@YouCanDoAnything said in the other thread “Im not sure anyone would be down for another ipo…”
The only reason why people wouldn´t give money for an IPO, is because they know that at the current point all people who are selling them something (coins presumeably) are bagholders who want to cut their losses.
As I said above: there is a way to start from scratch, but this involves the community (if there is one) to lose her coins. If the reason why people are holding together is because they are convinced of the idea and they want to bring things forward then a start from scratch will unlock the potentials and get new people in. If the reason why people are holding together is because noone wants to lose more than he or she has already lost, then this is not a community - it´s a society at best, a society of bagholders.
Blame me afterwards, but I don´t believe that any fundraiser at the current moment would bring up more than 5K bucks. That would be some money, but it is not nearly enough to bring the stuff forward that was originally planned. I don´t want to sound destructive, actually the only reason why I am here is because I liked the idea of a coin that focuses on integration in social networks - that´s why I will explain you how a scenario B could look like (very roughly).
- all active community members sell their coins. The price will drop, but I guess that the Cryptsy buy wall would eat a lot of it.
- We fork Reddcoin (and give it a proper name)
- We set up a proper and transparent foundation as an infrastructure for the community
- We do another another IPCO
this is very roughly the plan. You may ask, why anyone would put money into this without anything new but the current Reddcoin . That´s a good question, but there are also some good answers.
- We don´t have to hurry and can take time to gather people who are capable and like to work with us. There are several people involved in decentralized identity verification that may be interested. Beside that we can use the lasting community to mobilize. Those who have no coding skills can help otherwise.
- It can be transparently (i harsh contrast to more or less every other currency on the market)
- We can not only rely on what has already been built, we can also offer people a model of distribution that discourages speculation.
Let me elaborate on the latter argument:
The model of distribution of the RDD IPCO wasn´t bad. It may have been better if more coins would have been distributed via mining, but all in all it was good approach to get money in for development. Imagine the following rules:
- 50% of all coins are mined over a period of 24 months, 40% are distributed via IPCO and 10% are saved at a Foundation account
- Everyone who pays 1 BTC receives an amount of (e.g.) 1,000,000 coins, but he or she doesn´t receive them at once: they mature slowly over 2 years. The same way, foundation funds mature slowly.
The model of distribution would a) provide the community with a start up fund that allows to set forth some of the core projects of the current Reddcoin b) a regular income that can be administered by the community c) a promise to the community that people do not sell off. The last refers to slowly maturing coin which decrease both: the interest and capability to dump their coins.
The foundation would need to be created as an association, open to everyone who deposits a certain amount of the currency and pays a fee. There would be a board, but same as with every association the board can be recalled. This would provide the community with a more dynamic solution to leadership than it had until now.
If we´d use the funds to finish a feature that can be used for the launch of a new coin I´m in with funds.