I am very uncertain if we should class this as an ICO, since that brings a lot of baggage with it, including but not limited to USA citizens. The USA SEC has basically said that USA citizens buying coins/tokens in ICOs are at risk of prosecution if the ICO does not meet their standard. Which is why some disallow USA citizens. If an ICO sells to a USA citizen then it is at reach of the SEC if in a country that lets it
Maybe distribute “tokens” (gifts?) according to the amount donated to the foundation. Then somehow word it such that there is NO returns from the foundation and that the token holders will receive a portion of the overall profits made by all the Apps the foundation helped. The agreement is between the developer and token holders of which the foundation is one of. <— wondering if this removes the SEC from the issuance of tokens since the tokens are not a security? or is that still a “security”
The SEC will define it as a security if the aim is a financial return.
I can think of three options we have here - there are likely more, but this is a start of the conversation:
Option 1 - go hardcore: We completely ignore the SEC and organize in a country where they can’t touch us without a lot of huff and puff … and we keep most if not all of our funds in the cryptosphere and under the control of the board of directors via multi-sig wallets.
I’m not in favor of ignoring the SEC personally … but I am in favor of taking any and all precautions against them in any case.
Option 2 - the moderate approach: We ban US IP address from the sale. This is being done by many ICO’s now. They issue a warning to US residents not to purchase the token and they actively block US IP-address ranges.
Of course people in the know can easily circumvent these … and they do. But then it’s on them and not on the project/company … or at least that is what some believe. The truth is that until it’s tested in court, we won’t know for certain. It is however a decent approach and since there is no ruling on this method anyone doing it before a ruling would likely be grandfathered and let go. As an example, the US SEC ruling on ICO’s was really a focus on the DAO’s ICO - wherein they found that it was a ‘security’ and yet, they have publicly stated that they will not prosecute the DAO - they did not say why, but the reason is likely because the ICO issue is novel and they didn’t wish to appear heavy handed.
Option 3 - don’t sell a ‘security’: We could issue tokens that are useful to obtain special features in the apps under development. Thus giving them a value, but not a financial return, hence they wouldn’t be considered ‘securities’. This would obviously lessen the attraction to buy our token as we might do something like this in any case and as such we would be reducing the utility of our token.
Anyway, all things to think about. Please keep sharing ideas and thoughts here. They are greatly appreciated
I think a combination of 1 & 3 are great. Incorporate or what have you abroad, somewhere safe, and also state and reiterate that they are donations. Tezos did a good job of both of these and are a prime example imo. Look at any Reddit thread or the like and a tezos member would pop up and say something about them being donations etc. I’ll have to find the exact wording they continually used, it was very specific.
It makes some investors uncomfortable because legally you can just walk away with the “donations” but things are starting to change and this will be one half of the new normal. The other half is the angel list BS you have to be accredited for (looking at you Filecoin) (not that I care much ). But if the foundation or incubator delivers and builds a track record more comfort will come naturally.
I think this can happen, just needs to be done as responsible as possible, try to cover everyone’s butts and most importantly, successfully fund promising projects that will help build a market on SAFE.
We may also be able to ‘earn’ money from apps themselves - getting a piece of their ICO’s if they require one or from a share of their earnings. So longer term the foundation may fund itself. An ICO would just be a jump-starting of things.
I’m clueless why there was so little support for this project in the Ethereum community, luckily Consensys is doing better, with projects like: Adtoken (Consensys gets 20% of the tokens, see it in the “token breakdown”) Gridplus (Tokensale is coming up)
The accelerator camp sounds pretty cool. They are open to all projects in code anywhere, which is great. We will keep the focus on SafeNet though. From that point of focus we can still be open to new SafeApp ideas and also help to drive specific projects that the SafeNet forum community have already put forward as SafeApp projects of interest.
Just copying this here from the other thread, as I think it’s important.
Also, don’t assume that just because NVO got $8+ million and were somewhat connected to SAFE (even being a lie) that other SAFE ICO projects can see that amount or any success as well.
I know who contributed the 650k MAID to NVO (definitely not me) but it wasn’t anyone on the forums, and that presumably means nobody from the SAFE Network community invested in NVO (at least not with MaidSafecoin).
Which all leads me to believe that SAFE ICOs are a bad idea because people here haven’t seen the 30x gains that ethereum, waves or other communities have. So SAFE Network ppl don’t have extra cash to burn or invest.
So for many reasons, including economic, I think this whole idea is not really the right step to make here. Just giving my real opinions and experience.
Some of what you say is very true Will but if it takes up to six months to structure this and in six months we have testsafecoin and a lot of attention/rising maid speculation then I think we would be glad we got started when we did. Then there will be money to throw around. Just my opinion, but I respect your opinion as well and see your point.
I don’t know what any of the other advisors think yet, it will be one of our first points of discussion together … but speaking only for myself, I was only looking at US$500k-1MM for funding … not any amount like what NVO received. That said, if others feel differently I’m flexible - just want to understand the use-case for that level of funding.
I see SafeApp foundation giving out small amounts for bounties and the achievement of milestones. Also helping projects to do their own ICO’s if they need larger funding.
To be honest, many of these ICO’s are raising far far more money than they need to actually do the work - it’s really a big scam that so many of them are raising so much cash - it’s insane IMO. Some of them, in the end might deserve a high valuation if they do what they say they will do, but it’s just asking for fraud - it’s an incentive for corruption to come in.
I believe that the more high quality apps will be a huge asset to getting the Safe Network off to a good start.
If everything on the Safe Network is clunky or too basic, it won’t keep people’s attention. Resourcing teams to put decent time and effort into making highly usable, well designed apps on the Safe Network is important and will make a huge difference to perception of the Safe Network, even at Beta stage.
I was disappointed when some shot down @whiteoutmashups concept when he put it foward, but I’m glad he’s still doing a lot to promote developers getting involved and working on Safe apps.
It’s clear that general developers don’t have the time / resources to focus on developing quality apps for the Safe Network, mainly because of the risk the platform doesn’t make it to market, and also because it’s quite a learning curve and new way of doing things.
The value of a pool of developers solely focused on figuring out how to produce high quality apps for the Safe network shouldn’t be underestimated, and this won’t happen until much later without specific resources being allocated.
I think that this structure of advisors to direct resources to ‘kickstart’ various projects with a degree of quality control is a good one, and I look forward to it coming together & bearing fruit.
We are off to a good start now with several long-term forum members having agreed to be advisers. Now I’m looking for advisers who have a strong background in coding. If that’s you, please read my letter/plan and send me a DM/PM here on the forum.
I probably don’t need to say, but it would be AWESOME if some MAIDSAFE team members would jump in as advisers … we know you’re busy, but being an adviser won’t take up too much of your time … really!
Do we actually need to incorporate? It should be possible to create a pure internet (later safenet) organisation with, for instance, bitshares. I’ve stumbled upon a few of those decentralized chains/ projects for organizing large goups or even organisations/ companies.
I feel that incorporating is a huge pain. But it will probably be necessary if we don’t want to do it all over tor? The world isn’t ready for no nations yet, I guess.
Just an update to the community in general … we have eleven advisers for the project now and have just elected five to be on the board. Our next step is developing our mission statement, aims, & goals, afterwhich we will come up with a general business plan that will allow us to accomplish the mission, aims & goals - that part will include deciding upon our legal structure, if any. After that, a website will (likely) be put up.
So progress is being made!
Cheers, and thanks for everyone’s support and comments.
I will consult with all and put together a proper statement and list. As another tease though I will say that the board consists of well known forum members.
Thanks to everyone for supporting the formation of the SafeApp Foundation.
We have elected a board of directors and have a strong group of advisers. We are still open to more advisers, so if you have skills or knowledge that could be helpful to us, please get in contact.
A note about ICOs. ICOs are becoming increasing regulated around the world, if not outright illegal. It would be in the best interests of this foundation, and any organization for that matter, to tread carefully when declaring and issuing an ICO AND when releasing the real identities attached to it’s creation. You don’t want people getting arrested.
To be clear I am not saying ICOs are bad but a measure of security and anonymity, such as can be provided at this time before the SAFE network is launched, should be taken into account as much as can be provided to ensure the safety of those involved. It is quite possible that in the near future cryptocurrency will be treated much like marijuana: illegal in some areas, regulated in others, and totally legal in others. And the criminality of cryptocurrency and ICOs could be a rapidly changing affair. I for one will feel a lot better when we have a fully decentralized and secure internet along with decentralized anonymous secure currency exchanges to go with it.
). But if the foundation or incubator delivers and builds a track record more comfort will come naturally.
