I followed and invested in Scharmbeck which is now in testing. It provides WDC/Fiat. They raised money by giving out shares in the company.
If AGS fund is used for this initiative, we should get shares in the company.
Which is what we intend to do. 20% of the profits (same as with a new DAC where 20% are given to PTS/AGS owners) will be put in a DAC Development Fund. The fund will be controlled by 1 Invictus member and 1 trusted community member.
I was talking about a more direct stake at the individual level.
If we are doing a fundraiser with several companies (or a few individuals) that is very possible. But how will we accomplish this (without Invictus directly representing AGS investors) when most of the investors of the AGS fund are not clearly identified or willing to be identified? As a stakeholder you are required to sign all the required papers and eventually go to board-meetings/vote in decision.
I much rather prefer the 20% DAC Development Fund and perks (e.g. no trading fees, rewards, contests, bounties) and delegate part of the decision power to the community in a transparent and open way. Else our supposed agility and flexibility will be crippled by unnecessary formality and bureaucracy.
How exactly did Scharmbeck handle the fundraiser? I know that no Kickstarter company has ever handed over shares, instead they focused on compensating investors through gifts or privileges. That is what we want to do as well.
But I am definitely open for ideas and if a few individuals want to invest in this and join the company please approach me.
This is a complicated issue to decide on. My suggestion would be to tell everyone what the explicit (empirically countable) benefits will be and how much that would cost:
For example: Setting up a fiat - PTS exchange: Costs 100.000 USD acquired by the BTC raised through AGS. Benefits: x % of Dividends (see silent partner model below) in the company for AGS holders. The x depends on how much VC Funding is raised compared to the initial investment of I3/AGS. Additional benefit: Rise in PTS price by an assumed xy.
Goal 2: Costs, benefits....
Goal 3: ...
A general advice is: Develop a core business model: Pain -> Solution + address Scalability + address Costs/Benefits.
There are a lot of problems you address with your set of solutions. Adding complexity is adding insecurity and makes it harder for people here to decide. It might make sense to separate the goals a bit and say how much money is needed for the first one of which we can be sure that it will be achieved. Explicitly say how much money you want from the community for this and how much money comes from 3rd Party investors and how that will effect the benefits for the community. This means I think every single one of your goals is legitimate and really worth following. The questions is just whether this is the most cost effective way? Doing nothing about the goals you promoted on the long term would be the worst though.
You could choose a silent partner structure which gives investors a right for dividends but no right to vote (at least that is possible in Germany).
Given the silent partner model. I see a bit of an issue with only giving AGS holders a stake in your company. Because PTS holders paid the price with a 40+% percent price drop by the creation of AGS. Only honoring AGS holders would ignore this and let the price drop further (until the PTS/USD exchange works)!
This means work out everything more explicitly.
Where do the other 80% go (you talked about a 20% fund....)?
This sounds like a lot of critique. But is its not. There will surely be a first PTS/Bitshares (sorry BEXshare would that be right here?) Exchange and we will need it. See it as a refinement of your idea. I like and appreciate the way you approach it!! Thanks for your contribution to the community!
Show Posts
for big picture and thinking globally
But there must be some hard fact like when the difficulty increases or something...
