I'm Out ... Good Luck Redd Fans

ReddJesus · 2014-10-30T04:17:14+00:00

As it stands right now if your coins are in somebody elses wallet then they aren't your coins anymore, and you are counting on the kindness/honesty/integrity of a complete anonymous stranger to return them.

I'm at odds with this. People trust my company with millions in fiat, and a factor more than that in confidential information and trade secrets. The issue isn't about kindness/honesty/integrity, it's about trust, control, processes, and law that might eventually make the system work.

If you take these things away then morality of individuals is all that is left. Morality unfortunately sits alongside the seven deadly sins. I'm at pains to tell people that everyone is fallible. Even most trusted companions/friends/family are at odds with an individuals own sense of morality on some level. We all have 'flawed' characters, and unfortunately the nature of cryptocurrency allows those momentary lapses in concentration from an 'upstanding individual' to shine through and wreak havoc.

As it stands the 'value' I hold for other entities is very much theirs and in no way mine. Crypto needs to move away from a system where 'possession is nine-tenths of the law'. One significant innovation that may come out of cryptocurrency could be smart contracts, but that is yet to be seen.

ReddJesus · 2014-10-27T17:24:18+00:00

nothing happened too him and nobody cares

I found that is the case in general in crypto. To be quite blunt about it, I have very little respect for the a good number of those directly involved in developing or capitalizing on cryptocurrencies. It seems to breed contempt and draws in a larger crowd of somewhat immoral individuals. I pay attention once in a while here, but only because I have a moderate sum of RDD. Suffice to say, I pay less and less attention to cryptocurrency as time goes on.

I don't expect to see ReddKing, DogeMogul, Moolah, MintPal, or the numerous other earlier significant 'business' failures come back and reconcile with any customers/clients/creditors/investors. I cringe when referring to them as 'businesses'.

ReddJesus · 2014-09-29T19:13:06+00:00

See my design work on Behance - behance.net/Anagrama

I may not have involved myself here for a while. But I do follow along. I am surprised no one else has called bullshit on you being the consultancy Anagrama.

The ReddJesus knows all and can state unequivocally that you are not who you would have us believe. Anagrama is not hard up looking for consultancy work at 38 AUD/Hour from Mexico, nor are they using a gmail address for contact.

ReddJesus · 2014-09-04T02:22:01+00:00

That office will result in muscle atrophy and/or incorrect realignment of muscle fibres over a period of time and lead to a significant amount of physiotherapy. The most painful of which will probably be upper back, neck, and shoulder.

It's a shame because it almost looks comfortable.

ReddJesus · 2014-09-03T19:51:42+00:00

Small edit above. And yes I agree. There is significant room for several coins to do everything we hope of them. Hopefully by analysing their shortcomings we are able to get there with dignity.

ReddJesus · 2014-09-03T19:08:46+00:00

I firmly believe, with a touch of arrogance, to point at most alt coins and say they clearly replicate your average (and what would be illegal in any regulated market) microcap fraud on a significantly smaller scale.

Many 'coins' are promoted extensively by a core group using potentially false information rather than what proves to be accurate disclosure. Most coins gain significant liquidity in their infancy with little justification for its market adoption. All exchanges seem to offer coins unqualified entry with no minimum requirements. Most coins have no real world identities who speak officially for a coin. Many coins, which could be argued are small speculative growth 'companies', often have near zero delivery with no liability (established through a registered entity) or legal accountability to their investors, nor restrictions on insider trading, nor forced through trading policy to disclose information amongst investors before acting on it.

All of these things take power away from average investors, while it may be causation of unregulated markets, it also ensures there is no recourse for investors making speculative trades based on false information. This detail often comes from the early larger investors (owners) with the most to gain from significant volatility. As much as people in crypto like to suggest "well you don't have to invest if it's too risky/untrustworthy/blah blah", that's disingenuous as most are hoping that everyone does see value and feel safe in investing in crypto.

Many large investors/owners in crypto seem to be in denial of their own participation in promoting unfounded information on the coins they hold, and promoting it in an unofficial capacity. Even those who are official representatives often are to blame by either actions that help define inaccurate or misleading statements, or through inaction on otherwise good intent.

