I really like this concept, but I do have one bone of contention. Why are you destroying any unsold ICO coins? This is a tactic that favors miners over early investors (and crypto ICO's reputations are already in tough shape). The price is already pretty darned high with ENVY valued at around $750,000. Now, I realize that market cap is less relevant than most coins in that your plan involves an NAV. Still, market psychology wise, it matters.
Early investors are who should matter in the case of an ICO (or one shouldn't have one).Let's put aside the fact that most miners are nothing but vultures picking at the coin until the "meat" is consumed and quickly moving on to the next coin. Let's even pretend they are mostly angels, just looking to provide a nice service so that everyone can succeed. They still are being favored here as they will know if the coin is good to go, how much enthusiasm has been generated by the ICO, and even the market price for it on Bittrex.
They have nearly zero risk and yet are being put on the same footing (or better) as people risking their BTC upfront. Any unsold coins should go to early investors for two reasons. First, it gives one an incentive to buy the ICO as it may result in getting more coins for the same investment. Secondly, it gets the ball rolling as far as enthusiasm is concerned. So, even if the early investors did not get "extra" shares, they are still happy in that the ICO sold out and demonstrated some initial excitement (and demand) for the coin.
Yes, yes, I know -- less outstanding coins mean "we all win". The trouble with that argument is that it is a miner's argument. No early investor would prefer less coins -- not one! And there is a good reason for that in that it would be stupid to argue for less coins for less float. Now, if ICO investors were buying 100% of the float, that is a different matter entirely, but that is not the case with your ICO.
I like ICOs and am a regular investor, and as I say, your coin idea seems terrific to me. But, there is a fairness gap and I wanted to point it out.
Still, best of luck to you!
The reason we are destroying them is because they are all mined and we have limited options. If we were to allow trading to begin and not destroy the market would fear we would dump all remaining coins as a money grab. But if a destroy them they will be out of circulation creating a rarer coin. Obviously this is not what we want but it is the better of two evils. And on the comment about the price. We will roughly $400k market cap after the ICO of we sell. The price was chosen because we needed enough financing to buy an amount of Hashlets that would make a difference. We went 50 million coins because it brought the price per coin in a range small investors could grab a descent amount of coins. If we sell out there will only be 3.67 million new coins over the next year and then roughly 2.5 million the remaining years. This means that the people that paid for their coins will far outweigh those who mined it. 14,400 coins will be mined per day. Which at current ICO rate is .28 BTC per day. This is a pretty small amount for a coin that would have a $400k market cap. And we run the risk that it will not be attractive to miners thus the network will not be secure. I just ran the new numbers since BTC has tanked and it does hurt the time to make back your coins by just holding it now has moved from 70 days when the price was 430 and it now is 114. But what other coin can say even if the price of the coin tanks you can hold it and you will make your money back? We can say this. Something that will greatly effect it is the price of BTC when we buy the hashlets and how many people buy the ICO.