[PRE-ANN] Socal's Burst Mining Asset, 30% bonus! see details
-
@crowetic Don't see a post here from you - and I didn't delete it.
By the time he releases his asset, he'll be ID verified - I'll verifiably know more about him than I do you..... Think about that.
-
@crowetic said in [PRE-ANN] Socal's Burst Mining Asset, 30% bonus! see details:
okay, for one... I don't know what happened to my post here... but if it was deleted, I'm going to be very upset... luckily I still had a copy on my phone, because I had to post it while I was out today... so let me find it...
I'm in total agreement that newbies coming in should NOT be starting assets without a single CENT of investment on their own... let me find my post...
I didn't catch your post earlier but you make a valid point and it can be easily addressed .
Again I want to point out that this proposed Asset has not been made as this is a PRE-ANNOUNCEMENT it is meant for brain storming and working out all the details before any crowdfund or asset is made
-
@haitch said in [PRE-ANN] Socal's Burst Mining Asset, 30% bonus! see details:
-
12M Burst/day has pretty much been the standard for quite some time.
-
I bought and paid for all my drives myself as well - and all the funds they earn goes directly into my wallet. What Socal is doing will have most of those funds going into investor wallets. This isn't the first, and won't be the last asset issued on this basis.
-
His ID verification and Escrow make the asset more trustworthy than most - what's to stop Adam taking the 25 BTC he's getting from his asset and walking away - never paying a dividend? As Socal said - he doesn't want a bunch of pissed off investors on his door step. I'm invested in Adam's asset, and I don't even know where his doorstep is.
And again, this is not the first asset of this type - why is this one suddenly a problem? Because he rubbed you the wrong way in a post ?
Not at all, and I said it to socal that this is not personal although he tries to make it personal.
The direction he is taking is that of a CROWDFUND, and guess what we have that incorporated in the wallet.
Assets need to be backed before they sell, and this has to be enforced, unfortuantely for socal this just happened on his thread, and I apologize for this happening but it is what it is and we have reached this point.
Haitch you have too much time and effort invested in this community not to see clearly.
-
-
post is above... the thing is, we're NOT NXT... and NXT had quite a bit of scamming going on in their team... Just because we are a NXT clone, doesn't mean we should follow NXT's example...
I am wholeheartedly for the Asset Exchange, I love it in fact... but starting an asset requires an initial investment, that's the whole definition of an asset... Starting something with nothing, is what the CrowdFunding is for.
If you don't have enough money, wait until you do, start an asset WITH something first, or wait until you can afford to invest into your own idea...
OR...
Start a SMALL asset, with something you HAVE, then go ahead and expand it, and I'm not even opposed to using one of the later sales for upping the mining power or whatever, but the first issuance of the asset, should have something SOLID behind it.
-
@Focus A crowdfund means you give to the person for a project, and get nothing back.
This asset invests into hardware and pays back to it's investors.
It's not the first, won't be the last to use this model.
I'll back people trying to expand the Burst ecosystem, and I'll put my TB where my mouth is. When Socal launches his asset, I'll put 95TB of mining to fund it while he's getting off the ground. It will be mined to a wallet I control, and paid out by me to the shareholders.
-
I really do think there needs to be more of a system in place for asset issuers, not just identity verification. The definition of an asset is something very clear... it implies that you HAVE something before you release it for sale. Releasing something with plan to use the coin to buy hardware, requires even more trust, and with a brand new member, it's a red flag...
I'd be more than happy to do what I did for BURSTocean, and help you acquire the drives, hell, I'll even plot them for you. Just like I did for BURSTocean...
All I'm saying here, is that if you're going to release an asset, you should be as invested in it as you are asking the community to be. If you're not, then that's a red flag. Especially with a brand new member coming into the forums.
I'll be more than happy to help setup a system to verify that an asset is solid, and also help the people acquire the things they are looking for to be at least solidly invested into their own idea...
This is the part that doesn't make sense to me, coming in with nothing, asking the community to fund YOUR plan, without wanting to put anything into it yourself...
Then it seems to me that you're just looking to get a quick buck. Not into it long term, and if it is YOUR idea, then you should be the one invested the MOST. IMO.
Anyone disagree with this?
-
@haitch said in [PRE-ANN] Socal's Burst Mining Asset, 30% bonus! see details:
@Focus A crowdfund means you give to the person for a project, and get nothing back.
This asset invests into hardware and pays back to it's investors.
It's not the first, won't be the last to use this model.
I'll back people trying to expand the Burst ecosystem, and I'll put my TB where my mouth is. When Socal launches his asset, I'll put 95TB of mining to fund it while he's getting off the ground. It will be mined to a wallet I control, and paid out by me to the shareholders.
wow, you would really go out of your way that much for someone else just to prove a point?
If this is the case, then why don't you start an asset with that 95TB and offer it to the community thereby showing the correct example of what an asset should be...