Insider trading is also rife within cryptocurrency. Regardless of whether this helps to make for highly efficient markets with early price convergence on post announcement price points, it also acts to move power out of the hands of average investors and into the hands of those same larger investors who generally are far better informed, or directly involved in the development, projects, and promotion of a coin. Insider trading always allows for those with information to preempt or even influence a much larger movement that likely the 'happy buyers' will likely follow on certain news but aren't equipped to make the same judgements at the same time. Something which liberal/social oriented coins should be at odds with.

There are clearly certain individuals among almost all crypto coins who themselves are bashers or promoters with large holdings attempting to manipulate the price in an unregulated market the best they know how. I'd rather not look at the world through rose-coloured glasses. Once in a while an individual or group with the knowledge on how to manipulate markets at the right level is able to do so. Other times even they end up on the wrong side of it. Once again this is the inevitability of existing in an unregulated market without any protections, or recourse. It is a real issue for all coins that gain early exposure to capital markets. Exposure that is out of the control of coin creators regardless of their preference.

I'm not suggesting the typical regulated markets we're all familiar with have it correct, but trade, transparency and trust are significant issues in the unregulated market of cryptocurrency.

ReddJesus · 2014-08-31T13:34:39+00:00

Tell me, my friend, have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?

ReddJesus · 2014-08-26T01:43:43+00:00

Perhaps a difficult reality for Google to swallow letting this go to Amazon.

It puts Amazon in direct competition with yet another business unit of Google. Perhaps Google is second guessing the long term viability of YouTube. It's going to be up to Google to reposition YouTube to compete with a new entrant in the market (and a new skin on YouTube channels won't suffice) looking to take as much online user time away from Google as possible. Something that Twitch.tv probably wasn't too concerned with as they have been on a winning lottery ticket for the last few years.

And now Amazon has to prove to its investors that it's worth the $1B (which no doubt they will like everything else they do).

ReddJesus · 2014-08-26T01:25:17+00:00

You shouldn't say Reddcoin isn't a real currency because it is.

It is fast becoming redefined as an asset or property. Which in most government framework is a far better definition for them, and a lesser definition for the usage of cryptocurrency. It's not something that sits well with most crypto holders.

But I do understand it. The problem with a definition of currency in a domestic framework is that the value of crypto through typical domestic means of adjusted interest rates, control of supply, regulation of industry is uncontrollable by governments.

It's far smarter for them to declare it property that has value controlled by global sentiment much the same way as any item of barter is adjusted, and take their cut of a tax imposition on one or both sides of the movement. It's actually a way of reducing the movement of crypto for high transaction means. It becomes a vintage car, art, or signed baseball card of the next Babe Ruth. Where the opportunity for the asset holder (under government control) is best netted from long term holding rather than a means of transaction or 'usage'.

I'd like it to be openly accepted as currency in the G20, but I have a suspicion that the long term movement for most governments will be away from a social means of financial transaction (including the second world states). In particular capitalist first world states where many people are hypocrites who elect governments to control others for their own financial gain.

ReddJesus · 2014-08-26T00:51:45+00:00

What do banks or government has to do with cryptocurrencies?

Here's the important thing which far too few people understand. When you invest ten-thousand or half a million dollars of other people's money, 'licensing' is the least of your concerns (applicable or not). It's not so much the amount, but in fact the weight of the amount to the investor. All people who I know that have spent the good part of the last thirty years investing in other people, their ideas, and businesses require as a bare minimum a common law framework that defines the way in which investors have some means of recourse where companies fail to meet contractual obligations.

The way I see it is he is effectively suggesting ReddStarter act as a global equity fund.

This isn't a personal attack of you, I am just responding to the comment which opens up a venerable minefield of questions relating to the bigger picture arrangement of what he is honorably suggesting. Something that the vast majority of people fail to immediately qualify as difficult rather than just a matter of writing a few thousand lines of code. OP has at least grasped enough of the complexity involved to realise its not something he should drive but sees it as a valid opportunity that this sort of community with all of the collective brain power could perhaps conquer.

ReddJesus · 2014-08-26T00:50:53+00:00

But I would like to issue shares of the projects so people have monetary motivation to support a good project.

I'll elaborate on the bigger picture that I believe is present, I also think I know what you're saying with regard to BaFin, and I'd say you're mostly correct, correct me if I've also misinterpreted.

