
Woolf University: college courses literally on the Ethereum blockchain - davidgerard
https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2018/03/24/woolf-university-college-courses-literally-on-the-ethereum-blockchain/
======
fastball
Wow! That's the worst ICO distribution ratio I've seen in a while.

    
    
      20% will be sold immediately / 30% to fund immediate development / 50% released over time to fund development
    

I thought hilariously imbalanced/overvalued ICOs were going to be _so_ 2017,
but with Woolf's 20/80 split, it looks like we're just getting started!

~~~
woah
Are you objecting to the high amount held by the developers? Why wouldn’t you
want to incentivize development? An actual bad ICO split would be where they
sell 100% of the token and have no more incentive to build the app.

~~~
fastball
I'm objecting to all sorts of things.

1\. 20% in a token sale and 30% to fund immediate development are basically
the same thing, except it seems like the designers (I won't call them
developers yet because I haven't seen any development) are trying to make more
money by waiting until their token is on an exchange, then selling the
remaining 30% for what the hope is a higher price. If your goal is to be fair
and fund development, at least make it 50% ICO and 50% ongoing dev at an
emission rate, but don't muddy the waters by pretending the whole point of a
token sale isn't to fund immediate development.

2\. As mentioned above, I don't see any actual development work, plans, or
roadmap, so what justification to they have for the claim that they will need
125,000,000 WOOLF to fund ongoing dev? ICOs right now are the real bubble in
cryptocurrency, as it's literally another dotcom bubble. People who have no
idea what they actually need or are actually worth are just throwing out
random numbers _because they can_ and people are buying into it. They don't
know what their ongoing development is going to involve at this point. This is
a bunch of guys getting together at Oxford saying "let's have an ICO, what can
we get away with?" Just look at their backgrounds!

3\. And finally, the truth is that you really don't need a "Token Fund" to
fund ongoing development. 100% distribution in an ICO should be fine. What
encourages you to continue development is people actually _using_ the platform
in the future, and you can _charge them for it_. This is supposed to be a
University, right? So students are already paying educators for their time,
why shouldn't they pay developers? If you have a website that is creating
these smart contracts (presumably yes) and needs to be maintained, then charge
an access fee for the website which covers development. Then, if people want
to negotiate or write the smart contracts between themselves and educators
without paying the platform fee, they can. Most people won't, but they could.
That's kinda the point of doing this on the blockchain. Otherwise you might as
well have a "SQL database powered university".

------
minimaxir
I strongly object to the name of the university.

~~~
Mononokay
I must be out of the loop - why exactly?

~~~
davidgerard
The really objectionable part is that it contains the term "University",
implying it is one in any way.

~~~
Mononokay
Ah. I was trying to figure out what was wrong with Woolf.