-
@haitch - do you know this guy?
I don't understand why this newbie coming in and lauching an asset with nothing invested into it, is getting such a backing by you... it really doesn't make sense to me.
The whole thing here is... if you have nothing invested yourself, but yet you're asking for an investment from the community... that to me is not right... and should be addressed...
I'm more than willing to back up the identity verification system with another that will provide another layer of protection for the community.
-
@crowetic said in [PRE-ANN] Socal's Burst Mining Asset, 30% bonus! see details:
I really do think there needs to be more of a system in place for asset issuers, not just identity verification. The definition of an asset is something very clear... it implies that you HAVE something before you release it for sale. Releasing something with plan to use the coin to buy hardware, requires even more trust, and with a brand new member, it's a red flag...
I'd be more than happy to do what I did for BURSTocean, and help you acquire the drives, hell, I'll even plot them for you. Just like I did for BURSTocean...
All I'm saying here, is that if you're going to release an asset, you should be as invested in it as you are asking the community to be. If you're not, then that's a red flag. Especially with a brand new member coming into the forums.
I'll be more than happy to help setup a system to verify that an asset is solid, and also help the people acquire the things they are looking for to be at least solidly invested into their own idea...
This is the part that doesn't make sense to me, coming in with nothing, asking the community to fund YOUR plan, without wanting to put anything into it yourself...
Then it seems to me that you're just looking to get a quick buck. Not into it long term, and if it is YOUR idea, then you should be the one invested the MOST. IMO.
Anyone disagree with this?
Not at all and as stated I am willing to put up for the first 13 TB before issuing anything to fund the next 10 TB, etc etc I was just trying to come up with a plan with the quickest deployment time for the most amount of mining capacity, as I keep repeating the whole point of this thread was to make a workable plan not just say HEY GIMMIE MONIEZ AND ILL MAKE YOU RICH
-
As long as you're the largest investor into your own idea... then it makes sense to start an asset. To me this means that you're going for this long term, and you're not just out to give yourself a chunk for 'administration' and that's that, while having the community fund YOUR mining operation...
You MUST be invested into your own idea before you can launch it as an asset and ask others to invest into it...
If this is something that isn't okay with everyone, I'm not really sure what to say...
-
@Focus I'll use my TB to help someone get an asset off the ground - to help give confidence to investors about the asset. It's not to prove a point. I've paid out hundreds of thousands of Burst to keep my word about the pools. I'll put my resources behind someone to expand the ecosystem - if Socal screws me/the community, I'll be the first one looking for retribution.
Creating barriers to entry to the Burst ecosystem, centralizing trust in a few members (BTW Is Adam sending his drives to Crowetic to ensure trust in his asset?) is not good for the community. I've said it many times in this thread and others, I'll do what I can to expand the Burst community/ecosystem.
-
@crowetic No, don't know him. But he's willing to do more than any asset issuer to get ID verified and his funds escrowed. So I'll help him. I'll help anyone who wants to something in the community until they give me a reason not to.
This is not the first asset on this model - why has it become such an issue ?
So he's new - DDos, Username, Lenore were all established members, and all their assets were scams. Socal is putting in more protection than any other asset issuer has been willing to do - I'll back him in his efforts.
-
That's fine @haitch, if you feel like you'd like to do that, then that's your perogative, but to me it still makes no sense to want to start an asset without putting any of your own personal funding into it.
and yes, it's on the community whether they would like to invest into the idea or not, but having a bunch of random assets and potential scams makes the community look bad. This is what I'm attempting to avoid.
Someone who HAS all the hardware they're using to start their asset, doesn't need to send anything to me, if they have their identity verified, they're good to go, and the community can then make their own decision whether to invest or not.,.
But if someone doesn't have the hardware, then it makes sense for them to have one of the already trusted members of the community assist them in getting their asset off the ground, be it you, me, luxe, dawallet, or any other long standing member...
...A newbie, with nothing invested, coming in and immediately starting an asset, is a huge red flag, no matter how you look at it, all I'm doing here is trying to make sure the community of BURST retains its high level of trust and security.
-
@haitch said in [PRE-ANN] Socal's Burst Mining Asset, 30% bonus! see details:
@Focus I'll use my TB to help someone get an asset off the ground - to help give confidence to investors about the asset. It's not to prove a point. I've paid out hundreds of thousands of Burst to keep my word about the pools. I'll put my resources behind someone to expand the ecosystem - if Socal screws me/the community, I'll be the first one looking for retribution.
Creating barriers to entry to the Burst ecosystem, centralizing trust in a few members (BTW Is Adam sending his drives to Crowetic to ensure trust in his asset?) is not good for the community. I've said it many times in this thread and others, I'll do what I can to expand the Burst community/ecosystem.
