Pre-Mine concerns

[barwizi]

All this was discussed in the open before the launch of the coin -
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=267522.msg3555889#msg3555889

Everyone was free to participate in MC1 and the discussion leading up to MC2.

If you own a time machine, yes everyone would have been free to participate. Fortunately or unfortunately, not everyone was around for Memorycoin 1. Had I not been part of PTS, I would not be here now.

That's beside the point. Another deflection.

Anyone's absence to memorycoin 1 and discussions is no excuse for what you did during memorycoin 2.  I don't remember reading that you planned on giving yourself over 20% or the entire pre-mine and then announce you will hold 2 positions that are voted in based on coin counts per address.  Yes, the voting we knew about, but the advantage you held over everyone, we did not know about. And we had to pry it out if you a month into the coin.


How did you figure contribution worth?
Why did you give multiple addresses your earned coin? Why not give all your earned coin to one address?  I can think of only one reason for this, you were trying to hide how much coin you were giving yourself.  Go ahead and correct me if I am wrong.

We could go on and on.

lol, please use that argument with BTC please, if you can make it work there i'll take you seriously.

[Empirical1]

To the person who said dev's get far less than they deserve - For the work and risk they take, absolutely. Also I believe a truly decentralised crypto-currency will really help mankind. FreeTrade has put some ideas in place that move Satoshi's vision in that direction, I honestly think FreeTrade can look in the mirror at night and be proud of the work he's done and is doing.

That doesn't change the problem that now exists, I'm only trying to bring it to your attention because I believe FreeTrade deserves more than what the situation he's put himself in will end up giving him.

Last attempt -

I don't care who got what and why in the pre-mine. I only care how it was perceived by the market.
Was it 'perceived' as transparent and fair? Because if it wasn't, I know new investors will stay well clear.

The memorycoin swtich over looks like it was done selectively

dilute anyone who wasn't voting, or just voting to share the grants out amongst the winning voters. So the fork rewarded people who were really engaged and trying to make the project work, but still kept balances for everyone.

You also did not disclose your pre-mine stake for ages, you tried to avoid & deflect it. 

Unfortunately, my conclusion is, no matter what responses you give now/try to justify it, I'm pretty certain the MemoryCoin2.0 launch is perceived by the market as having an unfair and un-transparent pre-mine. 

____________________________________________________________

If you don't understand how human psychology works, it's hard to help here, but I'll try.

1. Humans would rather lose money than support something where they feel someone has got an unfair/un-transparent share even if they deserve it!  (This is why being completely equitable and transparent if there's a pre-mine is so important.)
2. Case in point - You are a human too and you would also rather lose money then take a reduced share, even though the reduced share is FAR more valuable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-ougCMz7Nk

You're now living in the above Game-show.
Investors feels like you've taken A, when you should have taken B and you've been deceptive about it.
You feel like you've taken B when you actually deserved A and now people are trying to ask you to take C.

Unfortunately the result of this game-show is often the same, everybodies share ends up being worth 0. 

(To Newmine, you repeatedly say the same argument, you come across quite trollish.)

[bppsp1]

I have no issue if he outright earned the coins but whats been said is that he simply gave himself the coins and later when he got caught made it public.

The problem is that you shouldn't listen to "what's been said" and check the facts.
He didn't gave himself the coin out of thin air.
He got the coin from his mining of memorycoin 1.0 as every other miner did. (and Protoshare to, for more detail read my post : https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2124.msg26182#msg26182)
And this was described in the coin announcement in plain sight !

All the FUD around this is done buy a few people who want to grab the officer salary for themselves without contributing to the development of the coin, their last take was to ask FreeTrade to give his coin to them/everybody as a blessing for the coin...

All the FUD has done is drop the price off MMC very low. Let's take that on the positive side and say it will allow redistribution of the coin, and allow some clever investor to come in at a cheap price. But this has to stop as all the info is out right now and not much to discuss about any more.

Thanks this makes things alot clearer.

I was really under the impression he effectively premined the coins so yes you are right extreme FUD spread about this and thats the way its being portrayed.

