution for that is Trust Zone.

Will you post the schematic for the new dev board?

[barabbas]

We received quite a few messages and questions regarding to the physical company and I just want to clarify

Our plan is to implement the structure which was posted in this thread earlier. We have been organizing the set-up, but we are still waiting further clarification to be certain that such structure is legal in the US and the business is not breach of US securities laws. Therefore, we can't guaranty and don't promise that the two tier structure will be implemented in the described way or it can go ahead at all. We are trying to organize a DAC, but we hear as many opinions as many lawyers we ask, and if such DAC is illegal in the US then we will have to organize it somewhere else, for example in the UK or Ireland.

We are not offering shares in a physical company with the VICR contract. If the structure can be implemented legally then the VICR owners will be able to claim their ownership in the physical company if they wish to do so, but we can't guaranty and promise anything regarding to this - with those posts we only informed the community what we are up to regarding to this matter, and that we try our best to create a community driven DAC.

No, it won't be legal in the US -nor many other countries-. You can  create a coin and sell or distribute it as you like -at least until regulation in the US is established-. But a company, LLC or any other, is a different matter and subject to specific rules. In your case, you could create the company and own it yourselves, as an LLC, but you cannot distribute shares or ownership the way you intend to. And you do know that a US-registered company requires, by law, to file quarterly statements, I assume.

Furthermore, your whole business plan -as I understand it, since it is "explained" in such a convoluted way-, needs to be seriously restructured under very different an specific parameters, including, as paramount, a system (only "boots on the ground" will do) to filter any and all illegal activity BEFORE it happens. It cannot be done with tech alone. You would be victim of anyone in crypto simply by broadcasting a minor and calling the authorities. Your whole operation would be closed and you'll be liable for criminal and financial damages.

Finally, you hope to sign "top models" that are making a mint in FIAT to be paid in crypto, "tokens", whatever? Good luck with that.

[mtomcdev]

We received quite a few messages and questions regarding to the physical company and I just want to clarify

Our plan is to implement the structure which was posted in this thread earlier. We have been organizing the set-up, but we are still waiting further clarification to be certain that such structure is legal in the US and the business is not breach of US securities laws. Therefore, we can't guaranty and don't promise that the two tier structure will be implemented in the described way or it can go ahead at all. We are trying to organize a DAC, but we hear as many opinions as many lawyers we ask, and if such DAC is illegal in the US then we will have to organize it somewhere else, for example in the UK or Ireland.

We are not offering shares in a physical company with the VICR contract. If the structure can be implemented legally then the VICR owners will be able to claim their ownership in the physical company if they wish to do so, but we can't guaranty and promise anything regarding to this - with those posts we only informed the community what we are up to regarding to this matter, and that we try our best to create a community driven DAC.

No, it won't be legal in the US -nor many other countries-. You can  create a coin and sell or distribute it as you like -at least until regulation in the US is established-. But a company, LLC or any other, is a different matter and subject to specific rules. In your case, you could create the company and own it yourselves, as an LLC, but you cannot distribute shares or ownership the way you intend to. And you do know that a US-registered company requires, by law, to file quarterly statements, I assume.

Furthermore, your whole business plan -as I understand it, since it is "explained" in such a convoluted way-, needs to be seriously restructured under very different an specific parameters, including, as paramount, a system (only "boots on the ground" will do) to filter any and all illegal activity BEFORE it happens. It cannot be done with tech alone. You would be victim of anyone in crypto simply by broadcasting a minor and calling the authorities. Your whole operation would be closed and you'll be liable for criminal and financial damages.

Finally, you hope to sign "top models" that are making a mint in FIAT to be paid in crypto, "tokens", whatever? Good luck with that.

Thank you for pointing out the issues with the securities offering. As we said we are not offering shares nor securities, the VICR contract owners could claim if they wish to do so the shares in the physical LLC. Would be such road to the ownership the breach of US securities laws? Some lawyers say it is, others say it is not. If it is not possible in the US, then we can implement the DAC in the UK.

We fully agree that the business plan is far from complete and we need experienced business professionals on board. We try our best to recruit them. We have just started this process, we are at the beginning of the road and lets hope experienced professionals will see potential in our technology and help us to take the network to the next level.

I agree about the issue of filtering. All sites have this issue. The main purpose of the trusted node concept in GadgetNet and the centralization to stop illegal content and to comply with laws and regulations. In a fully decentralized P2P streaming such filtering wouldn't be possible. We try to build a community here and we hope the community members will help us to monitor the content, especially that such content is close to a geek's heart.

Please note, the models will get paid in FAIT if they opt that cash out method. The partner site www.jizzmo.net will accept both FIAT and Bitcoin. The underlying crypto technology will be completely transparent to models and viewers.