Quote from: SpacemanOne on October 23, 2016, 02:09:05 PM

1. Exchanges list. The fact that the exchanges list is not final is quite understandable and acceptable. What is not acceptable is to include the exchanges/wallets that CAN'T be insured by InChain technically according to the insurance strategy announced by InChain itself. It's a sign of disparaging and unprofessional approach to the business.
For example, the aforementioned Bitsquare. InChain claims it will insure centralized web wallets/exchanges only.
Bitsquare is a dectntralized exchange and will never store users private keys. It can't be hacked in a way that allows InChain insure it.
Coinbase is questionable too. Not for technical reasons but because their wallets are insured already and there will be no many clients willing to insure them twice.
Coinomi - private keys are stored on users devices only. Questionable. Not a web wallet.
Mycelium - not a web wallet. Questionable.
Electrum - not a web wallet. Private keys never leave clients device. Questionable.

Almost a half of the table is wallets/exhcanges that probably won't be insured by InChain due to its own policy.

I have an example for you. Let's assume I'm trying to open a vegetarian shop and need some money to start this business. You are my potential investor. I have prepared a presentation for you. One of my presentation part is a list of the basic products I'm going to sell. It looks like this:

- beef
- chicken
- lamb
- potatoes
- rice
- apples
- peaches

You are asking me: 'What does it mean, isn't it a vegetaian shop?'
I answer: 'Oh, it's just an example'
- Example of what?
- ...

Would you give your hard earned money to the applicant who doesn't even care to compose a realistic presentation?
I understand word 'example' as an event that can really happen in future and has a probability of more than 0. Unfortunately, the table from your financial model doesn't fit my definition because several exchanges/wallets will not be even considered for insurance.

2. Financial model
Not only the list of exchanges but the whole financial model will be different in the real product.
The blog post doesn't tell us anything about the start phase of the project and initial funding. But some forum posts give us more information.
In Russian thread Sergey mentions that $0.9-1.05M from $1.75M will go to the Insurance Fund.
This fact changes the financial model significantly. One million dollars is just omitted in your financial model example. At the start of the project ICO participants will take insurance risks too, there will be no bond holders from the start.
How do you think, one million dollars is worth mentioning in the financial model?

3. Your question.

Quote

However, it is not clear why you think that 15% of the market you estimated (1M BTC) is that much unrealistic, given the total absence of any competition.

I never said it is unrealistic. It is my estimation of the potential market. So I agree it is realistic. But with the existing financial model the ROI for ICO participants will be about 10% and is fully dependent on the insurance fund performance. The insurance fund will be composed of different crypto assets. So I don't understand an ICO investor motivation. He can just invest his funds into one of Iconomi funds or create his own portfolio with the same assets as your insurance fund. Adding the risk of losing all the profits (or even more if several hacks will happen during the first year, please remember that ICO investors will take the risks at the start of the project) is not worth of gaining additional 3% ROI. Moreover, there can be no dividends at all if the DAO votes accordingly.
As I mentioned before just holding your funds in BTC is a more safe and profitable strategy.

1) Don't think it is worth discussing the list of platforms we might insure accounts of. As we said, those were proposed by the community. Feel free to propose any platforms you believe we should work with.

2) Why do you think there will be no investors in bonds at the very beginning? There is no established fixed income instruments in the market. This $1M will form the liquidity reserves placed in the cold storages. It also will represent the bottom line of the value of our coins as they will have some sort of intrinsic value in this case.

3) No disrespect but you are mixing several unrelated things together.
As an Investor you can invest in one of the Iconomi funds as you mentioned or invest in the Inchain DAO. To simplify the case, let's say they perform equally. Thus the difference is that in the Inchain DAO case the participants may vote for not paying dividends and to increase the reserves. This will increase the intrinsic value of our coins because the reserves belong to the Inchain DAO. If you are not happy with the decision made by the majority of the DAO you can freely sell you tokens and the price of which will reflect the increase in reserves. So you will get your share of profits anyway.
If you decided to invest in bonds, you just diversify your investment portfolio having both fixed and non fixed income instruments. Your return as the bond investor does not depend on the DAO performance at all. All you should be concerned with is the hacks.

Overall, we should assess different types of investments such as crypto currencies and crypto currency funds, bonds and the DAO separately as they imply different types of risks and rewards.