Quote from: HinnomTX on January 28, 2014, 12:07:44 AM

+1
They need to have a small pre-mine for funding, then let the market decide the merchantability of the platform. This aligns their interests with ours. I want the developers to be hungry to succeed for the long haul.
The way the launch is structured, crafted by ex-GS banksters, should alert everyone that we are reaching peak greed and are being played for fools vis a vis the Nasdaq in 1999. Don't be a desperate investor here. You are not gaining any insider advantage by investing at this time. I am certain there will opportunities after launch to put money to work more efficiently than at IPO time.

I must say I'm starting to lean towards this opinion. While the potential of Turing compete blockchain is enormous, the purposed IPO is a direct contrast to how other 2nd gen cryptos have launched:

MasterCoin - JR put 1500 of his own BTC (granted it was into his own address, but he donated them in exchange for MSC, which could be worthless for all we know)

Nxt - despite the suddenly cut IPO and questionable inflation following, the founder both donated himself and asked for a small and reasonable sum to start with

XCP - the devs went as far as being the first to burn their own BTC (without any promise someone will follow), and never tried to actually raise funds directly, besides donations address

I don't really know how eMu conducted to this point in time, but it's pretty obvious they haven't requested ton of funding upfront, otherwise it would be hailed across all topics as yet another proof of their "scammy" nature.

Hope the devs come with an improved proposal for their both and the community, before the launch.[/list][/list]