[PRE-ANN] Socal's Burst Mining Asset, 30% bonus! see details
-
@dagentlemang Maybe I missed something, and this past week I missed a lot - but I never saw anything about that ? Link ?
-
@HaveMercy said in [PRE-ANN] Socal's Burst Mining Asset, 30% bonus! see details:
I have read through most all this I am very new to burst and crypto in general, I dont know much but it seems your asset contrary to others opinions is a pretty good idea and you are serious about it
I would like to buy your first 50k shares which is 500k burst if i am correct?
Would that amount be some thing that would help you get this started? or would it even make a dent?
well yes and no. not too far up from these posts I had a new breakdown of the asset and figured it would have to be 50,000 Share blocks at 20 Burst/share, 5,000 shares would go to me to hold and get dividends from to help pay for electricity the other 45,000 would be sold to finance each expansion round. so the math is 45,000 shares * 20 Burst/Share = 900,000 Burst BUT WAIT 50% goes into the Escrow as investor insurance so say you buy all 45,000 share of the first block no matter what happens even if I die in a car wreck and all my pass words and funds die with me you will still get 50%, or 450,0000 Burst, back from the escrow so no matter what you CAN NOT lose 100% of what you invest ONLY 50% IS EVER AT "RISK"
But yes the 450,000 would pay for the first expansion round but due to my commitment of 50% of all funds raised going to escrow I will have to sell the whole 45,000 share block to fund expansion
-
ahhh I forgot I offered for my Fee shares to stay with the Escrow and only enough Burst to be released from them to me to cover electrical costs,
-
@haitch Absolutely , it's in my long post about raid , it was the first condition i could think of to help solidify M2B's after the theft and regain the trust to carry on , your service wasn't available (wasn't created) , but i did sign an NDA with @crowetic and escrow all shares, money passwords and my sites and prototype to @crowetic to help move past and get the game released he can confirm this.
I would have loved to have to brought into the mix as extra trust , which is why when you make you're oirginal post i was the first to ask for a paid verification service
-
@haitch said in [PRE-ANN] Socal's Burst Mining Asset, 30% bonus! see details:
@MikeMike I'm still not 100%, so Ill try and keep this brief:
-
yes, this is absolutely the way assets should be launched - a pre-announcement with plans on how the asset will function, and community feedback/discussion to moderate it.
-
Socal is the FIRST and ONLY asset issuer willing to comply with both my guidelines I posted here - At the time it was congratulated as a great initiative to build trust in an asset issuer. Again, Socal is the ONLY asset isseuer willing to do both.
-
Somewhere back in the thread I advised Socal to release assets in stages, using each release to fund the next increase in capacity. He agreed to do that.
Basically, Socal has fulfilled every requirement we desired of a new asset issuer - and is being lambasted as a leech. I'm kind of disgusted - Socal is willing to do everything we, the community, demand of him, and he's being insulted like this by some individuals.
This is not how it's supposed to be.
@haitch
Man I gotta say you have been so helpful to me and many others I see it all the time. Same with Focus.
You two are integral parts of BURST. Yes we seem to all hurt each other at times and for the most part it is because we mean well,... after you get down to it.
I see many efforts on your part to protect the BURST Community by setting some needed standards. Others too want to setup some processes like this. We need them and I am sure they will evolve over time.
I think we should all work together to add to what you started here and come to a consensus of what the final draft will be as it should be. A Community effort though as typical started by one active member trying to do the right thing.
-
-
@MikeMike said in [PRE-ANN] Socal's Burst Mining Asset, 30% bonus! see details:
@haitch said in [PRE-ANN] Socal's Burst Mining Asset, 30% bonus! see details:
@MikeMike I'm still not 100%, so Ill try and keep this brief:
-
yes, this is absolutely the way assets should be launched - a pre-announcement with plans on how the asset will function, and community feedback/discussion to moderate it.
