Shedding some light on the EOS Token Purchase Agreement
Some, ok many, people joining the EOS Slack channel are:
extremely confused by the Token Purchase Agreement. It basically says that Block.One will develop EOS, but that they won't launch it and any third party may launch it... then further down it says the ERC20 tokens we are buying in this ICO will NOT be transferable to the EOS platform and "may have no value"... Uhh... WHAT?!?!
It even says Block.One is NOT launching the EOS platform. 7.1. No Rights, Functionality or Features. EOS Tokens have no rights, uses, purpose, attributes, functionalities or features, express or implied. EOS Tokens do not entitle holders to participate on the EOS Platform, even if the EOS Platform is launched and the EOS.IO Software’s development is finished and the EOS.IO Software is adopted and implemented.
This is most likely to separate legal risk from the company.
Once the software is ready, they can have anyone, in any jurisdiction, launch it from their basement.
The genesis block will (most likely) reflect a 1 for 1 distribution of ERC20 tokens to EOS tokens. Otherwise someone will just fork EOS and launch it with the proper, investor/donator backed distribution/Genesis Block.
Government regulations give very little choice.
If you read the agreement, it says EXACTLY that the tokens will NOT be transferable to the EOS platform and in fact will be frozen (aka. unusable) after the ICO is over.
EOS TOKENS MAY HAVE NO VALUE. 7.9. EOS Tokens Will Become Non-Transferable. Buyer acknowledges and understands that EOS Tokens will become non-transferrable within forty-eight (48) hours after the end of the EOS Distribution Period. At this time, Buyer will no longer be able to map a public key to Buyer’s account and Buyer will not be able to transfer EOS Tokens on the Ethereum blockchain.
Technically, they won't be transferring the tokens chain to chain, from Ethereum to EOS. They will be creating new tokens on the new EOS chain BASED OFF OF the token ownership of the ERC-20 token (on the ethereum chain).
They are taking a snapshot of the state of the ledger and building the EOS Genesis Block out of that snapshot of ownership.
There is nothing new here for the people that have been following the BitShares community since 2013. This type of thing has happened successfully many times before with Protoshares (PTS), Angelshares (AGS), Muse (Previously NOTEs, now MUSE) to name but a few.
This appears to require trust… And crypto is all about NOT trusting monkeys. But monkeys need to launch the stuff before robots can keep it going all trustless and whatnot. Trust is always required with the early days of development.
Why would block.one put out such an extremely one sided Purchase Agreement? I mean, it is pretty much ridiculous. It essentially says: "If you give us money, you will get tokens that are guaranteed not to be used on the platform we are developing."
Because if they launch EOS with only Dan and Block.one as shareholders, we could fork EOS and our new network WOULD have the proper Genesis Block.
Distributed software can and will be forked.
EOS without a distributed stake/ownership is worthless. One of the goals of this type of ICO is in fact to distribute the power of the network more effectively than what has been tried up to date.
Madness yes... but only on paper
I ABSOLUTELY agree with everyone losing their minds at the Purchase Agreement. It appears to be madness and it says black on white that we are buying useless crap. What I’m saying here is WHY it is written like that. In a nutshell: Governments make everything financial illegal.
Consider prostitution
It is way more dangerous for both the prostitute and the John to interact when their binding contract is legally unenforceable. In some jurisdiction with legal grey zones (think brothels), a John/customer steps into a room and says something like:
-Ok so I’m paying 200$ for a “massage” right?
If the prostitute does not do the implied work (going beyond a mere back rub), the dissatisfied customer can not take legal action because their agreement states a massage only.
We, future investors, are in the position of the John. Those on Slack that have no idea laws and regulations complicate the hell out of everything are essentially saying "There's not chance in hell I'm paying 200$ for a massage!"
I apologize (of course I don't) if this analogy offends anyone.
The FAQ reads like an exact opposite of the Purchase Agreement
FAQ = Hey we're going to launch this thing as fairly as possible. Purchase Agreement = YOU GET NOTHING!
If you read between the lines of the Purchase Agreement it equals “THIS IS HOW WE DELIVER WORLD SHATTERING SOFTWARE WHILE AVOIDING PRISON!” (or at least an ankle bracelet!)
As I stated above, it is 100% correct that “YOU GET NOTHING!” from Block.one. All we are doing is giving Block.one funds to develop software. Then someone can launch said software and can either use the snapshot (taken 48 hours after “ICO” finishes) to distribute stake (and be successful) or launch his own distribution (which will fail to get adopted).
