Quote from: kingbtcvl on April 01, 2014, 04:35:47 PM

Quote from: eXo_coin on March 31, 2014, 11:24:10 PM

You might [...]

@exo_coin:

thanks for your answer.
we obviously have some different opinions concerning the definition of the investement risk as you only think in terms of fiat whereas i prefer to think in terms of btc exclusively like most people in cryptocurrencies do like this guy for example:

Quote from: mikesbmw on March 31, 2014, 02:07:42 PM

Okay, enough with the early-bird vs. second-round "investors".

I am one of the early-birds and don't care if BTC has become 50% less valuable.
Would you also complain if BTC had risen to $1400 and second-stagers had to pay double (in fiat!) for a stake?

Stop being so selfish.

It's a stake in BTC, so stop converting to fiat. BTC = BTC.
Tough luck and shit happens Wink

nevertheless your answer has made me unterstand your point of view concerning my first question now and thats all i wanted. however you don't really refer to my second questions or at least i can't see it yet. i would be happy if you could make your point clear here in the same matter as for my first question. so once again:
why do you insist on the upper cap for the second stage instead of using the formula

Code:

(1.67 * early bird investment + second stage investment)/(1.67 * all early bird investments + all second stage investments) * 42000000,

which gets rid of the upper cap, but sill yields a 67% advantage for early birds?
i mean the 67% are the upper bound for the advantage for the early birds in case that 230 btc will be reached, but you have also announced that you will correct the distribution for the benefit of the early birds if too few people invest in the second stage. so to ask that questions differently what is supposed to be the advantage of the upper cap of 230 btc?

What's the advantage of the formula instead of the upper cap?