-
Socal is the FIRST and ONLY asset issuer willing to comply with both my guidelines I posted here - At the time it was congratulated as a great initiative to build trust in an asset issuer. Again, Socal is the ONLY asset isseuer willing to do both.
-
Somewhere back in the thread I advised Socal to release assets in stages, using each release to fund the next increase in capacity. He agreed to do that.
Basically, Socal has fulfilled every requirement we desired of a new asset issuer - and is being lambasted as a leech. I'm kind of disgusted - Socal is willing to do everything we, the community, demand of him, and he's being insulted like this by some individuals.
This is not how it's supposed to be.
@haitch
Man I gotta say you have been so helpful to me and many others I see it all the time. Same with Focus.
You two are integral parts of BURST. Yes we seem to all hurt each other at times and for the most part it is because we mean well,... after you get down to it.
I see many efforts on your part to protect the BURST Community by setting some needed standards. Others too want to setup some processes like this. We need them and I am sure they will evolve over time.
I think we should all work together to add to what you started here and come to a consensus of what the final draft will be as it should be. A Community effort though as typical started by one active member trying to do the right thing.I'm willing to be flexible to make this work if there are some community members that want to invest BEFORE I can setup the rest of my privately funded portion then we can discuss an early Asset release but we can cross that bridge when/if we get to it
-
-
@dagentlemang My head is still a little screwed up from being sick - but yes, you were one of the first buyers into Verified by Haitch. My head is still messed up, so I probably missed you escrowing with Crowetic.
-
@socal said in [PRE-ANN] Socal's Burst Mining Asset, 30% bonus! see details:
@MikeMike said in [PRE-ANN] Socal's Burst Mining Asset, 30% bonus! see details:
@haitch said in [PRE-ANN] Socal's Burst Mining Asset, 30% bonus! see details:
@MikeMike I'm still not 100%, so Ill try and keep this brief:
-
yes, this is absolutely the way assets should be launched - a pre-announcement with plans on how the asset will function, and community feedback/discussion to moderate it.
-
Socal is the FIRST and ONLY asset issuer willing to comply with both my guidelines I posted here - At the time it was congratulated as a great initiative to build trust in an asset issuer. Again, Socal is the ONLY asset isseuer willing to do both.
-
Somewhere back in the thread I advised Socal to release assets in stages, using each release to fund the next increase in capacity. He agreed to do that.
Basically, Socal has fulfilled every requirement we desired of a new asset issuer - and is being lambasted as a leech. I'm kind of disgusted - Socal is willing to do everything we, the community, demand of him, and he's being insulted like this by some individuals.
This is not how it's supposed to be.
@haitch
Man I gotta say you have been so helpful to me and many others I see it all the time. Same with Focus.
You two are integral parts of BURST. Yes we seem to all hurt each other at times and for the most part it is because we mean well,... after you get down to it.
I see many efforts on your part to protect the BURST Community by setting some needed standards. Others too want to setup some processes like this. We need them and I am sure they will evolve over time.
I think we should all work together to add to what you started here and come to a consensus of what the final draft will be as it should be. A Community effort though as typical started by one active member trying to do the right thing.I'm willing to be flexible to make this work if there are some community members that want to invest BEFORE I can setup the rest of my privately funded portion then we can discuss an early Asset release but we can cross that bridge when/if we get to it
Thanks for being flexible. IMO- start small and maybe scale it rather than 1,000,000 as it just looks better for a new guy starting off small. We want people from all walks of financial ability and all over the world to be able to use the Asset platform. This is bigger than all of us. I still say it is best to work out the details with Crow himself. Specially bringing into the plan early investors....
@haitch I like the idea that new asset issuers post a pre-ANN on them if new but not sure about making it a forced rule. Seems to me if it is setup properly it could be accepted and do very well. What I mean by setup properly is there be a one click solution process that is well organized and easy to follow.
