Updated: RFC 0061 — Safe Network Token Distribution

If I understand correctly Jim said they will look at 10.5%.

3 Likes

@zeroflaw and anyone thinking of involving legal/authorities/etc., why not take a step back and let the community (hopefully) resolve things?

@maidsafe, let me just be blunt. I’m honestly a bit dismayed by the wound that you guys are self-inflicting here. Given the foundation path you’ve chosen, you shouldn’t be taking any action that opens the project up to legal action. And from a risks standpoint, future potential participants that aren’t even presently aware of the project can’t sue. But past/existing participants that have already exchanged value for the tokens have standing to. It shouldn’t need spelling further which should be taking precedent from a risk standpoint.

To give another example of risk, a dilution of the MAID portion not only injures the holders of MAID but also benefits anyone holding debt denominated in MAID in that their debt is reduced, particularly since the number of future tokens per shares of Maidsafe goes up. It might not be intended, but that’s the effective outcome. I won’t elaborate this point further, but I hope I’ve said enough to catch the risk.

Notice that I’m not even talking about optics and morals. Just cold hard risks. If your lawyers didn’t catch these, you should consider changing firms.

To hopefully move things along and because it appears the MAID dilution is the key point of contention for folks, @jlpell, would it be a good compromise for you to take Maidsafe’s current RFC and update only the Max Supply and your proposed fix for the MAID overprint and posting that instead as the alternative RFC?

4 Likes

Most here seem satisfied with the RFC.

A few are not and have been heard but some, not necessarily all seem unwilling to accept anything except that they get their way on this or that specific point.

Whether all those unhappy with the RFC can find a formula that is good enough to satisfy all of them and is able to be implemented, is doubtful to me and we can’t continue debating this in the hope that they will.

Some have tried very hard to find that but I’m not convinced the community can come to a consensus in a reasonable time, if at all.

By now it should be apparent that this is going to delay what we all I hope, put top or very high on our priorities: a working network as soon as possible.

I ask everyone to consider what their priorities are here. Be honest with yourself if not in public and set aside grumbles or personal ideas and feelings and be willing to accept whatever Jim decides next. Whether that is some changes or no changes.

I am willing to trust him to do his best for the project here. Are you, and if not are your actions helping or harming it?

I’m not sure any other project would open themselves up in this way. I’ve not seen it done anywhere else myself so we can appreciate that and not let it get in the way of delivery because that is much more important than anything said on this topic - because without it none of this matters.

7 Likes

He’s done that here: RFC 0061A - Safe Network Token Distribution (Dogmatic Edition)

Good work to move things along @jlpell!

1 Like

I would say “most” is a stretch. It seems about 50/50 with others not really caring one way or the other.

I’m not sure why it would delay anything. David already stated the devs are more or less hands off on this.

If it’s already been submitted, then whatever, just let it ride and we’ll see what comes of it. That doesn’t seem to be the case, though, from what I’m reading here. Since they asked for opinions and people gave them I’m not sure why people are getting upset.

Perhaps one or two people are a little overzealous on calling out the staff for some kind of malfeasance or deception, but I generally think people just believe another path is the better way forward, myself included. I think that posts like this that basically sound like a loyalty pledge trying to discredit concerns feeds more cynicism, not less.

1 Like

Admittedly I joined the debate late, but it seems to me that everyone who is highly critical of the RFC is focusing on the same blocker (the dilution of ICO participants).

If this is the case, workable solutions have been proposed (RFC 0061A - Safe Network Token Distribution (Dogmatic Edition)), and I expect all / most of the critics could support something along those lines (with any required tweaks MaidSafe can add).

I’d be happy with the current RFC as-is, except with minimal re-jigging to ensure MAID holders receive the ~10.5% of total supply needed to keep the promise of ICO sales = 10% of total supply.

I hope that proposal can be a catalyst to find a solution the vast majority can reasonably get behind.

2 Likes

Poor Jim. It looks like he made the mistake of trying to be fair to the KNOWN stakeholders and the UNKNOWN, future participants. The voice of the living is loud indeed. Reminds me of some arguments related to how Social Security is paid for in the U.S.

2 Likes

:point_up_2:I am in this camp, probably because I did not participate in the ICO.

We have to assume many ICO participants are not glued to the forum so more people likely share the dilution view.
Getting to a point now where the ICO participants don’t feel they are getting the short straw is probably best.

Not everyone is going to agree on everything but if there is any chance that future legal challenges are avoided, then this process is needed and worth it.

3 Likes

In this proposal the only “losers” are part of group 2. And they are those who were told that for every safecoin they bought, they would own 1/2^32 part of the maximum supply that would exist on the network at any given time.

Now they are told that for every safecoin they bought, they will have 1/(2^32+230.556.822) of the maximum supply. That is 94.9% of what was promised.

The rest of the groups keep intact the percentage pledged in the ICO.

Personally I am indifferent to this loss, but for the project it could turn out to be a fatal mistake.

3 Likes

Beginning to look like 1+2=.5 and 3+4=-.5.

To what end? Say you’re right (in the eyes of regulators but not every crowd sale participants) and what do you and everyone else get?

Potentially no network and no token.

I don’t think you’re right and I just want to see us move forward after reading all this. It is such a silly thing to get hung up on, and at this stage no less when the legal ball is already rolling.

Just to be right? Just to be right or for justice for you and a few? Not doing me and many others any favors by drawing unnecessary attention to the wolves. That’s what they are by the way. That’s why we should just throw them the bone and not wave it around asking questions with it in our hand.

No disrespect by the way just stating my view on the matter of reaching out to regulators.

