Return to investors is from
1- dividend earnings
2- increase in the asset price
Your calculations make sense for revenue sharing, but expected asset appreciation MUST be lower now as there are more shares, but the same sized pie. Your future earnings have not changed, and future asset price will be based on expected future earnings.
Future asset appreciation will now be lower. That is common sense.
The pie is increased from 25% to 35% so any valuation of the asset would also be increased by 40%
However, I can understand how maybe some people might not like this, so I will buyback anybody's EVOLVE assets for anybody that purchased before 9/13/2014 00:14:19, which is when the first batch sold out.
I was not directly involved in either of these assets, but I dont want anybody to feel they got diluted by what Chris did. He just wanted more people to get his asset and lowered his share of revenues to accomodate.
So if you are unhappy about this, please PM your txid for EVOLVE that your purchased before it sold out. I will personally refund what you paid in exchange for the EVOLVE assets so you wont suffer from any perceived dilution.
My offer is good for 24 hours.
James
Thanks for the offer James, but I'm good, for my small investment!
On principle I always feel better when the business I'm investing in is delaying present returns for increased future returns. It's a bit like the delayed gratification marshmallow test psychologists do on kids (one marshmallow now, or two if you can wait 15 minutes). Most toddlers prefer one now and can't wait, but once kids get to about 4-5 many can make a rational decision that delayed gratification for 15 minutes doubles their return.
My first impression was the EVOLVE guys were choosing to cash out 10% of all future profits from their business for another 240K NXT of immediate gratification, which looked like a bad move for someone digging in for the long haul. If that decision was truly motivated by a desire to let more latecomers get the initial price, then that's a different story then, and I accept that.
Actually, coinevolve is able to operate at 37.5% of revenues and offered me the same percentage, but I felt it was too much to accept for a long term stable deal. In business I find it is best to make sure the deal is balanced, even if the imbalance is in my favor. Otherwise in time this imbalance will create stress and even conflict, thus it is better to start out with a long term sustainable deal. Maximizing profits at every step is not the best way to maximize the long term results. It is important to make sure that all your business partners are doing well. A marketing/advertising budget of 25% is healthy but not too high, especially on the basis of conversions. At 37.5%, well, this is on the high side.
So there was 12.5% extra revenue available and when people started complaining, Chris wanted to make them happy and didnt realize the confusion that could happen. It must be noted that Chris could have easily sold the 400000 additional assets at 1.2 NXT or even higher as that was the market price at the time, but he put it on the market to match the original 0.6 NXT per asset. How many people do you know that would just give 240K NXT (~$10K USD) to investors? Actions speak louder than words.
Assets are not as easy as it looks and it is easy to not know of all possible repurcussions. The sellout of a million assets in less than 2 hours was quite unexpected, especially as I was not making a specific recommendation for it.
Anyway, all is well now. Now Chris has enough capital to keep improving the websites and probably will be an active user of his own jobs site!
James