So the risk is on paper. It’s a LEGAL risk. But the risk from a Human Action and/or game theory perspective is very low.
Couldn’t someone else launch EOS and screw us all?
Someone else could launch the chain with another distribution. But consider this scenario:
Whales can send 200$ to some dude with the tech skills to launch the proper chain with proper distribution of stake. EVERYONE involved in this ICO would see this as the legitimate chain. This is why I’m personally comfortable with the "YOU GET NOTHING" Purchase Agreement.
TL;DR
- Block one is legally protecting themselves from the biggest threat. Regulators. How? By only developing software.
- SOMEONE ELSE, it doesn’t matter who - my cousin bob and his Nigerian prince buddy in Satoshi’s attic - will launch an OPEN SOURCED piece of software (open to view at least)
- Those launching the software can make a Genesis Block that is:
- A 1 to 1 ratio EOS to ERC20 token, or
- Give all stake to Satoshi, Bob and his Nigerian cousin
Which do you think will have a solid distribution? Option 1 or 2?
Which do you think exchanges will include on their trading platforms?
Which do you think will have Great Success?
Essentially, what protects you is this Rihanna song: fork fork fork fork fork
It is scary terms, basicaly we only can rely on honesty and reputation of developers.
like every single ico
which is why it's crazy anyone uses ico's.
You repeatedly use this word. It is out of place and misleading.
The software will be open source. Anyone will be free to launch any chain the want with any initial distribution.
The question that (ERC20) token investors need to ask is whether there will be any chain launched on the basis of some current or future distribution of the ERC20 tokens, and whether that chain will be valued by the market.
What other chains may exist or be launched using the same or similar software has no relevance to your investment any more than the existence of Dogecoin has some relevance to an investment in Mooncoin. It doesn't matter if you consider Dogecoin or Mooncoin (or Bitcoin or Steem or Bitshares or EOS) to be more "proper" than the others, all that matters is whether your own investment gains or loses value.
I think the answer to both of the questions above is yes, but that is only my opinion, and even if the answer is yes that does not imply that buying tokens at any particular price is a good investment. Caveat Emptor.
Disclaimer: I have no affiliation with the company or project in any way nor do I intend to buy tokens at this time. I might reconsider later. As I said, the above is my opinion only, and my suggestion how to think about this (somewhat usual) token offering.
(Upvoted for visibility. Reward will be burned.)
Highly appreciated an input from old timer like you in this community.
Thank you,
@Yehey
What the market will value is the open source project author's contribution and their allegiance. It's fine to say anyone can launch open source software. This is never really the value of open source software. The value is found in those who understand the software, are able to fix bugs, are able to market the software, ect. Market adoption is all about 'first' and who will be first? Will it be John Doe and his cousin who fork the EOS software 3 weeks after the code is released, when they have zero branding, zero market awareness... or will the market adopt what the authors setup initially? "Here is a genesis block link guys." "Here is the software ready to go, guys!" ... the market will choose the author's choices. The alt forks often exist, but without creating their own brand awareness, they wont amount to much. Branding, marketing, awareness comes intrinsic with the original intent of the project, provided by the original authors, along with all their marketing that they bring, such as presentations, code demos, updates, ect. The trust component is in whether they will do what they said they will do. The trust component is not so much expecting some radical fork immediately upon code launch which all people who launch nodes want a different genesis block that violates the ICO investors... and that somehow this deviation gains more traction than the core project.
You're making a lot of assumptions, as the author of this post did. There are many more possibilities. Let me give one example (again out of many more possibilities): block.one undergoes some sort of startup drama and stumbles. A new startup with many millions of dollars to spend on marketing, branding, future development, and support (and perhaps including some former team members from block.one) decides to launch its own chain using a different distribution strategy.
Another possibility: despite the apparent intent of the ICO, the initial distribution is viewed as corrupted or ineffective somehow, perhaps too concentrated in the hands of a few whales. In that case, I could see even block.one but certainly others pursuing a different course with a broader distribution that the ICO. That could turn out to be a good outcome, for the long term success of the EOS technology (but not necessarily ICO investors)
Another possibility: Due to some peculiarity in the distribution process over the course of a year, some major investors feel their share was unfairly diluted, so these investors (again with significant resources behind them) decide to launch a chain with a different initial distribution.
There is not even any reason to necessarily assume that block.one itself would only support the one ICO chain. They have no obligation to do that, have not said they will do that, and could decide to remain neutral and support all chains, or even focus their efforts on a different one that (then) appears better positioned for the future. Or they could be paid to support other chains with different initial distributions (with none of that money going to ICO investors), just as Steemit was paid to support Golos (STEEM investors did receive a 10% airdrop of Golos in that instance, but there was no obligation to do so; STEEM investors could have gotten nothing at all).