My questions in this thread was to catch up with the real story in order to figure out for myself where I stand with regards to MMC and you cleared things up for me without having to go back through 100000 of threads just to come to the same conclusion.

Freetrade didn't just receive free coins, thats all I needed to know.

Thanks

[FreeTrade]

All this was discussed in the open before the launch of the coin -
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=267522.msg3555889#msg3555889

Everyone was free to participate in MC1 and the discussion leading up to MC2.

[SlyWax]

I have no issue if he outright earned the coins but whats been said is that he simply gave himself the coins and later when he got caught made it public.

The problem is that you shouldn't listen to "what's been said" and check the facts.
He didn't gave himself the coin out of thin air.
He got the coin from his mining of memorycoin 1.0 as every other miner did. (and Protoshare to, for more detail read my post : https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2124.msg26182#msg26182)
And this was described in the coin announcement in plain sight !

All the FUD around this is done buy a few people who want to grab the officer salary for themselves without contributing to the development of the coin, their last take was to ask FreeTrade to give his coin to them/everybody as a blessing for the coin...

All the FUD has done is drop the price off MMC very low. Let's take that on the positive side and say it will allow redistribution of the coin, and allow some clever investor to come in at a cheap price. But this has to stop as all the info is out right now and not much to discuss about any more.

[bppsp1]

I think you guys are ignoring the answers that have already been provided -

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2288.msg27422#msg27422

There was nothing stopping you from participating in MemoryCoin 1 - people who did risked their time and effort and were rewarded for that. That's part of the culture we have here - developers and contributors are rewarded for their effort.

Perfect answer. Not your fault people missed out. Developers aren't free workhorses.

I have no issue if he outright earned the coins but whats been said is that he simply gave himself the coins and later when he got caught made it public.

This is the problem that people are having with it. I do believe he deserves some form of payment for the time he puts in but what I think people see in what he did is similar to someone working at the Reserve bank and simply printing money for himself because he apparently deserves it and its his right as employer there to do it.

There is proper ways of compensating hard work and from what I read this really doesn't seem like the proper way at all.

I have helped develop coins, fix them and even have my own 0.001% of users ever really help the dev, most is just complaints. Mine was 0% premined yet people expected me to shell out my own funds to make their investments worth it.

I FULLY SUPPORT DEVS ALLOCATING THEMSELVES A GOOD PORTION OF THE OVERALL. Let's not even begin to talk about how unique his ideas are.

Ok lets say I agree with you.

Why wouldn't he just make it public from the start if he truely believe what he is doing is just deserved. The problem here is that it seems he tried to hide it and once uncovered he only acknowledged it.

Personally I would care less if he made this public from the very start so people could agree/disagree with it right there and then without investing their time and own money in this venture.

[barwizi]

I think you guys are ignoring the answers that have already been provided -

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2288.msg27422#msg27422

There was nothing stopping you from participating in MemoryCoin 1 - people who did risked their time and effort and were rewarded for that. That's part of the culture we have here - developers and contributors are rewarded for their effort.

Perfect answer. Not your fault people missed out. Developers aren't free workhorses.

I have no issue if he outright earned the coins but whats been said is that he simply gave himself the coins and later when he got caught made it public.

This is the problem that people are having with it. I do believe he deserves some form of payment for the time he puts in but what I think people see in what he did is similar to someone working at the Reserve bank and simply printing money for himself because he apparently deserves it and its his right as employer there to do it.

There is proper ways of compensating hard work and from what I read this really doesn't seem like the proper way at all.

I have helped develop coins, fix them and even have my own 0.001% of users ever really help the dev, most is just complaints. Mine was 0% premined yet people expected me to shell out my own funds to make their investments worth it.

I FULLY SUPPORT DEVS ALLOCATING THEMSELVES A GOOD PORTION OF THE OVERALL. Let's not even begin to talk about how unique his ideas are.

[bppsp1]

I think you guys are ignoring the answers that have already been provided -

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2288.msg27422#msg27422

There was nothing stopping you from participating in MemoryCoin 1 - people who did risked their time and effort and were rewarded for that. That's part of the culture we have here - developers and contributors are rewarded for their effort.

Perfect answer. Not your fault people missed out. Developers aren't free workhorses.

