Quote from: alphaomega23 on July 01, 2017, 11:17:32 PM

This sort of dilemma won't occur in the future, because a sale like this in the future will take place on Agoras itself, with the rules encoded unambiguosly in a smart contract. We like the idea of smart contracts because it takes human judgement -- which can be swayed by the news and crazy movements on Bittrex -- out of the picture, and is just...fair.

Ohad, it is clear you want to be fair, and look at the big picture and what's best for the project. But I think being moved by what you see happening in the market and second-guessing your original offer is ultimately unfair, mostly to members of this community.

There is concern about fairness to people who bought on Bittrex for a higher price. But if these people lose out, it is *unfortunate*, but not *unfair*. An properly-run exchange is inherently fair. You offer to sell at a price, I offer to buy, we exchange funds as agreed. As long as the rules of the exchange are honored, fair is fair.

What is unfair is if rules are set, and then not respected, at the gain of one and loss of the other.

Keep in mind also that prices on the market could fall tomorrow to $.20. If that happens, not honoring the contract would be incredibly unfair to those who purchase from you at $.66c.

No matter what you decide, and no matter what the market does, there will be winners and losers. But if the original price is not respected for those of us who tentatively purchased in June, the losers will be people like me that have actually been following this project, and scrambled to get some Bitcoin together so they could buy in bulk directly from you in June before the deadline July 1, only to see the rules changed. So it will be unfair *and* mostly hurt people on this forum.

Who would the winners be? You could argue that existing token holders (which I am) will benefit because by raising the price for this tentative sale, we reduce the # of tokens sold (since there is a fixed # of bitcoin sent to the tentative sale address), and therefore reduce supply and put upward pressure on the market price.

But I think this is doubly wrong, if you really think about it. It's an attempt to manipulate the market and raise the price by not honoring the purchase terms originally offered. Plus it probably won't work. It will result in ultimately a very small # of tokens compared to the total supply, so the affect on the market will probably be minimal.

I think the most fair thing for you to do is totally ignore the market, and try to emulate a smart contract.

The more I think about it the more I think there is a need to honour the June spreadsheet prices AND have a lock up, especially for the "tentative" sale. Disclaimer, I contributed to the "tentative" sale and bought some on market, at a loss currently.

The reason is that any price that Ohad mentions here will risk dropping the price on Bittrex. I wouldn't have a problem with that per se, I'm in for the long haul, except that buying on market (which is rational if the price is at or below the direct price) delivers cash to a trader, not to Ohad or the Tau project. Very bad for everyone, except perhaps short term traders!

If you lock up the coins though, there will hopefully (although not guaranteed) be a period where the Bittrex price should trade above the direct sale price, because the Bittrex AGRS are unncumbered, thus making it easy and rational for those of us who are fine to forego near term liquidity on Bittrex and buy at a cheaper (though less liquid) price directly.

So - I propose a one month lock up with June prices and suggest Ohad set a date in clear UTC time by which we give him a YES / NO decision on clear price, lock up time, and supply available terms after which the decision is irreversible and if he doesn't hear back he refunds the contribution.

Allocation % of supply can fluctuate (not price per AGRS tho) depending on final decisions received by the cut off date. But to do this we need clarity as to what total supply is available for the tentative sale.

Thoughts?