Fixed date for the IEO or not

#1

Our community is requesting a fixed date for launching the IEO.
There are pro’s and con’s

pro

  • More confidence for community.
  • A stick in the ground.
  • Easier for marketing

con

  • no way back, we have delayed now once, we cannot do 2x
  • if we get to the date and we don’t have enough backing then we harm ourselves, a failed IEO would be horrible
  • its kind of impossible to know how ling it will take for finding enough investors

do we believe that finding investors is a absolute must before we can do an IEO?

#2

My opinion:
1/ if technology is ready and running and
2/ if investors are found and
3/ if a date in Q1, 2020 is in reach,
then it makes sense to have a fixed date.
If one of the three is missing, it would be preferable to just list.

Marketing wise, just list is as easy to comunicate, or even more easy than an IEO, cause you’ll be able to communicate regarding the core values. And not only regarding a momentum, called IEO.

#3

I agree with @Patrick but have a question. How does Mazraa raise $5-10M in a simple listing scenario ?

#4

What I’ve learnt: to the majority of people crypto currencies are still something like an alien. If we go broad-retail like-the ‘end user’ (being it SMB companies or larger one’s) need to be able to buy tokens with local language support, hence the token needed to be traded at least as decentralized as in Europe (Germany, UK, France, Spain, Italy,…), the US (I heard US citizens could not register on Liquid?), Australia, Asia (we hava a part: Japan). If, as a small company, you take the risk to buy ‘unknown’ tokens then you want to buy ‘local’ at least (so you have one uncertainty less). I am not a specialist, and I don’t know what it takes to get listed, but if we need more small investors we need to come to them and then we need more time and better execution (which requires resources). Maybe for large institutional investors it is enough to offer only one WW exchange.

#5

I want to pick up on Michael’s post, if you do an IEO, you get to offer a fixed amount of tokens coming from Mazraa, and sell them at a fixed price, generating revenue.
If you just list, others can also put tokens up for sale, and there would be a downward pressure on the price if people are desperate to sell and nobody knows the project and wants to buy…
An IEO also allows for more visibility of the project imo, you get to tell your story and people can reflect and do their due diligence, inspect the project and possibly look through the code on github and reassure themselves that this is a serious project and not a scam…
If you do a google search on Threefold IEO, you would be surprised to see how many sites already picked up the news, but we should start doing the marketing stuff at least a few weeks before the actual event, because starting 1 week before the launch is way too late of course…

#7

I am increasingly confident that pursuing a listing for TFT on 2/3 leading Exchanges is the way forward. This is option 4 ( which got the most votes anyway in a very representative poll ) and appears to be the way we are now going. This is the right choice IMO.
The SEC official warning notice ruling of last week that there is no difference between an IEO and an ICO coupled with negative feedback on IEOs from serious crypto investors at Davos mean the IEO route is not only wrong for our values but also harms the future price appreciation and liquidity prospects for TFT. To pursue it would mark TFT as a flaky second rate digital currency. Exactly the negative outcome we have always taken such trouble to avoid.
it sounds as though the team have met with serious crypto investors in Davos who may wish to buy TFT and participate in our future success. These same investors may have the capability and experience to support TFT listing on 2/3 major exchanges. This may take a little longer but it is the best way to create lasting liquidity and interest in TFT . GEC is completely supportive of this change of course.

2 Likes