The 5% dev fund, Should MaidSafe run out of money should they issue themself part of future dev reward?

Thanks Neo for correcting my previous figures. I took those from the original IPO prospectus :

I believe for the SAFE Network to be a success most of the work and resources should be put around building a solid foundation. As of now 10% + 5% (ICO + initial investors) of the money went toward this and 5% of it will go toward future core development.

Given that the crowd sale didn’t go as well as planned and development time was extended by a years or more, Could Maidsafe become at risk of not having enough money and resource to finish the minimum work needed to issue safecoins safely and within a well-though-of economic framework ?

From what I understand 5% of safecoins will be issued to “core” developers into a scheme that will inevitably be very complex and controversial (Human problem) and a 10% reward will go toward app devs according to the number of request their app receive, which unfortunately wont be proportional to how useful and valuable their application is but to the contrary might incentivize them to make more bloated and inefficient code.

The 5% to be issued in the future with a non-existing and most likely centralized at first, controversial and corruptible bounty system.

Basically I can’t wrap my head around the 5% for core dev and much less the 10% for app dev and I think Maidsafe might need the money before the safecoin are issued properly and farming start awarding them (core devs) little parts of that 5% and maybe some parts of that 10%… so I suggest they could just pre-award themselves 1% or more of dev-fund (4.5m MAID per %) instead of diluting everyone by raising money from another ICO.

1 Like

They cannot just award themselves anything, because that would invite a legal battle over the crowdsale conditions. The 10% sale + 5% reserve is set.

There has been a number of posts about the way forward with funding the project. Both nicklambert and dirvine have indicated that there is no immediate concern and funding is there for release of the product.

The reason they are reluctant to “show their hand” at the moment with more information is that they are, as planned from early on, in negotiations for venture capital. Once the network is live they will be developing applications in competition with all the other APP developers as well which will be earning them money.

I do not know how you came up with that. It is so far from the truth.

The core devs receive 5% of Farming Rate which occurs along with the 100% of FR for farmers and the 10% of FR for APP-with-PtD initiated GETS

I do not know how it will be complex (its automatically generated) and controversial. Its been there all the time and no more difficult than any other payment system.

As to bloated code etc, this has been heavily discussed, and if you think just for a moment, just like now with applications (not the mindless advert ridden phone apps, but real APPs) bloat is found out and news spreads fast and someone will streamline the APP and release it. Just watch the bloated one fall into disuse. The market will sort that out in due time.

Wow, what a statement, and based on what?

If its non-existent then how can it be centralised or anything else. Something that does nto exist is nothing

Why will it be centralised and why at first and not later on?
Why will it be controversial?
Why will it be corruptible?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and I see no evidence.


Hey, @neo, did Maidsafe the Company get maidsafecoin or safecoin?

I’d have to search the forum for that one @nicklambert mentioned in one post that a small amount of coin was left over and will form part of that 5% reserved amount. IIRC David mentioned recently the addresses where that is being held till then.

But they got BTC from the crowdsale

Thanks for your reply, I wasn’t aware there was negociation with VCs. With some luck it won’t turn into another Blockstream scenario.

Good to know that they still have money, although I believe we would only know at the last minute when they run out. I believe any VC would want to know how much money they have left.

It doesn’t exist so there is a lot of work to do it. (Barrier)

If it’s a select group that elect friends as being core devs then it’s centralised. And before power is relinquished it start centralised.

It’ll be controversial not because it was planned ever since but because it will be very hard to assess and compare core-devs contributions and establishing process to vote in or out core devs.

Corruptible and centralised are two side of the same coin. Centralized entities are at physical risk of harm and always prone to corruption.

Oh, hey. Check out this bug bounty funding that’s baked into the Network - or at least…ahem…should be.

Aside from my observation that a non-existent item cannot be centralised.

It basically exists now, examine git and see all the work being done by the devs at Scotland and other places around the world. What we call the devs make up the main team, but others have already contributed and community RFCs too.

So when the 5% core dev reward goes live there are already a number of people who will be developing. And seeing as it is not completely centralised now there is no reason to believe it would remain centralised at all as the devs finish their contracts with the MAIDSAFE company.

Oh really…?

A number of opensource projects are operating now and the process of accepting/rejecting code is fairly well established and I see no reason why the open sourced SAFE project would suddenly become disorganised and hard to maintain.

You neither showed how after MAIDSAFE releases the development when the core dev reward becomes live that it will remain centralised for even a month as devs finish up their contracts.

Centralised does not equate to corruption any more than other structures. If you said that a centralised system can be made corruptable easier then other systems then you may have a point. [quote=“Cryptor, post:1, topic:8500”]
controversial and corruptible bounty system.

But to say that is to assume that the “centralised” system was set up in a way that will be corrupted. Or at least setup so it can be corrupted. A number of centralised systems are not corrupt or prone to corruption. It s how it is set up.

Anyhow its not going to be centralised unless you refer to git.

But obviously any project can be corrupted from the inside be it etherium development or bitcoin development or SAFE before it is released to wider community to develop. Most of the projects like those took steps to ensure their structure is resistant to corruption and then the law of the land would apply and court action taken if corruption occurred. So your point is?

Here’s the skinny. Whatever the maidsafe devs bought of maidsafecoin is their business. It literally is. It’s their personal investment in the company.

Then separately, they invest themselves and their time as devs. They’re creating that project as part of the company. That gets rewarded in Safecoin. That core dev team gets rewarded inside of the Network, mainly because they’re the ones maintaining the Network. Whoever that may eventually include.


OP called it :
"MaidSafe will prioritise paying back the the 24 million safecoins from MaidSafe’s own core development awards."

The irony of SAFE running out of money. Money and money people and culture demostrate the increasing uselessness of money for the useful. Right now the sponsored media is saying Apple will win in autonomous vehicles because it has more money. This the essesnce of the arguement they make for everything, that money is the rightful ruler.