Quote from: Miiike on February 27, 2021, 12:44:55 PM

Quote from: Boopsy on February 27, 2021, 03:53:21 AM

Quote from: Miiike on February 26, 2021, 05:54:17 PM

If I may beg to differ, I think most people actually invest on projects in hope that it'll bloom and bring profits, not merely done. There are examples of projects that offered themselves while they are done and completed, a finished products, etc. and it still didn't guarantee the dev won't do rug pull. And that's the case where the project is backed by a team of people, not one person whose decision is ultimate and stated upfront that he can do whatever he wished with the funds because it is his "right".

And, actually this is the first time I heard a project keep 80% of the funds to themselves and only distribute 20%. Can you please mention some examples of projects with this tokenomy?

Sure.

Ampleforth: https://medium.com/ampleforth/ampleforth-ieo-and-token-distribution-transparency-report-d7b632bbc838
Ecosystem: 23.2%, Team/Advisors: 25%, Treasury: 20%.
Total = 68.2% (this doesn't count the 21.8% given to seed investors and series A. With that, the total is 90%)

XRP: https://www.reddit.com/r/Ripple/comments/7pr341/xrp_distribution/
"So it’s safe to say that even after a bit of trickle sales of the co-founders, less than 20 billion XRP (20%) is owned by other people than the aforementioned. And included in this 20 billion XRP are also institutions, banks and charities that have made a business development agreement with Ripple Labs in the past."

Stellar Lumens: https://www.stellar.org/lumens
"Nearly 20 billion lumens are out in the open market, and the Stellar Development Foundation retains the other 30 billion or so to develop and promote Stellar, per its mandate" (60%)

Polkadot: https://icodrops.com/polkadot/
"Available for Token Sale: 50%"

Lend (predecessor to Aave): https://medium.com/lendefi/lendefi-the-tokenomics-d6da40ba0716
Marketing:12.5%, Partners: 10%, Adoption: 10%, Team: 10%, Advisors: 5%, Reserve: 15% = 62.5%
When they migrated to Aave, they gave themselves another 18.75%. Total = 62.5 + 18.75 = 81.25% (https://insights.glassnode.com/aave-token-analysis-migration-staking/)

The Graph (https://thegraph.com/blog/announcing-the-graphs-grt-sale)
"Initial Total Token Supply: 10,000,000,000 GRT"
"Initial Circulating Token Supply: ~1,245,666,867 GRT"
"Amount for sale: 400,000,000 preGRT (Converting to 400,000,000 GRT)"
If we use circulating supply, 400/1245 = 32% for sale. (68% not for sale)

It is actually hard to find an example where more than 20 or 30% of tokens were distributed to holders. Cardano looks okay with keeping only about 33% of the supply. (https://cardano.org/genesis/)

Oh sorry, I thought you said "over half of the tokens themselves"? In a way that can be translated as a situation where the team keep more than half of the tokenomic to themselves (i.e.: the team)? I can see that none of the example you give allocate more than half for team benefit. With exception to XRP as I can't find their tokenomy walking freely on google, most of those "kept" token are allocated for marketing, development, or escrowed for future release.

Ampleforth, for example, only allocate 25% for team, and a quick surfing tell me the team consisted of 7 people. Stellar, well, their tokenomy is quite detailed, and to sum it up, I see none that said more than 50% are reserved for team. Polkadot has 30% allocated for undisclosed foundation activities that's shared with budget for immediate use of network development. Lend, as you said yourself, 10% for the team, and as I happen to be the one translated their WP long time ago, I knew team were made from bunch of people. The graph, 23%.

But let's cut the chase, I am led to believe that what your tried to point out is how your tokenomy model is not so different from other projects out there, so perhaps the question should be asked is: please show me a project that allocate 20% of their total token to one individual of the team, that state he is allowed to use the fund whatever he sees fit because it is his right and no promise is made to develop the project in the future.

Also, please share your thought for the earlier paragraph of my previous post

You are absolutely right, I don't disagree with you. Thank you for asking good questions.

I should have been more precise with my words - most projects tend to allocate about 20% to the team, and in the examples above, usually even more then that for other various activities that don't include distributing to holders. For the typical 20% team allocation, I see it as a good thing because the team has skin in the game and wants to make the project succeed. I can see why some people would disagree with that though.

You're right about investing in projects - some are (semi) completed and people are waiting for it to become profitable. Some are also just in the ideation stage so I think you can argue they are hoping fort the project to be completed *and* then become profitable. I'm not sure every token or project is necessarily built to earn profits. Usually we see this with DeFi projects that do staking/yield farming. Some are just tokens that do interesting things (like AMPL, HEX, etc).

In any case I see your point, not trying to split hairs! Your points are all valid! It is a bit unconventional to not do seed investments, pre-sales, roadmaps, etc. Also - I am the main contributor but not the only one

We are open to ideas - how should the tokens be distributed in your opinion?