Quote from: BitSlapper on July 01, 2014, 01:10:47 PM

3. Give said users a 100% pre-mined coin.

4. Try to make a Kickstarter website that only uses this new SWARM coin and hope the crypto community uses it, because no one else will.

So this isn't true or applicable?

Correct.

Quote from: BitSlapper on July 01, 2014, 01:10:47 PM

What about this?

6. The funded user gets the majority of the SWARM coin but that's all.

7. The funded user DUMPS all of their SWARM on the first exchange they can find to fund the project, crippling the SWARM price on the market.

Also not applicable. People will not be taking funds primarily in SWARM.

Quote from: BitSlapper on July 01, 2014, 01:10:47 PM

How is someone supposed to fund their project or business on SWARM alone?

They aren't.

Quote from: BitSlapper on July 01, 2014, 01:10:47 PM

Without dumping all of their newly obtained SWARM coins in exchange for BTC which can actually be exchanged for cash then how exactly are they supposed to move forward with their plans?

If it's the case that they don't actually need BTC or FIAT to fund a business or project and they will only need SWARM then why don't you just use SWARM to fund the SWARM site?

This would indeed be idiotic and we wouldn't do this to anyone... even ourselves.

Quote from: BitSlapper on July 01, 2014, 01:10:47 PM

I may have been a little harsh and somewhat sarcastic in the list of items I proposed but that doesn't make them irrelevant.

Simply ignoring the rest of the items because you don't want to answer how a system like yours actually raises a value of a coin rather than causes massive dumping every time a project or business is funded doesn't make them "not applicable".

It's really not applicable because SWARM is not the primary token for actually executing the crowdsale, that will be Bitcoin and/or fiat. SWARM grants other privileges that are detailed in our manifesto.

Quote

If you weren't asking for such a ridiculous amount of money to begin with then maybe I could give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just didn't think this idea fully through before proposing it to potential investors.

I actually agree that for a normal startup this would be a ridiculous amount of money, but compared with setting up a VC fund it's quite small. VC funds start at $50mm or so and even $50mm would be small.

Now I'm entirely sympathetic to the viewpoint that we shouldn't be attempting to fund startups but simply providing the infrastructure. The more I've gotten involved with this the more I'm convinced that the overhead of managing that process is not desirable at present given the immediate technical needs and already complex legal space.

That said, this was our original model and our fundraiser was structured around those goals.

Quote

Don't ignore valid concerns raised, that is a clear sign of a scam. Every scam that has come through this forum uses the "No one is forced to invest" line instead of answering glaring problems.

I actually think all of your concerns were and are completely valid, it's just that you misunderstood the value of SWARM and this caused other mistaken conclusions.

As for the funding goals, I actually wish in retrospect we set a smaller target that we could meet quickly and get back to my preferred business of product development. That said, we picked our number based on the early advice of Bitangels/DApp fund/etc. and we are stuck with that particular number.

The best I can do at this point is make sure we manage the funds received responsibly and deliver on our pledge to deliver an amazing product on schedule.

Of course, we do have an active proposal to cap the amount at a certain smaller amount.