Quote from: Miiike on February 28, 2021, 02:22:30 PM

Quote from: Boopsy on February 28, 2021, 05:30:45 AM

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

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?

Perhaps I am reading it wrong, but if I am right and you are indeed trying to associate yourself with those projects, I'll have to once again say you are not like them. Let's say that even a project allocate 30% of their token for team, these sums of fund are distributed and held by several people. As for your case, the entire 20% are for yourself. And worse, you've state that it is your right (rather smug, if I may give my personal opinion). The implication is, you held major portion of the token and you could easily sway the price to one side or simply destroy the entire price by selling them (i.e.: rug pull). Now tell me if you want to invest on a project that one specific person can manipulate its price at will?

I am not against the idea of a team have 20% (or more) allocation), it can be good thing because if it is utilized correctly, it can help project's future in form of persuading the team to work harder because the amount of money they earned (in fiat and banknotes) is tightly tied to token's price. But those token are released gradually, in stages, some even perhaps applies the model of monthly paycheck, and split to several people that'll minimize token centralization. What I don't see will work is someone (someone, not some people) granted such large control over token (and by it, its price).

About investing, farming, and staking, aren't the ultimate goal of those actions to gain more numbers on someone's holding/portfolio/balances? Thus, profit?

And no, the point I tried to propose here is not how it's quite unconventional to not doing presale, roadmap, etc. I don't even know what part of my long posts gave this impression. I think what I tried to say is quite clear, as I've repeated them several times. Departing from this, if I have to answer, then I think the first question should not be "how?" but rather "how much?"

Never meant to come across smug - just said we built a completed project and and the team is keeping 20%! I can totally understand why some people won't like that, which is fine too, its all good!

Overall it sounds like you are fine then with the distribution model, you just don't like the fact that the team is keeping 20%, especially since it is a small team. No problem, that is a perfectly fine stance to have. Cheers.