I have no issue if he outright earned the coins but whats been said is that he simply gave himself the coins and later when he got caught made it public.

This is the problem that people are having with it. I do believe he deserves some form of payment for the time he puts in but what I think people see in what he did is similar to someone working at the Reserve bank and simply printing money for himself because he apparently deserves it and its his right as employer there to do it.

There is proper ways of compensating hard work and from what I read this really doesn't seem like the proper way at all.

[barwizi]

I think you guys are ignoring the answers that have already been provided -

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2288.msg27422#msg27422

There was nothing stopping you from participating in MemoryCoin 1 - people who did risked their time and effort and were rewarded for that. That's part of the culture we have here - developers and contributors are rewarded for their effort.

Perfect answer. Not your fault people missed out. Developers aren't free workhorses.

[FreeTrade]

I think you guys are ignoring the answers that have already been provided -

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2288.msg27422#msg27422

There was nothing stopping you from participating in MemoryCoin 1 - people who did risked their time and effort and were rewarded for that. That's part of the culture we have here - developers and contributors are rewarded for their effort. 

[seraphim]

MemoryCoin is compromised by it's inventor and lead (and only) developer. Panic! 

[barwizi]

Please tell me why you think freetrade should disperse those coins? Or even destroy them? I understand there is general dislike of pre-mines but please give me detailed explanations why he should give up his coinage. I ask so that i may attempt to understand your position.

[bppsp1]

Personally I think this could all be taken care by simply splitting all the premine coins he allocated to himself across all network generated addresses equally. Sure some coins would go to non-used wallets and effectively end up in /dev/null but this way he would distance himself completely from what seems to be a big issue and causing unneccesary friction.

This is in essence what I was trying to do with the paid positions. Split them up amongst the people who voted. I also did this with the few elections we won.

In the end, it doesn't really matter.  In a year from now the same people will be in the same positions having done very little to make the coin prosper all while the price continues to fall and buyers continue to disappear.

It was/is a good concept, just poorly executed. With out the pre-mine, this would've been a successful coin. Memorycoin 3.0 anyone. I am predicting it here first.

What exactly is stopping Freetrade to take this route. I would love to hear why he would be opposed to this other than keeping the coins for exactly the reason that everyone seems upset about.

Seems pretty easy solution. If he believe in the coin then redistribute the coins away from himself which would solve this mess just about immediately. I see no valid reason to be opposed to this.

[Empirical1]

Personally I think this could all be taken care by simply splitting all the premine coins he allocated to himself across all network generated addresses equally. Sure some coins would go to non-used wallets and effectively end up in /dev/null but this way he would distance himself completely from what seems to be a big issue and causing unneccesary friction.

I'm not sure what the best solution is but something needs to be corrected. You guys in it can talk your book as much you like. Personally I'd like to have 50 000 of something than 160 000 of nothing.

I did give you kind of a positive shout on the Bitcoin forums..

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=415138.80

The successor to Bitcoin needs 2 things...

1. Central Bank proof mining         (Central banks may already control >51% of Bitcoin hashing power.)
2. Central Bank proof developers   (See Mike joining circle to sit with Goldman Sachs.)

The closest coin I've come across so far is memorycoin 2.0 they have a constant commitment to keeping mining decentralised and voting system that allows compromised developers to be replaced.

Unfortunately there's a bit of pre-mine scandal re: that coin, so personally I can't see the vision of Satoshi being transferred to something built on a questionable foundation, but I do think the coin that takes over from Bitcoin will have a lot of those features.

[bppsp1]

Alot of noise indeed.

Personally I think this could all be taken care by simply splitting all the premine coins he allocated to himself across all network generated addresses equally. Sure some coins would go to non-used wallets and effectively end up in /dev/null but this way he would distance himself completely from what seems to be a big issue and causing unneccesary friction.

This would be a very small price to pay to resolve this matter for the better of Memorycoin and also show great faith from Freetrade and his believe in Memorycoin's future.

After doing this, he could also justify receiving payments for positions he is holding right now and no one can claim that he shouldnt be compensated right now due to the early premine coins he allocated to himself.