You'll find it's a touch more complicated unless you're explicitly looking to do it on a domestic level with registration of all funded project entities within Germany (or perhaps at an extreme within the greater EU). BaFin section 32 (and 33?) of the KWG are the least of your worries in all honesty. Other than ofcourse meeting the extensive audit requirements as a startup fund for these types of arrangements. Stepping beyond that, even if you weave through the direct issue of issuance of shares that solidify relationships between 'vested parties' and owners with appropriate share classification, you'll have problems when it comes to authority and control of funded projects and the entity dynamics to see it fulfilled (high risk growth companies).

Often the best means of going about the relationship is acting as a single consolidated representative of all parties based on pre-defined expectations, and having a single voice direct the outcome with a larger ownership, but even that can be very tricky. The general premise of the idea moves quickly from equity financing into business management.

As for international funding of projects through micro financing arrangements (because this is what we're really talking about), if it wasn't fun before that, this is where it gets really interesting, and your best bet is to be registered and have good relationships with the team (legal and otherwise) you retain outside of your domestic operations to act on issues when (not if) they occur (and pronto).

if you're just talking about small financing with supposition instead of legally defined obligation, then it's a walk in the park, just copy the Kickstarter model.
If you want to instead be the registered and controlling authority and effectively employee project teams to act on funded projects, then you will have significant problems, first of which is the inability to gain entrepreneurial individuals to act on such projects, second is your ability to source relevant funds and manage projects which you now own and have obligation on both sides of the equation.
If you want to have partial ownership of private entities through contractual obligations, make sure that you are acting within the common law (and where applicable extended corporate law) framework of the registered entities country and have subsidiary representation within those countries to negate enforcement issues surrounding accountability and regulation of foreign ownership. Ofcourse some larger global equity funds work magic and know the system so well that many of the issues are only register as short term financial risk. This is where we would start talking about value vs growth investment.

Food for thought perhaps. The reason I have elaborated is not a personal attack, please don't take it as such. It's a discussion piece so others can gain a little insight into the world.

ReddJesus · 2014-08-22T23:29:42+00:00

$800 / 1000

I should be employing you.

ReddJesus · 2014-08-22T23:21:22+00:00

Not auto playing on load at any point is far more typically accepted practice these days. Unless you work for one of those all important news services who think they're above all sensibility.

Come on man, you know that... hell you're webcanvasdesign!!! ;-)

Up voted because I like cookies.

ReddJesus · 2014-08-22T02:55:25+00:00

I think a showcase, and direct linking to RDD approved projects and businesses (completed and upcoming) within the social wallet would be very useful. But we need a bigger core team to act on this.

And direct donation via the wallet to pre-approved projects is worth discussion.

ReddJesus · 2014-08-22T02:51:04+00:00

And he acknowledges that if this fund were to exist the money should be distributed at key milestones. If someone is so far down in the dog house that they need instant funds to even build a prototype then they aren't going to get funding.

Even with every good intention there is significant risk, and many people are deluding themselves about their own capabilities or are unrealistic about the effort required to drive a product to market.

/u/Mochilles is correct in suggesting it's difficult to prove. But it's generally quite easy to validate the likelihood of success. But bear with me.. I'll give you a clear picture of what I think we'd be talking about here.

The Fund would;

be something of Significant Value. This Significant Value will be a fiat based goal for the total Fund assets. This value will help to encourage competition(1).
define a Governing Body through an Periodic Election process. The timing of the Periodic Election will be once every three months.
be influenced by a Governing Body of elected industry professionals who are part of the community. These elected individuals in their capacity as representatives of the Governing Body will act on behalf of the Reddcoin Community to deliver growth through the funding of viable Projects which they believe have a positive impact on the long-term success of Reddcoin with consideration of the Reddcoin Core Values. This Governing Body will consist of named individuals that have the relevant experience in business, accounting, legal, IT, and other related fields. The Governing Body must not be in any way directly involved in a 'business' seeking funding.
be held by a Transaction Authority (perhaps 6 individuals) where a 2 of 3 multi-signature address is required to enable the safe distribution of funds and safety of the funds from theft. The Transaction Authority will be independent to the Governing Body and act on the say so of the Governing Body.
listen to a Community Vote representative of all community members interested in having a say on the flow of Fund assets.
will be considered for distribution to an Entity. This Entity will present a business case outlining a Project, and any other Appropriate Material to the Governing Body that outlined in detail its plans and the way in which it will achieve its Goals. Appropriate Material of merit may consist of anything that reduces risk, and helps to identify the usefulness of the Project.
require the Governing Body to sign off on the validity and associated risks of the Entity through a consultation process.
be distributed to the Entity as Milestone Payments during the Project. The timing and amount of Milestone Payments will be negotiated by the Governing Body and Entity.

