Your attitude stinks, chap. There have been others making reasonable statements, but I think you need to understand me.
I hope that helps you understand my position.
Now let the adults chat, there are clearly some valid points in this thread and you are really just like a child in the shallow end. Just stop
It’s not a stupid legal threat. I asked a very clear question about your intentions, and you are avoiding it. Why? it’s not a complex question.
Would you like a full letter before action (which is a normal business practice) sent to you? could you please provide contact information.
We have a small window I think. We just had a full team meeting and yes the whole team stopped to consider last minute changes. Exhausting as it is we do try and listen, just not to threat though 
@JimCollinson is again checking what can be done.
Like the line from the green fields of France
Did you really believe that war would end wars, for young Willie McBride it all happened again and again and again and again and again 
This isn’t quite right BTW. It’s still in RFC stage, and things are working in parallel with the legal team. There is way more to it than just the token distribution too.
I think this is a bit harsh, and not true. There have been number changes incorporated and considered from the community, and they continue. It’s the RFC process working!
But it doesn’t half make it tougher and longer when folk assume we aren’t acting in good faith.
You may want some vaseline though
Try squatting a wee bit too
Haha, what is this?
I thought you would say that
When you first mentioned sending a letter to regulators I told you that such could be perceived as a threat - but I withheld my judgement and said I didn’t believe you were doing so – I assumed you’d just slipped up out of frustration.
If I had doubts as you do, I would have simply written the letter and sent it - there is no need to mention it on the forum at all - but you keep bringing it up.
I think it’s fine to ask questions, but when you ask questions and then hint that if you don’t get answers you are going to send the letter and as you’ve repeated this many times now. It is now clear you are making a threat. You are attempting to frighten people into behaving as you would like.
As far as I can see this is a solid cause to ban you from the forum.
edit: just to be clear - I don’t have the power to do so … so I’m making no threat - just warning you.
Any excuse
all knobs to 11.
Okay. Don’t mean to cause confusion to others. I mean specifically the token distribution portion but mostly that if this is a hindrance on network delivery and a majority agreed, what are we still all going on about? It seems like just one single person at this point. @zeroflaw
I think the other proposal for token distribution is decent but not enough of an improvement to impede launch or lengthen timescales any further than necessary.
I commend the team for being so patient and open to the process but also understand David’s frustration with roadblocks like what we’re seeing right now. Most of us just all want to get on already and if we were all that dissatisfied, Maidsafe would know it but we’re not.
@zeroflaw if you decide personally to contact lawyers, send emails to regulatory boards, pay for legal opinions, etc etc, could you please do so on your own time instead of polluting this thread, and in so doing, rotting everyone’s skull? Your behaviour is, quite frankly, petulant. I’m not going to count up the times you’ve repeated yourself, but come on…
Asking what you quite possibly perceive as your “question” the first time, fair enough, then repeating it when you feel you haven’t got the desired outcome, even a third statement of the point, ok, I get it, but at this point, give us all a break? You’ve gotten your response, whether you like it or understand it is your own problem.
In summary - you’re derailing this thread, and your ceaseless reptitions could legitimately be classified as off-topic and/or spam in my opinion, and I’m kind of surprised you haven’t gotten a ban from the topic. There’s insisting on one’s point while remaining polite and focused, which @jlpell provided an admirable example of, and then on the other end of the spectrum, there’s your behaviour.
tl;dr For the love of Satan, @zeroflaw, spare us the repetitive whining, either contact lawyers or don’t, this thread (and community) owes you nothing
For my own part - catching up on all this after being away for a bit is rough. @jlpell’s solution sounds clean, but I don’t see anything particularly egregious about @JimCollinson and the team’s proposal either. So put me firmly in the camp of - can we just do something, and move on to more important things. The Network being made is what matters
Mods, the trolling is clear, the threats now explicit, this thread has become impossible to follow and filling with repeated mistakes that can’t be cleared up because there is so much garbage clouding the discussion.
Please can you suspend or ban the culprit so we can bring this to a conclusion.
I will not comment on the correctness of any one approach, lets just say I am extremely encouraged by the passion shown by all.
Heres another very practical way you can show your passion for the project.
True. Everyone please stick to discussion about specifics of the RFC and refrain from personal attacks.
ok yeah, I haven’t been watching this closely. If that’s the case, I’m sorry for and retract the (harsh?) statement. (as I said above).
I wonder if you could please make a statement in regards to:
To me, it seems cleanest and fairest to keep max supply 2^32 as promised, keep existing hodlers percentages unchanged, and only alter percentages for newcomers with no skin in the game.
At the least, I would like to see the “keep RFC as-is” camp address if this is an approach they would consider, or if not, why not?
and with that, I will happily bow out of this thread. good luck finding a solution y’all!
And this failed. Have you a time machine to fix it. Obviously we cannot so which do you keep the 429496729 or the 10% since both were equal in the plan?
The issue is we have to live with the error and how to deal with it. Keep the 10% rule or keep the 2^32 and at this point the 2 proposals have significant problems when trying to be dogmatic with the white paper.
BTW where did that quote come from, some financial prospectus?
Like I said I am happy with both proposals (except some wording), and I see no significant material losses either way unless markets reject the “A” version because it appears to the markets to revert to original plan and rejects the evolution that has happened.
My thought experiment suggests there is no loss with either version. Legal basis is significant material loss, and a change from a plan barely cuts it as a reason. If it was a registered prospectus or a security promise then yes changes can be a legal problem.
The original plan was broke when the over mint happened. And the team worked hard through the many options to try and come up with a solution that does not disadvantage any group. Version “A” does have a slight disadvantage to the app&core devs now and in the future. But otherwise they have the same effects really for the MAID holders and others.
To change now though will cause more work, time and reviews by the community.
What a great song!