So i'm probably going to launch a blockchain project soon, it's more to be seen as a framework of distributed application based on blockchain.
The main feature are
- Custom script engine, it's not turing complete as it can only loop on list of objects.
- Portable binary module interfaced with the script engine.
- System of dynamic concurent object distributed on the blockchain, either manipulated through the custom script of binary modules.
The codebase start to be rather stable and work well, still have few things to see with it, but i'm fairly confident on the technical side that it can allow to easily program distributed web application with stand alone node who are both blockchain node and distributed application servers.
But now i'm still reviewing all the different method of funding and investment, and i'm wondering what is the best way to go.
What i need funding for initially as seed money to make the project really standing ground is
- legal advice
- user interface design, the script engine and interface make it is easy on development side, but still having skilled person to design interactive UI for different kind of application would still be good.
- Marketting an communication
For me in classic investment scheme, when investor invest in a company, they place money in a legal structure, bound with share holding agreement, and all people involved financially with the project are legally bound to those share holding agreement.
Which include having control on how the money is spent, who is hired on the payroll, and having a good idea of what those expance are in order to build a product or service that can make income, and as the income grow, the company capital increase through this income, which overcome the initial investment cost and rise the value of the shares.
To take example from a bakery, the investor put initial money to buy infrastructure, machines, the shop, and then by selling breads, the income get in the profit column on the cash flow, and hopefully overcome initial cost and then rise the capital value of the shares.
The problem is see with ICO's, is that it become more like all the breads are baked since the beginning, and instead of buying share in the company, investor actually buy some shares of the available bread, with the hope that they will rise in market value compared to the price they bought them. And the baker have it's share of the initial bread, which represent the capital, and with investor buying bread at a certain market price, it capitalize the society and it make the income of the bakery.
But the problem with this model, is that the bread is in limited supply, and in sane healthy economy, it's not like bread market price can sky rocket that much. More over, owning bread doesn't give the investor legal right on the company managment, or how the fund are managed, or anything.
And normally the bread are more like the product made to make income rather than shares.
It's the problem is see with ICO based on proof of stake coin, is that as share holders own most of the coin, that are supposed to be more utility value, it lock up the utility value of the coins in the share holder, and it can only make income by selling this liquity at higher price, and loosing their share, which is different from selling product to make income independently of share holding.
And with pure proof of stake thing, as coin holding being equivalent to share holding, there is not really good way to distribute the coin to user for their utility value as they are locked by share holder.
I find this system a bit weird actually.
Specially that even holding coin doesn't have that much power on how the compny is managed, doesn't have any legal value, and especially if the income are to be expected by selling some product such as blockchain services, application, or others, the capital value of the company is not necessarily aligned with market cap of the coins that are more liquidity/utility value more than share holding.
The solution with POW and premine is a little bit better, as if developpers premine a few % of coins , and then mining allow for a more fair distribution of coin, and the forging of coins participate also to the operation of the network, and it's more competitive.
But still if let say investor want to buy high amount of the coin to rise the market price to fund the development, it's still not equivalent of true share holding, as nothing prevent initial miner to cash out their coin, and spend it how they want; without having any kind of contract with investor, and it come to the same problem of conflating holding coin as share or investment, locking them out of the utility value that is supposed to be the product at the hand of users, and source of income of the companies running app on the blockchain.
The best way would be imo that all the fund gathered through token sales are put in a legal structure, that those token are not necessarily related to the blockchain and market of coins, but have legal value as share holding, giving legal control of company capital and managment through a share holding agreement with legal value through the holding of those tokens, and proving ownership through signature using the keys holding those tokens, and leaving all the coins available as lquiity and mined in competitive maner by users, or distributed through operating services on the blockchain.
Well i'm still pondering the different options, and i wonder what people think of this topic on steemit.
I still have few things to finish up with the code, and i will detail more the technical side in the coming day and building few demo app and showing example of scripting and distributed apps.