-
-
@MikeMike said in [PRE-ANN] Socal's Burst Mining Asset, 30% bonus! see details:
@socal said in [PRE-ANN] Socal's Burst Mining Asset, 30% bonus! see details:
@MikeMike said in [PRE-ANN] Socal's Burst Mining Asset, 30% bonus! see details:
@haitch said in [PRE-ANN] Socal's Burst Mining Asset, 30% bonus! see details:
@MikeMike I'm still not 100%, so Ill try and keep this brief:
-
yes, this is absolutely the way assets should be launched - a pre-announcement with plans on how the asset will function, and community feedback/discussion to moderate it.
-
Socal is the FIRST and ONLY asset issuer willing to comply with both my guidelines I posted here - At the time it was congratulated as a great initiative to build trust in an asset issuer. Again, Socal is the ONLY asset isseuer willing to do both.
-
Somewhere back in the thread I advised Socal to release assets in stages, using each release to fund the next increase in capacity. He agreed to do that.
Basically, Socal has fulfilled every requirement we desired of a new asset issuer - and is being lambasted as a leech. I'm kind of disgusted - Socal is willing to do everything we, the community, demand of him, and he's being insulted like this by some individuals.
This is not how it's supposed to be.
@haitch
Man I gotta say you have been so helpful to me and many others I see it all the time. Same with Focus.
You two are integral parts of BURST. Yes we seem to all hurt each other at times and for the most part it is because we mean well,... after you get down to it.
I see many efforts on your part to protect the BURST Community by setting some needed standards. Others too want to setup some processes like this. We need them and I am sure they will evolve over time.
I think we should all work together to add to what you started here and come to a consensus of what the final draft will be as it should be. A Community effort though as typical started by one active member trying to do the right thing.I'm willing to be flexible to make this work if there are some community members that want to invest BEFORE I can setup the rest of my privately funded portion then we can discuss an early Asset release but we can cross that bridge when/if we get to it
Thanks for being flexible. IMO- start small and maybe scale it rather than 1,000,000 as it just looks better for a new guy starting off small. We want people from all walks of financial ability and all over the world to be able to use the Asset platform. This is bigger than all of us. I still say it is best to work out the details with Crow himself.
@haitch I like the idea that new asset issuers post a pre-ANN on them if new but not sure about making it a forced rule. Seems to me if it is setup properly it could do be accepted and do very well.
Well I will do it in a way that allows future growth, which would require an initial issuing of more assets then we will release i.e. issuing 1,000,000 Assets but all shares go to escrow with only 50,000 share blocks being released for each expansion phase and with myself providing the first 10TB (3TB I already have up and mining)
-
-
@MikeMike said in [PRE-ANN] Socal's Burst Mining Asset, 30% bonus! see details:
@haitch said in [PRE-ANN] Socal's Burst Mining Asset, 30% bonus! see details:
@MikeMike I'm still not 100%, so Ill try and keep this brief:
-
yes, this is absolutely the way assets should be launched - a pre-announcement with plans on how the asset will function, and community feedback/discussion to moderate it.
-
Socal is the FIRST and ONLY asset issuer willing to comply with both my guidelines I posted here - At the time it was congratulated as a great initiative to build trust in an asset issuer. Again, Socal is the ONLY asset isseuer willing to do both.
-
Somewhere back in the thread I advised Socal to release assets in stages, using each release to fund the next increase in capacity. He agreed to do that.
Basically, Socal has fulfilled every requirement we desired of a new asset issuer - and is being lambasted as a leech. I'm kind of disgusted - Socal is willing to do everything we, the community, demand of him, and he's being insulted like this by some individuals.
This is not how it's supposed to be.
@haitch
Man I gotta say you have been so helpful to me and many others I see it all the time. Same with Focus.
You two are integral parts of BURST. Yes we seem to all hurt each other at times and for the most part it is because we mean well,... after you get down to it.
I see many efforts on your part to protect the BURST Community by setting some needed standards. Others too want to setup some processes like this. We need them and I am sure they will evolve over time.
