Yes, at least so far and as far as I know. But again: It's really usual for startups. It's also usual that startups distribute shares over time because they do more funding-rounds. If you take a look at Factom for example, they already had several funding-rounds as company (I'm not speaking about their System-Currency Factoids that were sold in the initial ICO - 50% btw).
One question: What do you believe would have been better? I mean, we are talking about a startup and assumed Lykke is legit (I have zero doubt about that) and the team works hard to become successful, one can say: Lykke and all Investors are on the same side, right? Do you think it would be better for Lykke and all Investors if nearly all shares (or whatever higher number) would already been sold out?
come one man, 2.3 % is peanuts......
49% would be fair...
But why would that be fair? And shouldn't the question be: What's best for Lykke because that's also best for Investors?
If you think about it, let's say they would have done such a big ICO: Would people have bought that much of a very young startup that gets increasing attention but is not a hype yet? The answer is: Only if they would have sold it really damn cheap. Would that be fair? I believe no, because they've already delivered great stuff. They've put a lot of work and expertise in what is already there and useful and: free to use. The App is for free and they charge no fee.
At the same time there is much more to come, and they are very hard workers and it's really an impressive team - btw, there are many more working on this project than those who are visible on the site. And more shares will be distributed over time. There will be more funding rounds in future, because it's a simple fact that startups need funding. I don't know if I'm right but I believe the biggest Investor is most likely Richard Olsen himself. And others who work on this are most likely also funders. If true that would mean: They are not only those who work for the success of the company, but they also have the biggest part of the financial risk.
On the other hand: Investors can give money and that is a risk of course, but also an opportunity. And who wants shares of Lykke can buy. If you want to buy with little money it's possible right now on the market. If you are a millionaire and you would like to buy a lot, it would most likely also be possible.
Thing is: In the end it's a question if somebody believes that Lykke is a good project with a lot of potential for the future, and not only for some months like many of these "Coin-Projects" or not. And that question is highly dependent on the question if the team has the quality and abilities and can be trusted or not.
That's why I always (not only Lykke) recommend to do deep research about the people behind a project - also with the question in mind if they are honest or if there might be signs for the opposite. And the Lykke-team is really transparent and they give their best to prove that they not only have the skills but also the personalities. With other words: They don't simply say "Trust us, buy this!" - they want to convince with what they are building. At the same time they are very open for all kinds of feedback and very welcoming for all kinds of people who might be helpful. That's the reason for Lykke-Streams:
https://streams.lykke.comA good start to get an impression about the team is this video btw:
Richard Olsen about Lykke idea and objectives
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leXWIhS4Y3kIt's from a team-meeting that first wasn't even meant to be published. It's no marketing-material, but it gives very good insight about Richard Olsen, the team and Lykke.