These are only a few possible outcomes. None of the credible possibilities include any sort of 'John Doe and his cousin'. That is misleadingly dismissive of credible launch efforts. (However, in the history of coins there are cases such as Litecoin or Monero where essentially some 'John Doe' did launch and alternate chain that due to better distribution or perceived social contract, displaced the chain favored by the original developers.
They said they will do nothing at all. Read the terms again if you think otherwise. There is no trust at involved there.
Startup drama is possible, but it's possible with any project. This would apply to all ICO's and would not be particular to EOS.
The other two possibilities aren't likely enough to consider. Even with the stock market there are odd things like you mentioned in those two possibilities. The entire management of a company could all die within a month, for example. All possible, but we don't consider those because it isn't likely. To view the initial project as bad, there would have to be an alternate community which gains more traction than the main community... but the main community is holding the funds, the marketing, the names, ect. ect. So while this is possible, it is not likely enough to think about. For the last example, it is unlikely, also it would require those investors to form a consensus among themselves rather than dispute one another, thus causing their movement to fizzle to nothing. Furthermore, they are going to have to convince non-investors to run their Genesis block... and why would anyone do that when no one has heard of them? Meaning, they would begin behind the curve in the marketing world, and have to market themselves to crypto people as the real solution all the while they do not control websites like eos.io or the main EOS github. Very unlikely.
In the world of investing there are a 101 possibilities of things that could happen. It is true they can happen, but rather it is the predictable risks we should think about. To avoid the oddball left-field catastrophe, investors protect against those slim odds by diversifying holdings. So when something very strange does happen, it doesn't matter too much because of diversification of risk.
No they are not. Block.one is. Block.one has no obligation to use those assets to the benefit of 'the main community'. A year is a long time. If you don't think that the developer team may fragment and have diverging views how to launch the platform, change its view on the best way to launch the platform in a year, diverge with at least some significant component of the community, or finally that other important marketplace changes may occur over the course of a year then you haven't been around much.
I'm not claiming that the ICO is a bad investment. It may be a good investment. But it presents a significant risks that do not apply to many other ICOs where there is no such split between the tokens investors are buying and the tokens actually used by the platform. This is not just 'anything can happen'. It complicates things greatly. In practice, it may make no difference, but that can't be assured, and you are being unrealistic to dismiss the issue and especially to do so with simplistic single cases such as 'Average Joe and his cousin' which do not at all represent the universe of reasonably plausible outcomes.
This is complete nonsense and exactly the kind of maximalist "there can be only one" rhetoric that has disproven again and again. Divergent views and diverse platforms do not lead directly to a movement fizzling to nothing. You are too dismissive of the possibility of many varied outcomes, some good for ICO investors, some not, but the latter is not at all equivalent to 'the movement fizzling to nothing'. It is very possible that ICO investors could be left in the dust and EOS or some variant thereof could still spawn a very successful movement.
One last time, you presume that no one has heard of them. They could in fact be extremely well-known investors, or could have sufficient resources to make themselves well-known, and as for why anyone would support their chain: 1) perhaps their idea of a distribution is more favorable to newcomers, who didn't participate in the ICO, 2) just look at the 1000s of chains that already exist, dozens of which are reasonably successful (and a significant fraction, including of the successful ones, are fork chains). It seems getting participants to support a chain is readily achievable in practice.
I'm a core member of African recruitment team to help spread and touch the lives of we Africans through steem. I'd love you to check on my blog for the little post for better informing our new recruits so that they wouldn't repeat our mistakes on this platform. Also need your advice on how to go by where to invest in regarding crytpocurrencies. Your comments and suggestions will be my source of motivation and inspirations. Thank you.
thks
That's rather absurd. There are many different ways to distribute tokens. For example, someone might want to launch a chain with tokens airdropped on all Steem users (or perhaps even all Graphene-based chains). Or maybe a rolling claim system of Bitcoin users the way Byteball or Stellar are doing. Or perhaps another ICO with some twist that makes it attractive. Or using mining. These may well be very effective ways of distributing tokens, perhaps in some ways even more effective than the original ICO.
I don't think the game theory is as clear as you make it out to be, because the choice is not really between the block.one ICO and some joke distribution involving a Nigerian cousin. That said, I do think that the block.one ICO distribution will probably have a lot of value in the market. Investors betting on that are certainly taking a lot of risks (not exclusively the distribution issue, but not excluding it either).
