Content pfp
Content
@
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Cassie Heart pfp
Cassie Heart
@cassie
This week, Q Inc has changed course with speaking with investors. Given I receive a lot of cold opens from investors on Farcaster, I would like to share that change with everyone publicly, and why. Moving forward, we refuse to even begin conversations with funds who have ever (or intend to) engaged in token warrants. It is clear our values and beliefs are diametrically opposed, and this is a far easier filter to save ourselves the time. It has been a long path to fundraising principally because we are operating from a perspective that as a company collaborating on a fair launched project, we can not and will not do token warrants. Despite being upfront about this, this topic has resulted in a lot of time wasted in talking with crypto funds, because they do not believe equity has a path to return for them, and ultimately decline. This is very telling because if they don't believe the company will be successful what use are the tokens, unless...?
47 replies
219 recasts
971 reactions
Nico Gallardo 🍄 pfp
Nico Gallardo 🍄
@nicnode
thank you for sharing Cassie i couldn’t relate more to this, we’re currently facing similar dilemmas and looking for solutions… im curious, what’s keeping you from just selling the token to the community as a fair launch? e.g. using @juicebox im happy to share an approach we thought about and what we think are pros and cons of doing that all in all, count on me on the crusade to make the industry cypherpunk again
1 reply
0 recast
9 reactions
Cassie Heart pfp
Cassie Heart
@cassie
a fair launch precludes this, because the only way to accumulate tokens is to earn it by protocol. we don't engage in or encourage speculation on the utility token, because it is not an investment, it's a utility token.
3 replies
0 recast
14 reactions
Nico Gallardo 🍄 pfp
Nico Gallardo 🍄
@nicnode
oh i see, you want a bitcoin style fair launch and not “pre-mine” a few tokens to sell (ethereum style - which in many people’s interpretation it was also fair as in “no preferential rights”)? im curious if you’re completely closed to the second option. we’re also exploring fair ways to get funding, and i respect your opinion a lot especially after reading this thread
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Cassie Heart pfp
Cassie Heart
@cassie
We already began the launch :) Completely opposed to the second option. I've been here since the beginning and was disgusted by the ICO era.
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Nico Gallardo 🍄 pfp
Nico Gallardo 🍄
@nicnode
imo ICOs >>> VC, but def not as fair as the way you’re approaching it have you thought of requesting grants (from e.g. the EF) or some other form of public goods funding (like @gitcoin, @octant, @giveth, etc…)? also im hearing of some mechanisms that could be interesting to explore like revnets (https://blog.revnet.app/faq/, cc @filipv) or augmented bonding curves (https://giveth.notion.site/The-q-acc-Paper-d21fa650fde1402882dcceb3b5c26d88 cc @griff.eth)
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction