read and try again.
If token is 5$ everyone gets 4 tokens more. Then the price is 1$. That allows issue more for 1$.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
read and try again.
If token is 5$ everyone gets 4 tokens more. Then the price is 1$. That allows issue more for 1$.
Sure, I understand what you say. There is no difference to your example of 5$ versus issuing new tokens right now for the price of SEED based on current fund value. Which is kinda like 2,5$ right now (a little less maybe).
I still don't see why more tokens need to enter the market. As I don't see why it is a problem that it's not easy to trade the token. At some point, more SEED holders will want to sell. But that is not the case now. Fine with me, and should be fine for SEED as well.
It's perfectly fine! It was a 'positive ranting' in the sense of how difficult getting that initial liquidity has been.
The SEED holders simply believe in the fund manager, hence no one wants to sell :)
What I think is new to crypto compared to the fiat world, is investment funds becoming tradable on the free market. I still wonder about that. What is the benefit of a tradable investment fund? The value of the investment fund is the value of all investments. I suppose, by making an investment fund publicly tradable, the only positive effect of that is the value of the investment fund manager is included in the price. All the other elements such as market sentiment, I see as a negative effect. What is your take on this?
I agree completely but... how do we value the fund manager? (rather than with our trust)
Did you just agree and give the reason why an investment should not be publicly tradeable? 😂
Maybe I just misundertood. I agree in the following:
A 'tradable' crypto fund isn't different (at least in the core) than investing in a basket of assets ( same as a investment fund which most banks offer).
HOWEVER! (and it's a big one), crypto fund can offer a flexibility which banks can only dream for. Main thing is that these type of funds doesn't have interests aligned with the customer since the bank basically relies on fees on the customer itself, and no 'real profits'.
It's also remarkable all the hidden fees, since the fund manager from the bank usually will pick the assets which HE/SHE is allowed to (and not necessarily the optimal ones). P.e products from the same branch
TL;DR banks incentives aren't necessarily the same with the customer. A problem which doesn't happen in crypto (if rules are clear from the beginning, of course).
Dunno if I'm missing something... I'm answering your question or raving to much? :/
I do agree with crypto being more transparent, maybe less fees and less politics, though the later may still happen when a fund is run by a team.
I try to make a different point, the investment fund and the open market tradebility thereof.
Bank or other institutional investment funds are not tradeable on the open market. Peeps trade with the fund itself and pays/receives the intrinsic value of the fund, whilst the value of such fund is not full of sentiment and whatnot. My take is this is wanted, in a centralised setup but also in a decentralised setup. I mean, it is wanted that the valuation is done purely on assets it holds and knows the market value of these assets.
Well, not all investment funds are like that, for instance, a fund investing in paintings or other art will have difficulties establishing a price point for each such asset. But that aside, SEED doesnt own such type of assets.
For SEED you like to see more liquidity in the market so peeps can buy and sell like stock or general crypto on the open market. I wonder why you want this? And/Or this 'degrades' the investment fund value from pure valuation based on known assets with known prices, to an investment fund valued not only on the previous but also on a range of other non-financial factors, such as sentiment, emotions. Any open market trading system has this effect. Maybe ok for shares in businesses. But is this, in your opinion, wanted for investment funds?