Quote from: One Man Band on July 05, 2017, 08:54:28 PM

30/50% to the founders? Shocked

that is going to put investors off straight away.

the lower your rake, the more investors will trust you as they'll see its not a smash-and-grab.

try 10%? you'll still be loaded if it's a success.

Maybe, or maybe not. It could be interpreted that it's a pump and dump scheme, but we plan on releasing the coins to the team in a staggered manner, over the course of a year or more. This way you canot do a smash-and-grab. And an investor who sees this will think that the business is sound, since we are keeping so much of it for ourselves.

Quote from: klarki on July 05, 2017, 09:01:18 PM

Why did you choose ICO?

Because the business has a lot to do with cryptocurrencies, it is at the core of our business. And because we wanted to get help from the community with the development of the product since it will be intrinsically linked.

Quote from: bathrobehero on July 05, 2017, 10:14:11 PM

Then don't handicap it with a silly ICO.

If you and your team can't trust your project enough to throw your own money into it and fund it then how are you expecting others to trust it enough to give you money?

And if you and your team are not able to fund it, then maybe not start a project that is above your heads or try find investors without giving them premined coins.

No crypto is decentralized - therefore becomes useless - if some people have control over a significant amount of the supply.

Fund your project without ICO/premine and get coins like everyone else by mining or whatever fair method you intend to initially distribute the coins.

We trust our project and we already thrown a lot of money at it, but it's not enough to take it to the next stage. We thought about using the classical routes to receive investments but as I said, the project is intrinsically linked with cryptocurrencies and we want to let others be a part of this.

Also, the purpose of the token is not to be used as a transaction coin, so technically they are not premined and they will never be mined. It's purpose is to fund our project and insure that the persons who backed it up will receive future income from their investment based on a smart contract. This way the payments are trustless and even if we retain 50%+ of the coins, this will not affect the distribution of income in the future. So the purpose of the token is not to be decentralized.

Quote from: ranih on July 06, 2017, 12:14:21 AM

One of the basic ideas of blockchain is that you don't control the token. Owning 50% contradicts that (and it's also greedy in my opinion).

I think the main ideas of the blockchain is to ensure and prove ownership. The token is not a coin with it's own blockchain. Then your critic would have been valid and keeping a majority stake in it would defeat it's purpose. Instead, you can think of the token as an investment vehicle, that entitle the owner of the to receive future revenue streams from this business.

And being greedy is good. It shows that we have faith in the product and want to keep it to ourselves, not just dump coins on the market and leave with the funds we raise.