(Upvoted for visibility. Reward will be burned.)
Forgive me for being a minnow.
What is EOS to ERS20 token?
Where to go and read more about the Genesis?
Love the post @cob.
Cheers,
@Yehey
An ERC20 token is a token hosted on Ethereum, which is what block.one is selling in its ICO.
You can't. There is no genesis yet. The premise of the ICO is that a genesis block will exist that allocates stake on a chain (which does not exist yet) according to the distribution of the ICO (ERC20) tokens. This probably will happen (in my opinion) but ICO investors have no guarantee of it, and I don't mean 'legal' guarantee.
Hey, this is the wrong place to do it and I do apologize, but I've been trying to get in touch with you about our SP rental agreement. If you don't contact me by the end of today telling me not to (steemit.chat may be the appropriate venue for that), I'll send you a second week's payment. Also do let me know if you'd like to double our agreement.
double is fine
Excellent. Thanks much! Pleasure doing business!
Ah, fantastic! Just saw the switch to thing-2. Thanks a ton!
The blue pills are 1 dollar the red pills are crypto's :
Thank you very much for making the concept of EOS less significant and introducing the new thing like ICO.
Thank you @smooth
shred some light
I heard on twitter people saying that EOS stands for Ethereum on steroids...LOL
@
Looking forward to EOS. Compared to many other ICOs I would think it's the best but really don't know. Time will tell..
People should be more careful investing in hyped-up ICOs. Do your own research of the team and the technology. Don't just "chase the hype." Plus, super-high value ICOs are likely to dramatically fall in value when their coins are available at exchanges because they are overvalued to begin with due to all the hype.
Right now, I have no way to invest anyway unless I use some VPN connections.
I value your feedback.
Thank you,
@Yehey
I hope that you are right because I am having trouble participating.
same here
Same here, and I finally gave up
Agreed
Most of these ICOs are pennystocks/pink market investments. What it comes down to is how innovative and what kind of practical value does it have for now, and for the future.
I agree #jarexx - we see it time and time again - once a new token hits the public exchanges price goes down significantly before it stabilizes.
yea
How can you tell if it is the best now if we are going to wait for "time" to tell us. I'm confused with your statement.
Anyway, great post.
Follow me at @Yehey
Thank you.
seriously It could be a great but the price of $5 per token is too high for 1 billion tokens available is too high, this is going to take the EOS number 4 immediately. 5*1= 5, which is $5billion in market cap and for me this is unhealthy position for a new digital currency. there is a big possibility that the price of the coin will drop. the technology behind EOS is great but the market will tell about how much profits you could make if you take the initiative to put your money in it.
5$ a token? Where did you read that as the website states tokens will be distributed in line with the amount of ETH contributed so no one knows the token cost.
@sufyogi - it is bit risky to get in at the first day because of the issuing every day @ 2m coins - We never know how many coins will be issues and what price will be.
r8
i think polybius ICO is quite best and safest when compared to EOS
Looking at EOS so far, it's valued on the exchanges for nearly $1 USD, is that right?
I had assumed the traffic to purchase would die down over time, so did not attempt to get in early. I really respect Dan for broadening the buy in period; but I sometimes wonder what will happen to valuation when 1B EOS is in play.
Could send the price in a free fall at first..
However, I respect Dan in so many ways. This is his 3rd big Crypto play, so he is no beginner.
And the EOS agreement reminds me of what I signed, when ETH had it's crowdfund...
I had no idea how that would turn out, but I thought it was worth 1 BTC to find out!
And lastly, IF the price of EOS does fall to below prices of the crowdfund (this week for example) then it will be another buying opportunity, if nothing else, and cost averaging over time, should lower the average price it cost me to buy in.
This is similar to the PTS agreement, and PTS worked very well.
Yes sure...
eventhough, this is still very risky to invest in it.
Can you give us an update on MUSE/ Peertracks please?
Yes I can. Join our Slack: peertracksmuse.slack.com
We just launched test network over the weekend. Still on the DL while our wallet GUI is being finalized.
News coming soon.
Yo @cob! I'd love an invite to the MUSE slack. We can't join without an admin's blessing.
Of course. Got a slack username? PM me it!
Sent via LinkedIn.
Hi @cob,
Thanks for this; it's still a bit confusing, and will take a few more reads for me to get it. Could you also send me an invite to MUSE please? I am as I am on here; Cryptogee
Thanks
Cg
Great post.
July 1, 2017 - Bitfinex will be adding support for EOS exchange trading through EOS/BTC, EOS/ETH , and EOS/USD pairs.