Quote from: JCBAHY on February 19, 2018, 03:33:31 PM

Quote from: MichaelMeu on February 19, 2018, 02:42:38 PM

@JCBAHY

The token metrics for this sale does not make sense.

A hardcap of $20,000,000 with
available tokens for sale = 1,500,000,000
1ETH = 6,000 Force

So assuming ETH = say $950 (easy for rounding and close to current price)

Therefore token price =

$950/6000

= $0.158

So to get hardcap, multiply that by the number of tokens for sale, 1,500,000,000,

Then hardcap = 1,500,000,000,* $0.158

Which equals around $237,000,000 dollars - as opposed to $23,700,000 which is essentially your $20m hardcap advertised with the extra 3.7m discrepancy due to the eth price I chose.

Token sale figures taken directly from your website. So either a) you have an extra 0 in token supply or b) your hardcap is 10x as much as you advertise it to be.

Which is it?

Hi Michael,

Thats a great question and point you have raised there.

There are many factors that have come into play which has effected this. For starters, when we first decided upon our hard cap, which is fixed to the price of ETH, the value of ETH was much lower. Our hard cap should really be set against a fixed amount of ETH, however we have already changed our hard cap twice and we want to refrain from consistently changing things and causing confusion.

Another reason for our hard cap being much lower than what you suggested above, is due to the community and there response. We originally set our hard cap to $60m. Since then we have had the community state that we should lower our hard cap.

The purpose of the hard cap is to stop an ICO from raising more than it needs. Our goal is $20m and therefore we have set our hard cap at $20m. Taking more than that would be greedy and unnecessary. We are here to empower the community with our technology, not take from them. We have a solid four plan which we have reviewed multiple times with many of our advisors who come from strong business backgrounds, from which we have strategically planned so that $20m covers the project for 4 years.

Due to us deciding upon the total supply back in 2017, this has also had an effect and therefore is the reason why we will be left with some many extra tokens. However, our smart contracts are designed to only mint the amount of FORCE that is purchased, meaning that if only 1m FORCE were bought, that would be all the FORCE that would exist. Rather than burning the rest of the supply, it makes more sense to only mint what is purchased. I hope that makes sense?

I understand that this may cause some confusion, but we are trying to balance between constantly changing things and causing confusion as well as getting things right. The way we see it is that, $20m is now our hard cap. That is what we need $20m to carry out our 4 year plan. Taking anymore than $20m would therefore be unnecessary.

So to answer your question, our hard cap is fixed at $20m. We will not take more than $20m. Whatever is minted, is final.

Thank you for raising this point, its a great question and I am sure it will help the rest of the community as well.

I hope I have answered your question? If there is any other questions you may have, I'd be happy to answer them.

~ Jake Ashby, General Manager TriForce Tokens

"Thats a great question and point you have raised there" yet no one sends me any merit Huh

In all seriousness now, thanks for your reply and that largely makes sense.

But let's just be clear:

1) of the 2,000,000,000 tokens, none have yet been minted I assume?

2) 1ETH will remain pegged to 6,000 tokens regardless then?

3) So only 25% of total supply of all tokens minted will not be sold rather than the fixed amount of 0.5bn?

4) If above is correct, then why not just change the token limits now? (which would not the price of the hardcap) Just update things saying 1ETH = 6,000tokens, link price of ETH to USD, and have total number of tokens automatically calculated? The current approach just seems a rather roundabout way of doing things in all honesty.

MichaelMeu

Posts

Merits