Thanks
It's all clear to me.
Have only one question:
Where are you going to keep BTC before tokens distribution? Coinbase?

There are other great companies, with products much more innovative than what Coinbase offers.

watching closely.

SaluS project will also part take in this.

Good luck!

-Kushed

Signed up for newsletter.  Seems like there is quite a bit of interest in Waves already.

Afaik, Bitshares accepts creation of all kinds of assets, not just pegged ones? The BTS fiat-pegged assets are backed against 6x collateral, I think, value doesn't come just from what 'people believe'. Anyway that was just an example; have you looked at NEM mosaics for example? I'm sure there are many more colored cryptos out there, I'm not off to make a thorough list. In the end, if you value above all control and the ability to do things your way, a new project is the only option, I guess.  Have you checked on what Maker DAO is trying to do? (it only a part of Wave's ecossystem). What exactly are the 'severe limitations' of other colorored coins you could compare Wave to?

You guys will bring more people, complete a successful ICO and achieve a good initial distribution of coins if the workings of this project hit that sweet spot where people see something new, with potential, fair and backed by competent and trustworthy people. My perception is that the team is solid, but I get a feeling that most people around here don't understand exactly how this project's approach to fiat and assets will result in a much larger adoption than other projects that have been trying to do the same for a while now. I read a few sound bites about this in the thread, repeated a few times, but I don't see a critical, well explained factor that will for sure tip the balance in your favor.

Do you really need to reserve so many coins to pay for development? Maybe the focus should be to give investors the sweetest deal possible (and they will front more BTC), with a well explained, compelling project instead of taking such a big cut from investors to devs 'just to be safe'. My other point with the bots and bounties was simply that the project could do without that reserve because those resources could come from market trading, later. And the ICO funds are not going to be spent/distributed all at once, right? A part could be put to use, to generate income while it is waiting to be disbursed in due time.

At this point I'm not so much worried about tx transparency - ppl tend to take that as a given when discussing blockchains - but more about why the 'partners and backers' need to be paid in the first place. That's the kind of thing I'd like to see examples of. If in the future you need to add features, why not make an asset for each of those features, sell the asset to investors and distribute any income from the features among those asset holders. Once Waves is up and running and showing how it works and how solid the connections are to the 'outside world'.

How much money do you (estimate) need for development, can you be transparent about that?

Like someone else posted early on, this thread is full of support and excitement mostly from accounts with a very low number of posts. I'm not trying to bring this project down, I just see too many posts just pledging support blindly and nobody really asking any questions. Well, apart from the ones about the free coins to early supporters...

I joined WAVES Facebook, follow WAVES account on Twitter
and sign up for subscribe to WAVES newsletter.

Updated my sig. Hope I am not late for this.

WHATT?? That's way too much. That amount should be enough to mine the necessary metals and oil, build a factory, produce computers and then develop the system.

Or the developers eat nothing but caviare.