Quote from: msin on January 16, 2014, 02:38:17 AM

Quote from: SyRenity on January 16, 2014, 12:42:47 AM

Quote from: td services on January 15, 2014, 10:59:47 PM

It's been my experience that when people try to ignore or dodge around an issue, and accuse the person questioning them of trolling, that it's because it's the truth.

Sorry to other people reading this discussion as it's tangential to Etherium, but the opportunity arose to confront the person responsible.

It does highlight the importance of sticking with a plan in a funding round once it is announced. NXT has made an enemy where it didn't need to have one, and I will continue to discourage people from investing in it as I feel the situation shows a lack of integrity of the people managing the project. All they had to do was say, "we are closing investment, so if you want to invest you need to do so within 4 hours" (or some reasonable time frame). All they have to do at this point is admit to the real reason they closed investment early.

+1.
While the reasons to NXT genesis investors (who made on paper >1000 BTC out of investments of <1BTC) being so zealous are understandable, IMHO it still hurts the NXT in the long run. While it's an interesting technology, chances it will have a hard time competing against MSC, BTS, Ethereum (and other upcoming other 2nd gen platforms) with a much larger initial adoption base and much fairer distribution model, bringing similar features and capabilities into the play.

How is the pre-sale of a POW mined currency price at more than double current Nxt market price a fair distribution model? I wasn't a stakeholder in Nxt, but I bought right after launch when people were selling 1Mil Nxt for 1BTC. I thought to myself, "I could theoretically buy 1% of this currency, that will ever exist, for 10 BTC" to me that was a great risk but also a great deal. I've been trading BTC long enough to remember having about 15k BTC in my wallet in the early days, and to be honest, Nxt is the first alt coin I've ever owned, including LTC, which I always thought was a joke. The founder of Nxt only made 21BTC (1 of which was his) on the launch, sure the stakeholders were limited (73 total), but they were all like you and me, with zero affiliation with BCNext or Nxt. To me, Ethereal is a slave of ASIC Miners, with a ridiculously high IPO price and no interest earned like eMu, so who is being fair?

Quote from: extee on January 16, 2014, 04:35:11 AM

Quote from: td services on January 15, 2014, 10:28:38 PM

Funny, I can't seem to get anyone to admit that investment was ended ended early in NXT or cancelled in eMunie to prevent further dilution of existing investors, though it is obvious that this is the case.

nxt launch was a total mess......and so rushed to be the first 100% PoS to market....although it is potentially a damn good crypto.
emunie has not yet launched so it is unfair to make any conclusions. the IPO was only cancelled in reaction to the slander/trolling that went on in the past week which was absolutely vicious and so close to the public offering could have affected it in a very negative way. it is not to exclude that they could still do the IPO, maybe even after a period of open beta test. which would be the most fair way "try before buy "sort of model. at the monent though nothing has been decided....they are just concentrating on development and letting the videos do the talking (and i must say it' looks promising) .

about eThereum....not even sure why a PoW needs an IPO...in any case i'm over these "miners" coins...independently from the new hard memory mining method.....eventually they'll be asiced too... PoS coins have proved to be safe and stable without the need for miners...which already are starting to look as a menacing external presence in the bitcoin world.
we need coins that run simply from end users devices (self sustained)....and not reliant on external mining infrastructure.....PoS is the only way imo.

I'm looking at how the IPO is presented and handled. Is the information on price, quantity, distribution, schedule, capitalization limits, and future dilution clearly presented so an investor can make an informed decision? Does the issuer stick to the terms originally presented? If not, does the issuer give plenty of advanced notice of the planned change and allow investors and potential investors to adapt accordingly? Does the issuer try to give one impression by giving a deadline or capitalization limit while actually making funding close arbitrary and at his discretion with a phrase to the effect "issuer may choose to end the pre-sale early"?

eMunie may go on and eventually honor the original commitment to allow all investors to buy at the same price and quantities as beta testers. Fuseleer did say, however that that a pre-sale may offer currency in limited quantities sometime in the future. This is a major departure from previous plans and indicates a desire to limit further dilution of existing investment. This does not support the stated reason of cancelling the pre-sale due to forum trolls.

I'm not concerned with the actual price, quantity, duration, proportions awarded to different classes of stakeholders, or eventual total amount in circulation, as to what is fair. This is up to the individual project. Different people have different ideas of what is fair, with about 7 billion different versions of "fair" on the planet altogether. All I ask is that everyone have equal access to the information and the issuer follows through with his plan or gives plenty of notice and reasons for any change.

From what I know of Ethereum, this is their intent, and to allow for participation for all types of stakeholders.