[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 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.
-
I will happily wait and build up some more TB on my own dime and try again later if that is what the consensus is, I apologize for any issues caused by this thread, I was unaware that utilizing Assets as an IPO vehicle was frowned upon within Burst so I will work with haitch and we will get this Asset, with miners already backing it from my personal funds, up and running (provided there is interest in another mining asset at that time)
-
- Yes new, but willing to go further THAN ANY OTHER asset issuer to protect investors.
- We've been scammed by established members, and rewarded by new ones. Newbieness to the forums shouldn't be a factor. The viability and plan of the asset should be what it's judged on - and I find this viable.
- The pools are pretty much established, and there's not a lot of movement. I've advised a couple of the people I'm hosting pools for, to not launch a pool based asset until they get a significant mining base. I'm skeptical of those assets ever being launched.
- It's not the first asset to use the asset funds to fund the mining hardware.
I posted here what an asset issuer should do to increase trust - Socal is the first and only one willing to do both steps.
-
@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 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...
If I wanted I could start a mining asset with more capacity than Adam - I already have the capacity and have it plotted under several separate accounts, I could combine it to an asset dividend and be the biggest mining asset - instead I prefer to mine for myself, and to use it to help others get started in Burst.
Who decides what is the "correct" example of an asset is? There are other assets following this model, there are other assets by people new to the community that are doing great, there are "assets" issued by established members that turned out to be scams, there are non rock-star assets's that just provide a steady revenue stream. My own asset got screwed when Google cut us off, but have found ways to keep paying my investors.
If you don't like Socal's Asset model, don't invest - but leave others to make their own mind up.
-
@socal said in [PRE-ANN] Socal's Burst Mining Asset, 30% bonus! see details:
I will happily wait and build up some more TB on my own dime and try again later if that is what the consensus is, I apologize for any issues caused by this thread, I was unaware that utilizing Assets as an IPO vehicle was frowned upon within Burst so I will work with haitch and we will get this Asset, with miners already backing it from my personal funds, up and running (provided there is interest in another mining asset at that time)
@crowetic
What I see here is @socal guy has just about met his goals which was figuring out his proposed asset if it could be acceptable and what would need to be tweaked to make it acceptable.
I apologize for any seemingly over reactions on the part of the BURST Community. This just happened to be a very sensitive topic recently discussed that needed to be addressed and it seems to have gone well in the end and frankly I am of the sort that "All is well that ends well"... @Focus stepped up to the plate and offered a sincere apology which in my book goes a long way. I myself have this same difficulty at times and it is because I also want the best for BURST.
There is enough info in the above posts to near completely remedy this entire situation including @socal to be able to start his asset in the way that could satisfy all concerned and actually be the "test case" that could end up being the BURST guideline designed at protecting the Community while growing it. We ALL want BURST to be a widely used successful trusted platform besides it being a currency while protecting the Community and BURST reputation. What I would call this is "growing pains" and frankly, they should be welcomed. It means progress.@socal You said you had enough money to start off your mining farm with enough TB to add to your 3TB that could be used as the start for an asset, going through suggested verification and willing to hand over full control to @haitch till it is well established and you have proven yourself. Seems to me to buy just two more drives this wont break you for the Holidays and you can always sell them and refund the asset holders or yourself if nobody invests in it.
My only suggestions would be to rework your asset as Crow suggested. Start off small and scale it up by small issues of shares along the way. In fact it could even be scalable rather than holding to certain numbers etc.
My other suggestion would be for us all to continue to work as a brainstorming Team to figure this all out best suited for BURST, the Community and settle on a final outcome that is acceptable to meet these goals. Seems everyone is willing to compromise as long as these important guidelines of principle are met.
@socal
Could you please stick around and work with us to figure this all out?On a side note:
I like the idea of an having any Asset hardware be the Communities and when closed etc the hardware be divested and sent out to the asset holders. Not sure if this could be another option issuers could choose.
-
Oh I'm still interested in doing this project, with the requisite tweaks of course and you are correct I can and will get a few extra HDDs myself and THEN issue the asset with the express purpose of sustained growth and expansion via Asset Distribution Rounds and I will even include the option for share holders to turn in their shares for HDDs paid for from share funds (not my personal funds) in the event of an asset closure
-
@socal said in [PRE-ANN] Socal's Burst Mining Asset, 30% bonus! see details:
Oh I'm still interested in doing this project, with the requisite tweaks of course and you are correct I can and will get a few extra HDDs myself and THEN issue the asset with the express purpose of sustained growth and expansion via Asset Distribution Rounds and I will even include the option for share holders to turn in their shares for HDDs paid for from share funds (not my personal funds) in the event of an asset closure
@crowetic Has offered to give you a helping hand to make it a winner. Please take advantage of this offer. He is a stand-up guy and won't steer you wrong. Maybe send him a PM so you can work it all out.
One problem I see about having the HDDs sent back to the asset holders is you cant divvy up a HD, lol. So maybe an option for large holders and divest the rest....?