Tell you what haitch, I too would gladly invest in this supposing something like this would happen: It's very good to offer 95TB as that will stimulate the asset economy as incentive, but if socal really wants to prove trust, maybe he should step up to the plate and invest in the first 20TB himself, to add to your 95TB, that would be the best sign of good faith for the community.
-
@Focus 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:
@Focus I'll use my TB to help someone get an asset off the ground - to help give confidence to investors about the asset. It's not to prove a point. I've paid out hundreds of thousands of Burst to keep my word about the pools. I'll put my resources behind someone to expand the ecosystem - if Socal screws me/the community, I'll be the first one looking for retribution.
Creating barriers to entry to the Burst ecosystem, centralizing trust in a few members (BTW Is Adam sending his drives to Crowetic to ensure trust in his asset?) is not good for the community. I've said it many times in this thread and others, I'll do what I can to expand the Burst community/ecosystem.
Tell you what haitch, I too would gladly invest in this supposing something like this would happen: It's very good to offer 95TB as that will stimulate the asset economy as incentive, but if socal really wants to prove trust, maybe he should step up to the plate and invest in the first 20TB himself, to add to your 95TB, that would be the best sign of good faith for the community.
wholeheartedly agree with this.
-
@crowetic Other assets that I've agreed not to mention have 0 investment from their owners, and have fully funded the mining hardware from the funds of the asset sale.
Why is this one suddenly so contentious, especially when he's doing the ID verification and Escrow, that NO other asset issuer has been willing to do ?
-
At the end of the day people need to be smart about what asset they invested in. There are assets like myself and Adam where we already have a large operation going and offering a piece of it off, and those like cc that buys the TB with the funds as they come in.
Either way, I feel like people just see asset and jump in on it, there are absolutely mining assets out there that will never ROI to the end investor.
-
It is good this conversation is happening and is actually long overdue.
There is a serious need to figure some base definitions of exactly what constitutes a real asset acceptable to be run on the BURST Asset platform and a possible guide to what one is for new issuers to educate themselves prior to them releasing an asset to see if they meet a minimum criteria. This is just me giving my 2 cents opinion...
-
I am ok with all of this, I just wanted to once again illustrate that this was just an idea pitch, If interest wasn't there then no Asset would ever be issued, and also I didn't go the route you describe (setting up the rig THEN issuing an Asset) for these reasons:
-
Cost, As I stated I have no intention of sinking several thousand dollars into anything right before Christmas and no I don't expect others to thats the beauty of crowdfunding with enough people it only costs everyone very little to reach the overall goal.
-
Deployment Time, As I said earlier I was trying to get the largest amount of mining power up in the shortest amount of time which feeds directly into #3
-
ROI/Investor welfare, With the 5% monthly reduction in block reward and Difficulty getting higher and higher it is in the investors best interests to get as much mining capacity up as fast as possible to maximize their dividends,
and lastly 4. Profit (or Lack thereof) as in I am not doing this to profit it is purely to expand Burst, help secure the network, and help balance the net hash between the pools, If I made the rig then kept say 50% to cover initial costs I didn't want anyone in the community claiming I was profiting off of them or scamming them by keeping a large portion of the rewards for myself at first.
-
-
@hatich
it's the fact that he's brand new, hasn't been around but a few days, and is launching the asset with no funding.
Things have changed with BURST, it is getting bigger, and the only way that will be able to continue, is to have a fully trustworthy community.
If the dude had been around longer, had some communications, explained how things are with his investment in BURST, THEN decided to release an asset, it would have gone over a lot better, but still, no investment into an asset on your own, before release, isn't an asset...
Even if the investment is time, and the person spent time developing a pool, or something else, then released an asset, with the promise to use some of the funding to get the asset larger.... fine.
But still, the fact is, coming in as a newbie, and launching an asset with nothing, is a red flag, and will ruin BURST credibility...
I'm not sure the assets you're not mentioning... but if you're talking about any of mine... 90% of the time, even if I said I was going to use the funding for purchase of hardware, I ended up using my own personal credit or cash to do so.
Also, I never did it from the first release, and always had a substantial investment into the asset before releasing. Not to mention the fact that I built my reputation up for months before allowing someone else I trusted to start the first asset I was involved in, that person also had a substantial amount of trust.
So the situation here cannot be compared to anything I've done, not sure if that was what you weren't mentioning, but I'll be the first to admit that yes, I've done second or third releases of my assets with the public announcement they'd be used to fund furthering the asset's growth, but every time I've launched an asset, I've had a substantial amount of time into both my reputation in the community, and investing into the asset BEFORE doing anything like that.
again, not sure if you were not mentioning something relating to my assets, but I figured I would explain that in case someone wanted to bring it up, because I don't have a problem with using the asset releases to help further the asset, it's the fact that it is a brand new member coming in and using the FIRST release to fund the START of the asset, while having very few other posts in the community at all.
