Quote from: TraditionalScience on May 18, 2018, 01:10:34 AM

Quote from: tempus on May 17, 2018, 11:44:23 PM

...cut...

The revenue share model is based on the revenue generated by the platform (in USD). This amount of USD is purely dependent on the performance of the platform not the rate of CCC. These USD will be exchanged to ETH which again will be used to buy CCCs in market (using the "reverse Dutch auction"). If the market price should be low more CCC token will be bought and distributed. I.e. a high market price = more money to the sellers and fewer tokens to distribute whereas a lower market price = less money to the sellers and more CCCs to the hodl'ers.

Thanks for the quick reply! It's an interesting model for sure. But what I see as kind of weak is that additional functionality, which may make the token more attractive is not described yet, but it's said:

C. Future utilities of CCC
On top of the current utility of CCC we have a couple of additional innovative ideas
and concepts where we can see the possibility to open up and use the CCC for certain functions on the GSCP platform and thus enabling CCC owners to actively be able to get more value for their CCC. We have more concepts in the pipe-line but cannot publish these in detail at this early stage, simply because we do not want others to copy them before we have had the time to finish the development and are ready to implement them in the GSCP system.

WP: 30 & 31

Problem in my opinion is the combination of what it is, what it is not, and also important: Time-factor. If we focus on purpose and incentive of the token, there is nothing else than receiving dividends and that is years away. Even if estimated very optimistic, that the revenue would go through the roof in some years, it would still be a long way to go and in my opinion it still wouldn't be likely to see a significantly rising price in short- or mid-term, because at some point it wouldn't make any sense to pay more money to get the "same" dividend. Considered the estimations for the next years, I believe that limit may already be reached at the current price.

Since the token is no real stock, it doesn't represent ownership, it also will not be possible to interpret progress like "the company is probably much more worth now, so the token-value should rise". One can say: The more and the better the progress, the more likely a higher revenue and a higher dividend-payout as a result. But that estimation only makes sense if the token price isn't too expensive. With other words: Incentives for a positive market-dynamic are missing in my opinion.

What I mean becomes clear if compared to Tesla: That company burns so much money, is a high risk, but the value of shares is very high because market participants kind of "bet" on the value of the company - probably because it's very innovative/progressive. If Tesla-Investors would only think about dividends this psychological momentum for the market would be missing. In this project I see the psychological momentum as missing, because receiving dividends in some years (and still not that much if the estimations should turn out as correct in tendency) is not enough while it would even be contradicted by a rising price. That's the major part in my opinion.

And since the token is a security token (although it does not represent ownership) it could even be a problem to get it listed on the bigger exchanges. Until now that is still a regulatory problem for many, what may lead to a lack of liquidity and volume. And there could even be a problem for the project itself. In a worst case scenario it would not need that many sellers to push the price down significantly with low volume - and of course that would lead into the scenario that many other ICO-Investors, maybe even a majority, would want to sell their tokens back to the company. The market maker fund will hold 45% of the raised funds to cover potential paybacks - that may even turn out to be as not enough while it wouldn't make sense to lock more money since it's purpose is to be used in favor of the project of course. That buy-back-model is interesting, it involves some psychological momentum as "floor-support", but if it should be traded at low volume and with low liquidity, the market could dry up especially because of the long time frames until the only real incentive may kick in: Dividends.