3 Likes

It can also be fatal if the reverse happens. The Foundation I’m sure will spend tokens to develop the network - while for the holders I’m not sure they’ll buy enough resource to get things going.

We need someone to push for the common good!

In short the Foundation needs more tokens at the start of the network, the potential lawsuits will drag on for years into the future and won’t be a problem if the network is successful.


Privacy. Security. Freedom

4 Likes

Correct.

The white paper and coin sale were not legally binding documents. The first is just that a white paper with a plan, not contract or prospectus. The creation of MAID was to sell holding tokens that were to represent 10% of the max supply of safe tokens with creation and destruction of the tokens during SAFE operations. Neither amounted to a prospectus or financial contract (apart from the raised money to be used for development) so legally I cannot see anything here unless there was significant material damage to those holding MAID.

The markets already adjusted to the ~10.5% of the 2^32 (or 10% of this RFC max supply) so I don’t think any legal team would see a significant material damage to anyone in this. In fact it could be argued to keep to the ~10.5% of max supply (2^32) path is going to cause the greater damage in the markets and thus create the most material damage, but since its something in the future then it hard to argue it will be significant damage. Either way.

Just a thought here
Also the people who have MAID will get 1:1 SNT and since max supply is long term, then SNT will be distributed at the same rate whichever method is chosen. So there is no difference to the number of SNT people will hold after 1 month, 10 months, 2 years and so on. Nor difference in value since markets already adjusted to the extra MAID–>SNT existing

The markets have their price and have used the current supply of MAID as their basis, so really there should be no difference whichever method is used. No dilution of one compared to the other except the opportunity in 10 or 20 years for the world to have those extra SNT of the RFC0061. By that time the markets will have forgotten decades ago about arguments of dilution and those extra snt will be worth just as much, no sudden drop when there is 2^32+1 snt in people’s wallets.

The only thing that might be affected by which path is taken now is that markets will react to going back dogmatically to the white paper plan as that is then a materially significant change to the status quo. And with a long term project the markets may not react kindly to it. So my thought above of no difference might be affected by this consideration.

To be honest future distribution is the real issue because how it is done will have way more affect on people’s holdings and the way the market prices SNT. Too fast and the price will lower than compared to slower distribution. Or maybe the market will react the opposite. Who knows its speculation and another reason its difficult to argue which way will have the most significant damage, another thing to argue over i guess.

IIRC the last big holder sold up 2 or 3 years ago and the people from the ICO who still hold most of their ICO amounts of MAID are few and far between.

The issue is that there are problems which ever way is taken, and being unnecessarily dogmatic will not help. Also people taking the white paper as a contract is not helpful either since its just a white paper. The ICO was raising money for development and development was being done with the money. Mistakes were made with minting and the markets have worked with this and adjusted a long time ago. The project evolved and without a prospectus or contract there was no financial proposal and the closest thing to a financial promise is buy MAID from Maidsafe and the funds will go to development.

On the sale of the overmint, there was a lot of gloom and doom comments that it will destroy the project etc etc. We as a community were able to overcome it, work with it and the markets incorporated the situation happily, so these arguments of legal problems and financial contracts have all been discussed long ago too.

Personally I would be happy with the increased max supply and keeping the 10% promise (this RFC) OR happy with a suitable plan to keep the 2^32 (and ~10.5%) which has a nice ring to it as a creator of digital devices. (2^32 is a weird number to normal people the same as this RFC’s max supply number is)

Lawsuits before launch will be the death of the foundation. The costs for the foundation to be proven correct would still drain all the funds it has. Without the financial prospectus its an uphill battle to achieve anything except to totally use up the foundation’s funds.

5 Likes

The tl;dr

9.5% != 10%

9.5%==10% of nothing, every single time.

Your arguments are tiresome, but I suppose it’s your game, and I hope you are sitting happily in your ignorance.

Go and write your letters to finma and whatever lawyers you know. Nobody cares, and you have to accept that.

7 Likes

Not picking sides as I see the argument even though I don’t agree that it is worth fighting for.
Give me the network over .5% any day, damn I’ll give way more than that if it meant speeding things up.

What seems odd though is that you joined in 2018, are you an ico participant or just standing this ground for the sake of it?

6 Likes

Thats a stretch. Some of us have not spoken up on this possibly for several reasons

I think @neo sums it up well

Not getting at you in particular @wydileie but can we just get on with delivering a working network? We have trusted @JimCollinson judgement before, I’m ready to go along with what he thinks is best for the project.

5 Likes

I already said multiple times that if changing now would slow down the project, then I would be in favor of keeping this proposed path. However, considering it is an RFC, I would think nothing has actually been proposed to the regulating body. In such a case, I would support the move to the alternate proposed path.

It’s not that I don’t trust people or that I think they are trying to screw us over. I just legitimately think the alternate solution is the lesser of two evils in the face of the earlier mistake being made.

I’m not going to kick and scream about it either way. They proposed an RFC, so I am commenting per their request. I put in my $0.02 and will gracefully back out of this conversation.

8 Likes

me too :slight_smile:

2 Likes

That may be the big problem that the foundation may encounter.

Among the four actors concerned:
Shareholders
Holders
Developers
Farmers

The first two, and in particular the holders, are the ones who have a real possibility to take legal action against the company or the foundation for their possible losses.

As this RFC only generates real losses on the holders, it significantly increases the likelihood of this occurring.

In fact, if I had the resources and did not want this project to go ahead, it would be the simplest way. Own some safecoin and sue the company and the foundation for fraud.

Is it worth taking this risk when we could simply take back the overspent safecoin from the farmers’ total?

6 Likes