If the project is really destined to make huge profit - then this huge profit goes to these of developers who HODL the coins. So it is not exactly like the salary, it is like an investment - the only difference is that investment comes in a form of skills and effort from dev.
Outstanding approach to a growing problem with ICO corruption and mismanagement of investor funds… I look forward to being a part of the development of any project following these concepts and will support any developer working hard on projects that will embed these ideals in concrete and eventually become a mainstream standard…
that’s a new perspective though. However, I don’t think this would change the commitment issue of the developer, which many projects face. I think the HODL model might actually dis-encourage challenging project to surface because the reward can’t be actualized until much later. I think the most attractive part of ICO is its abilities attract funding for early stage project to take more risks with its inventions, and DAICO might have the possibility to kill that and revert that to the salary based model at best.
Thank you! Really appreciate the support! We are actualizing our platform - and expect first projects to switch to that approach in around 1 month from now
Hello and thanks for the feedback.
I’m afraid ICOs doesn’t work for early stage projects anymore. It may worked half of a year ago, but right now - you have to spend too much money to do the marketing - money which really early stage startup doesn’t have. This ICO “craziness” - where advisers who just put a face on a website ask for 1% of total raise (so 10 advisers is 10%?), where sales commission of less than 10% is treated as very small, where ads costs are probably highest than any other industry - is a direct result of “reward can be actualized very quick”. This make this market to be too attractive for cheaters - and innovative startups just can’t compete with this.
Another problem arising from “quick reward actualization” - is that a lot of startups, with quite good idea initially, start to concentrate only on that reward. My estimation is that 50% of ICOs don’t really need blockchain, they just bring it in to help with the funding, and killing their product as a result (as blockchain features are not coming for free). I would even say that 20% of these ICOs can’t be just implemented if they will start to take the cost of transaction into account.
So to summarize - “quick reward actualization” is bad. It really help with Devs motivation to get that reward, but nothing else than this. This result in ICO market being somewhat scammy - and not so much interesting for these who really want to create cool new projects. Somehow this needs to be fixed.
Thank you for the thoughtful discussion.
I do agree with most of the points about the "instant gratification" society which leaves loopholes for “cheaters”. However the trend has been started since the beginning of tech industry, where money was raised by product selling in local trade conventions and investors, and then the said conventions change to become the showcase ground for early stage prototype and PoC. If this evolution indicates anything, it’s that the small-scale selling/profit generation doesn’t fit with the globalized commercial landscape we are having now, and it certainly calls issues towards the blockchain “evolution” when ownership of the technology distributes among different people.
To bring this idea further, I believe the iterative investment that mimics the series X investment strategy might work alongside open source git control such as github, and sparks further to the “remote work evolution” for the software dev, I still think it scares the potential individualized investor away as the they are more keen towards the instant grafitication trope than the DEV.
I think the whole ICO phenomenon is to stimulate the investors (especially individual ones) to take risk with more projects with a shorter turnaround period (especially with the coins on major exchanges). I honestly believe most of the DEV would be apposed to the ICO concept unless they want join the instant gratification trope asap.
just a quick reply, I do think self-regulated coin auditory could work if they are reputation based. Although I do have problem with the gamelike approach used by reddit, Quora, stackoverload alike, they are better than the ICObench’s approach which just mimics the same issues with the regulatory association: corruption. And your example just proves that.
Thanks you for your reply!
Agree with you. But the problem i see is that ICOs are becoming all about satisfying the demand from investors for “sell me cheaper on pre-pre-pre-preICO, list on as many exchanges as possible, generate as much hype as possible so i can sell quick”, rather than building the real innovation. It can be sustained for some time, especially when crypto is growing, but what next?
- Positive: Collapse and then ICOs returning in a better shape - as DAICO, Iterative Investment or whatever else would be invented.
- Negative: It will be/continue to be a casino with a “fundraising for the first ever block-chain something” signboard. Not necessary bad on its own, but for me it is highly doubtful this is good for the future of the crypto or innovation. Eventually regulators will shut it down.
The truth is probably somewhere in between and market forces will be helping to adjust - so i’m not negative in general, but i feel this is a problem which needs to be fixed, one way or another.
In general agree that this will be better than what we have now, but the problem is that all this can be also bought. Upvotes, likes, etc - everything is for sale when we are talking millions of dollars. It would be very hard to tackle this problem in a current ICO model.
Let me reply this as I think this could be hugely beneficial to the Ethereum community.
More people need to worry about the actual research than making money through lying and manipulation, am I right
I agree with the bold insertion, especially for Chinese investors. However, I do think the last crash on BTC and ETH has a detrimental effect on investors’ behaviors, and it could lead to self-regulatory invention such as DAICO. I do think its debatable whether your way is the best, but something could come from this. I don’t favor big government approach on regulating the ICO or the blockchain process, essentially giving up our freedom to people who have no clues on neither ICO nor blockchain. I want to utilize this as the self-regulation process that can lead to a better ICO practice, which can replace if not being the alternative to the IPO process as a way to raise money and awareness.
What can I say, everything is subject to hacking, I think a preselection and a posttracking phrase would be important, but overall a new model might need to be presented in order to improve the blockchain community.
Again, we at the same point here - if this crash is serious, then it is positive as it will cleanup the space. The question is what will happen when it will recover, is the lesson already learned or we are not quite there yet?
Again, agree - and this is what all we are trying to do there. Lets try to come out with more proposals!
Do you have a smart contract for a DAII that other teams can start to use? I’d rather not wait until your beta in July or your stable release in December to start a DAII.