Although the IC Foundation is a non-profit organization, its expenses come from ICP holders - because after spending the money raised, it needs to sell the ICP to cover its expenses. The prosperity of ecology also comes from ICP holders, who switch to ecology through ICP. So the foundation must not neglect expanding users, boosting the intrinsic value of ICP, and thus supporting prices. The boost in ICP prices is the most important factor in expanding users.
But where does the investment value of ICP come from? So what kind of value enhancement can boost prices? Itâs definitely not a pledge return, that will only lower the price accordingly, so itâs just a value transfer between ICP holders. It should come from the deflation of ICP - burning CYCLES, and then
burning ICP exceeds the sum of payment to node merchants and pledge returns. When this occurs, positive benefits are generated. A significant deflation will generate large profits.
So, if the core function of ICP either leads to deflation or SNS launches are allocated to ICP holders, otherwise it will damage the value of ICP. ICâs some basic functions either do not issue coins or are fully allocated to ICP holders (for SNS, decentralized management) - not holders whose ICP being pledged, but to all ICP holders. If the ICP AI really wants to lanch SNS, it should be distributed to all ICP holders, because the basic development expenses of ICP are already supported by ICP holders.
Think about it: If everyone is disappointed, no one invests in ICP anymore, and everyone leaves, then the ICP price drops to zero, where will there be money for development?
ICP holders are the source of project funding, do not harm them, be fairă
I beg to differ! If everyone leaves, it simply means they were dissatisfied with the product.
Thereâs a famous saying, âOne manâs trash is another manâs treasureâ. In the late 1990s, after experiencing significant turmoil and losing many key employees, Apple was on the brink of collapse. However, when Steve Jobs returned to lead the company, he redefined its vision and product line, ultimately transforming Apple into one of the most valuable companies in the world.
This illustrates that while some may abandon a project due to perceived lack of value, others may recognize an opportunity for innovation and growth. Your claim might be true that a mass exodus from ICP can initially impact its perceived value, but it does not necessarily dictate ICP long-term viability or success.
At the current state, focusing on solid technological development such as AI should remain paramount as it lays the groundwork for future success regardless of current investor sentiment. It is important that investors realize value is multifaceted as different stakeholders perceive projects differently! A product designed to address real-world problems and that enhances user experience will invariably hold more value than any coin born out of internet humor or social media trends.
The true measure of value lies not in how many people can be entertained by a meme coin but rather how many lives can be improved by a well-crafted product or service. Success lies not in fleeting trends but in innovation and reliability. My claim is that, ICPsâ worth is determined not by its popularity but by its underlying technology, use case, and ability to solve real-world problems.
Where does the money raised by the IC Foundation come from to hire a team to develop AI? Seed round, A-round⌠And later on, the sale of ICP. So the expenses of the team are essentially supported by ICP holders, and these achievements naturally belong to ICP holders. If these AI achievements are used to launch SNS, the fraudulent part of the achievements belongs to all ICP holders, and of course, the team can also be rewarded. But if all the launched coins are distributed between the team, new investors, etc., but there are no original ICP holders, doesnât ICP holders spend money but have no benefit? How do their interests manifest? Donât say, these projects will burn ICP, and ecological projects will also burn ICP. Burning ICP only incurs the cost of IC infrastructure.
A new project was developed using company resources, and then the new project was separately listed, while the shareholders of the original listed company did not enjoy the benefits of the new project. How can there be such a truth in the world?
What you said makes some sense, but what I said is not the same as what you said. All expenses of the foundation come from ICP holders, so AI achievements should also reflect the interests of ICP holders. If AI is going to issue coins separately without reflecting the interests of all ICP holders, it would be a form of harm and unethical behavior towards ICP holders. This is not a matter of whether ICP or AI is successful, but a fair and ethical issue.
A new project was developed using company resources, and then the new project was separately listed, while the shareholders of the original listed company did not enjoy the benefits of the new project. How can there be such a truth in the world?
The IC foundation should be aware that all development expenses come from ICP holders, so the results should also belong to ICP holders. If there are results that require SNS, OK, but it should reflect the support of ICP holders, and a portion should be airdropped to all ICP holders. For example: 22.5% sales, 22.5% airdrops to all ICP holders (proportionally, or establishing an ICP treasury - treasury used for repurchasing and destroying ICP), and then a 5% reward for the celebrating team - because the foundation uses money from ICP holders to pay them salaries, it is different from the ecological project team. This is not only fair and rewarding, but also because holding an ICP with airdrops (or buyback and destruction) can significantly boost the ICP price. Due to the continuous achievements of the foundationâs development team, they will continue to publish, thus forming a virtuous cycle of ICP pricing and attracting users. With more users, ecological prices can also rise, and combustion will also occur, leading to deflation. Therefore, IC projects will also achieve political benefits.
The only solution I can think of for everyone to be satisfied is that new proposed tokens can be designed to be pegged to ICP, which can stabilize or even enhance their value.
For instance, Caffeine Ai can be backed to ICP or tied to its performance through mechanisms such as collateralization, which can create a sense of security among new and early investors on the IC ecosystem.
If launched, by proportionally airdropping to all ICPs, the image of ICPs can be reshaped, bringing them back to the forefront of news, attracting new investors, while reducing foundation selling (selling fewer ICPs under the same expenditure), increasing ICP attractiveness, increasing demand, and pushing up ICP prices. And with the continuous transformation of many achievements under the leadership of the foundation, such attraction will form wave after wave, improving the supply and demand relationship and attracting a large number of users.
However, it should be noted that airdrops must not be limited to staking, but should be available to all ICP holders, so that even those holding ICP in CEX can obtain it. That will result in a situation where CEX needs to transfer its customersâ airdrops to them, so that these ecological coins will automatically be listed on the exchange, greatly promoting the adoption of newly issued CEX coins, saving exchange fees, and/or at least greatly promoting the understanding, learning, and use of ICP by customers outside the circle.
This not only has benefits, but also ensures fairness and morality. Think about it carefully.
Honesty is the most important factor in business. Do not harm investors. If there is once, it will take a lot of effort to regain the trust of investors, and sometimes it may even be irreparable. if this has earned the reputation of dishonesty, and all new investors will hesitate repeatedly, damaging the productâs image.
Even if decision maker believe it is right and does not harm investors, he still need to fully respect investment, just like a companyâs major decisions must be made by the shareholdersâ meeting whether these decisions are right or wrong.
Transforming the development results ultimately derived from IC holdersâ funds into shares or using them as treasury funds to repurchase and destroy ICP is not only beneficial and fair, but also beneficial for ICP to gain recognition, attract investors, improve supply and demand relationships, and push up the price of ICP.
I am an investor and never been treated kindly. This is not a business we are just suckers. Everytime the price goes below $10 the hype starts, I donât care anymore just as the team doesnât or never cared. When I get the emails above the progress I just delete it that is becasue of the effort that this project team has made me feel as a value investor.
All I see are constant emails of the same old problems and fixes. No where do I read that the outside world shows any interest or is awe of anything to do with this project.
Donât worry the price will drop some more but the pumpers and dumpers will raise it again.
Maybe we should start talking about taking the dead people investment again.
