Guys, stop with the
ad hominem attacks. No need to bring in other projects or PoB into this discussion. Though PoB offers certain trust advantages when it comes to migrating from an existing cryptocurrency chain, it is by no means necessary as a means to establish trust in an IPO funding scheme. (In any case, Ethereum will be dependent in BTC at least initially, because, well, the buy-in is in BTC. Duh. Gradually as mining is established, I believe it is the dev's intention to move away from that dependency). Also, a distinction has to be made between a initial PoB buyin (ala XCP) vs. a continuous PoB scheme (ala
Iain Stewart); vitalik's comments addressed the latter.
However, the community as a whole would appreciate more details w.r.t. how the "holding entity" is structured, and who exactly controls it. I assume that these details will be forthcoming. Specifically more clarity on:
We will likely use 3-of-5 multisig to hold our funds. We will be the first cryptocurrency fundraiser that we know of whose exodus address actually has a 3 at the beginning.
is welcome.
The maximum number of coins is also irrelevant (aside from technical reasons), particularly as mining output scales linearily with the amount of the initial stake. Does it matter if bitcoin has 21,000,000 or 21,000,000,000 coins, if everything is scaled up similarily?