<<  >> (p.207)
    Author Topic: DNotes 2.0 - Staking, CRISP Interest, DNotes Pay  (Read 148894 times)
    This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic. (3 posts by 1+ user deleted.)
    DNotes (OP)
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1932
    Merit: 1111


    DNotes


    View Profile WWW
    May 13, 2018, 06:45:19 PM
     #4121


    Thanks for the article, Tim. It brings up a question. Here's a quote from the article:

    If it does have intrinsic value (read: profit share), real equity investors in the ICO-born company will watch on as the ICO token proves a permanent drag on the company’s long-term prospects – which, given the general spending on intangible business activities, aren’t good to begin with. The token goes to zero.

    Could you explain further how that works? The only reason I would or have ever bought into ICOs is because of the promise of recurring and permanent profit sharing. You say that actually delivering on this promise drags down the company and I can see how having to allocate 10% to token holders and such would represent an opportunity cost for the company. But how is that different from dividend paying stocks?

    Please educate me Smiley

    Thanks for the question wiser! I had to delete two words in the article and replace another to clear up some of the meaning.

    The first part to say about your question, is that there are a wide range of ICO structures, so i'll just answer for probably the most common (which do sometimes vary depending on the application being built - say exchange or retail businesses etc).

    The second part is that most ICO tokens that I've seen are not actually 'profit sharing', but rather 'income sharing' -- I'll explain.

    In a profit-sharing scenario, the ICO would need to be generating significant revenue, and be running an operational surplus for ICO tokens to ever receive a 'dividend equivalent' payout. The business that ran the ICO would take their total income for the year, subtract all their expenses, then decide how much they want to reinvest back into their business for improvements, and the leftover is the 'profit'. Dividends to equity owners in traditional businesses are paid based on profit, which is determined after the company decides how much it wants to hold onto (retained earnings) for business upkeep growth. If the company wants to grow, it just holds onto all the earnings for the year. This is a luxury it wouldn't have when it comes to ICO payments that are generally based on gross income, rather than profit (i'll get to this).

    So in a hypothetical example, say my ICO business turned over 10m for the year, had 8m of expenses for the year, and I decided to reinvest 1m of the remaining 2m into the company to improve its services. That would leave 1m in profit. If my ICO token promised a 10% return from all profits, there would be 100 thousand dollars paid out to the ICO token holders, and then the equity owners would get the rest in dividends (as they are lower than ICO tokens in the capital structure).

    But the way that many ICOs I've seen are set up, is the token is used as a voucher to pay the fees to use the ICO's network, where a certain percentage is paid back to token holders -- which functionally makes them a drain on total income. The funds are automatically forwarded to the token holders, so they are potentially never recorded on the ICO's income statement, but the final resting places of all funds involved in the transaction remain the same. Me giving you $20, and then you giving 10 of it to someone else is exactly the same as me giving you $20, and your software automatically giving that $10 to that other person.

    So with Tim's ICO of 10m turnover with a 10% return of network fee to token holders, there would be 1 million dollars paid out to token holders, rather than just 100k in the above 'profit' model. One of the 'payment processing' coins out there has a functional draw from its network equivalent to ~25% of what would be considered its 'net income' from fees. That would be a draw of 2.5m out of the 10m turnover in Tim's ICO, which would suddenly see Tim's ICO making a loss: remember that regardless of the way you play trick accounting, a 10m turnover, less 2.5m ICO dividend, less 8m expenses = 0.5m loss, is exactly the same as a 7.5m turnover, less 8m expenses = 0.5m loss (not accounting for ICO income in turnover, nor as a dividend drain).

    There are four main ways that I can see this potentially hurt an ICO business:

    Firstly, the drain from income occurs regardless of whether the ICO company is making an operational surplus -- meaning it could make it stay in the red longer, and at worst accelearate losses that force it to go broke if it can't turn profitable by the time the ICO money runs out.

    Secondly, The above scenario could scare investors away from putting their money into the ICO business (or save one) that had such an automatic drain on its turnover, because:

    Thirdly, sustainable operational surpluses are required to reinvest surplus capital back into the business that allow it to grow (and equity investors care about growth). Investors only tolerate perpetual losses for so long. Once a business runs out of money,  and nobody wants to invest, it dies.

    Fourthly, and last, the fee structure places the startup at a competitive disadvantage to other projects that don't have, say, a 25% income drain sent to token holders. A hypothetically otherwise 'identical' competitor (No ICO) could eliminate some of this margin to attract new customers, yet still remain profitable and grow.

    i.e. Baseline (using everything recorded accounting, and assuming expenses are fixed):

    Tim's ICO  = 12.5m turnover, less 3.75m ICo dividend (25% of network fee), less 8m expenses = 0.75m operating profit to reinvest.
    Competitor = 12.5m turnover, less 8m expenses = 4.5m operating profit to reinvest and grow.

    And if engaged in a price battle:

    Tim's ICO = 10m turnover, less 2.5m ICO dividend (25% of network fee), less 8m expenses = 0.5m loss, disgruntled equity investors.
    Competitor = 10m turnover, less 8m expenses = 2m operating profit to reinvest for growth.


    As you can see, an equally competent competitor without income-based ICO will easily win a price war. While the ICO model will see greatly reduced growth in the business even as turnover rises. The ICO token in this model anyway, becomes a parasite on the economy that constrains its growth. And the only way to draw more investment in to remedy the situation is to attract more investors -- but again, why would they want to bail out a business where they get reduced growth, and where ICO token holders still get paid even when the busienss is making a loss? That investment could be the difference between many ICO businesses surviving or failing. And as each ICO business dies, so too does its token.

    Note: there are lots of different ways ICO's can look, and not all ICOs are prone to all the downsides in ever case. Models are illustrative only.  




          


    Great explanation Tim! Conflating this concept to company shares traded on the stock market: Profit sharing is often not the most effective way to increase shareholder value. I know it sounds exciting, but what if that 10% profit equates to less than 1% return on investment for the shareholder that year. Or what if the company could have used that money to grow the company's value by 10% instead and make the shares worth 10% more that year.

Page 206
Viewing Page: 207