Quote from: adhitthana on February 08, 2017, 08:54:40 AM

Quote from: vegafund on February 07, 2017, 11:46:36 PM

Quote from: adhitthana on February 07, 2017, 10:57:58 AM

Quote from: vegafund on February 05, 2017, 11:13:59 PM

Hi my name is George, Im developing a decentralized fund on Ethereum called Vega Fund. We are new and are looking for people that may be interested in early involvement. We are looking for community feedback and would like this to be an area for people to ask questions. If your interested in talking directly or joining our conversation on slack, please just give me a message and we can talk.

1.What is the purpose of the fund?
2.What will it contain?
3.What will be done with it's contents?

1. There are two main purposes for the fund:
a) To allow individual investors the opportunity to have an impact in the ICO market without having to sacrifice diversity of risk. To expand on this, often times investors in this market don't have enough money to both make a significant impact on the project they're trying to help fund and also diversify their holdings, forcing a choice between impact and diversification.

Using the word ïmpact"here is a little bit vague. What sort of impact are you meaning?

Quote

b) To provide a single large funding base for projects and individual developers in this space.

How is the centralisation of this a positive? Surely a distributed funding base is better

Quote

2. The holdings of the fund, initially, will be wholly comprised of tokens issued through pre-ICO sale or ICO of Ethereum-based products. In the future, the fund may expand to provide funding for things in the broader cryptocurrency/blockchain markets.

ok

Quote

3. This will be up to the clients of the fund, but ideally clients would vote to fund projects at an early stage with the intention of either realizing a return at some point down the road or creating a sustained funding relationship with a certain project.

An interesting experiment, but I don't think it is better. It is easier to turn around a surfboard that an ocean liner.

There are some projects in life where I would see banding together as advantageous, but, for myself, I can't see much of an advantage this time, though I might be missing something certainly.

Mind you I'd be very interested to see how the voting goes in such things if you do get funds. Will it be transparent enough for anyone to see how voting is going on proposals?

The benefit seems to be this impact, but how is this impact, going to be advantageous?

When I say 'impact', I mean something like this:
A project is trying to raise $10,000,000. They have no minimum contribution limit, as is typically the case with an Ethereum crowd-sale. So, in the grand scheme of things, any contribution <$10,000 or so will be next to meaningless for the project. The issue here is that most people don't have $10,000+ that they can just put into some project - but even with this limited capital, people still genuinely desire to help the project succeed. A fix to this on a single scenario basis would be for people with limited capital to band together and invest in the project with their pooled funds, on a continuous basis the solution would be something like a decentralized fund.

The centralization of the market's funding base is a good thing because it helps unify the standards of the community. As it stands now, everyone has their own individual standards and does their own due diligence on projects. A consequence of this is a higher prevalence of scams, because there is no agreed upon minimum standards for a project to meet before people invest.

Traditional markets largely solve this problem by setting a super high bar for companies to meet before they can go public. And, as a result, being listed on something like the S&P 500 provides a big stamp of legitimacy. Ideally, a large funding entity in this space, i.e. Vega Fund, could do the same thing by having some unified standards that, once the fund is big enough, projects in the market genuinely desire to meet because they want to be held by Vega, both for the money and the stamp of legitimacy.

As someone who is deeply interested by both new fintech on blockchain and traditional finance, I can understand why you don't see it as advantageous to band together in this scenario. I had the same feeling at first, but after coming to interact with the community both in person and on forums, I think people really like the idea of pooling their money and funding projects as a community.

As for the voting, yes, it will be able to be seen as it's happening.