I think we should all work together to add to what you started here and come to a consensus of what the final draft will be as it should be. A Community effort though as typical started by one active member trying to do the right thing.@MikeMike if someone has a better idea than my identity verification scheme - do it. This system gives me the users real name, and real physical address - if they screw with the community, I will release the address, and you can all go pay them an in person visit. The trust is based on the trust of me, and I think my last three years here in the community has earned that, and I am the only one that will ever know the real names and addresses of the people that elect to get verified. If I die, the scheme is totally screwed - but given that I'm dead - I won't really give a fuck, I have no viable way of keeping it this secure and also surviving my demise.
-
-
@MikeMike The idea of having it large is that only small parts get released at a time, those released assets are used to fund hardware expansion - then more get released. The alternative is multiple assets - and that's not a good alternative.
-
@haitch said in [PRE-ANN] Socal's Burst Mining Asset, 30% bonus! see details:
@MikeMike The idea of having it large is that only small parts get released at a time, those released assets are used to fund hardware expansion - then more get released. The alternative is multiple assets - and that's not a good alternative.
Got it and thanks.
I think you are off to an awesome start in a verification process and could continue that no matter what others do.
-
@MikeMike 8 users have completed the identity verification process - I know their real names and addresses - they can be found in real life, but still be anonymous to you. I did however forget to track who paid me for the service or not - so it looks like I provided this service for a personal cost ...........
-
@haitch said in [PRE-ANN] Socal's Burst Mining Asset, 30% bonus! see details:
@MikeMike The idea of having it large is that only small parts get released at a time, those released assets are used to fund hardware expansion - then more get released. The alternative is multiple assets - and that's not a good alternative.
Exactly this way there is always a physical HDD backing each ~22,500 Shares so either the HDD can be sold and the proceeds split 22,500 ways between each share OR if somebody has 22,500 shares they could trade those in for one of the HDD in the event of asset closure, I've worked multiple layers of security into this Asset for investors the first being to personally fund the first 13 TB, the second layer is the 50% Escrow for Investor Insurance that way no investor can lose more than 50% of their initial investment, and lastly offering the actual equipment for shares in the event of asset closure, yeah they might not be worth what they were brand new but offering up the equipment as collateral is just another way to prove I am not doing this for myself and to help mitigate investor risk.
-
@haitch
Well you should ask them for the required payment. IF they dont pay what they agreed to that tells you something.
-
I know you will be sticking by this topic closely. Could you please compile what you think could be the first draft for the BURST Asset guidelines so everyone can chime in?
12:04am Time for lunch! lol
ttyl...
:-)
-
@MikeMike I still think my original guidelines over here apply - verify who your real world identity is, escrow a percentage of your asset sales to insure buyers.
-
@haitch said in [PRE-ANN] Socal's Burst Mining Asset, 30% bonus! see details:
@MikeMike I still think my original guidelines over here apply - verify who your real world identity is, escrow a percentage of your asset sales to insure buyers.
Thanks. Maybe adding the posting of the potential asset as an option. Also addressing the importance of starting off with at least the minimal hardware and scale up for smaller issuers.
I hope Crow checks in the morning and chimes in even though it is his day off.
hmmm, Maybe a template of what a smaller asset issue could look like?
-
@MikeMike there have been a number of successful asset owners that had 0 invested in their setup, and used the funds from the asset launch to produce profitable assets. I have no issues with this asset launch, and given the hoops Socal is willing to jump through - I have more confidence in this asset over some others launched recently.
-
@haitch
It is awesome to have these few positive examples. Problem is there are far more numerous bad examples. I know this ruins it for the majority setting up rules etc. But seems there are other besides Crow that are set on people having at least the minimal hardware to start and I will guess that those that you mentioned could have had that minimal. Never know it could near remedy this problem of scammers. I am reflecting on what other upstanding members of the Community have expressed and hoping to find the best solutions all parties can work with.