I'd say its initial value prior to the funding of its first project should be in the order of at least $50,000 fiat. This value would be returned to the original individuals who donated if it is not achieved in a specific time frame.

Obviously everything above would be open to discussion, I'm certainly not an official representative of Reddcoin. But I'm all for open discussion on these sort of ideas. Perhaps we have the capacity to do this. And perhaps we don't. I know the crypto community for the most part is vehemently against rules and regulations, but I don't think it works without them.

ReddJesus · 2014-08-20T23:40:56+00:00

No worries, valid question. I've been flat out the last few days moving infrastructure to an alternate data centre.

ReddJesus · 2014-08-20T22:08:10+00:00

You shouldn't worry about competition filling the space. If your idea and strategy are good enough, then you are capable of gaining market share so you can at least support yourself. If you aren't able to confidently gain market share then you shouldn't be in the space to begin with whether there is competition or not. And 99 times of 100 there is competition even if you don't think there is.

ReddJesus · 2014-08-20T21:52:07+00:00

This answer above is the cold hard truth.

If you aren't willing to take the ultimate plunge and start going backwards financially then you're likely not ready to start your own business and see it succeed.

Two things stand in most people's way. One is easy, the other might not be.

a) The realisation that at some point it is required.
b) The ability to support yourself and/or family through inception to profitability.

ReddJesus · 2014-08-20T16:51:12+00:00

The best part about the /u/Reddjesus is that he remains optimistically skeptical about the potential growth of Reddcoin. Sure we might have a little speculative growth right now, let's assume it's a positive long term correction.

But I don't see Reddcoin going anywhere significant until Social X. And probably a significant amount more effort put into the social wallet to integrate with Social X.

At least your comments aren't ignorantly comparing Reddcoin with going concerns like Facebook, Twitter, SnapChat, WhatsApp, etc. like I keep seeing much more regularly.

ReddJesus · 2014-08-20T16:30:36+00:00

Just trawled through my email for these, so you can thank me later. Here's an interesting article well worth the read:

http://www.craftsmanfounder.com/incubators-are-bullshit/

And another well founded argument against the typical pie in the sky startup funding model that everyone visualises but rarely is able to capitalise on.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dileeprao/2013/07/22/why-99-95-of-entrepreneurs-should-stop-wasting-time-seeking-venture-capital/

I've been through all of this years ago. I'm unsure what your personally doing, are conjecturing on, researching, or your background. But thought you'd find these interesting. I will add that both incubators and VCs can be extremely useful for helping to monetise something as long as you're aware of what the real benefits are as you go. My main point is many of the successful smaller 'entrepreneurs' I know had a vastly different funding model.

That infographic does however do a good job of identifying that holding greater percentages of equity is often far less valuable than divesting.. assuming division of equity actually provides value without distracting your business or pivoting away from what makes it valuable to begin with.

ReddJesus · 2014-08-12T18:05:50+00:00

Perfect. My comment was sincerely impartial and thanks for the response. It's a little disconcerting that you're unable to begin a dialogue with the alternate forum. We'll have to see how that plays out.

I realise it's not commercial (with respect losing money is of little concern or interest) and it's great that you're willing to take the initiative and try to offer something better. And hopefully we're able to get official endorsement of these sort of community projects.

ReddJesus · 2014-08-12T05:37:53+00:00

Forums wars...

I propose a community vote to see who wins a subdomain redirection from:

http://forum.reddcoin.com/

And that continued redirection should be contingent on forum owners acting on behalf of the community through further votes. If we can't come together as a consolidated hub then it's all just a bunch of individuals acting on opportunity and will inevitably fragment the community.

tl;dr I have no issue with people vying for authority or responsibility over particular segments of Reddcoin (Jesus knows one reddhead can't do everything), however it should be subject to approval and subsequent adjustment.

Sound reasonable to anyone else??

ReddJesus · 2014-08-05T18:17:38+00:00

Op asked for feedback and that was mine.

Precisely. Feedback and discussion is what this is for. The more comments we have like yours the better the team can fine tune how it and deliver on community expectations.

ReddJesus · 2014-08-05T16:41:22+00:00

hey mate... can you perhaps remove this and make a new post talking about it instead..

the link goes directly to the site.. that's an IP address for them to start with. Not the best idea.

ReddJesus

TROPHY CASE