When MaidSafe raised funds by selling MAID, Forbes called it a “wildly successful $7 million disaster.”
Years later that turned out to be an understatement because MaidSafe “temporarily” started selling the counterfeit MAID that was generated in that disaster.
In terms of disasters, what an incredible performance! What didn’t work out so well was the development.
Now, you can say what you want about the delays, but the SAFE sausage makers David and Nick delivered again: earlier this week the seemingly stuck needle at their Bankruptcy To the Future page suddenly swooshed into green! From (nearly) zero to hero!
What happened, you may ask?
Some SAFE sausage making happened.
Nick announced it here:
Many of you who have been following our current funding round on BnkToTheFuture will have seen a significant increase in the amount raised. We’re delighted to give you an initial heads up on an upcoming exciting development. We have reached an investment agreement with a Hong Kong based company, but while we’re finalising the terms, we can provide only high level details. The agreement reflects a direct investment within MaidSafe UK, in addition to the formation of a joint venture, based in Hong Kong.
That was followed by a bunch of stupid comments (the norm at the site) until a sane member (Runswick) asked Nick this:
I’m trying to get my head around how the relationship will work. With this setup, would a portion of profits from the joint venture ‘MaidSafe Asia’ be taken by the MaidSafe which is now raising funds by selling equity on bttf?
Runswick was obviously curious about the previously unknown flexibility: one set of conditions applies to all investors in the SPV (a concern in itself – read about that here) and another to this whale investor from Hong Kong.
Nick explained there’s no reason for concern because they both (that is, the Hong Kong whale and MaidSafe – notice the absence of the SAFE pikers) “profit” from this sudden flexibility:
Yes, we both profit from this relationship, we supply at a minimum technology and skills, they supply sales and marketing as well as customer support and signing up deals. Joint board members etc. so this is a part of MaidSafe and the first one like it.
So there you have it: a bunch of SAFE pikers invested some pittance according to the standard Bankruptcy to the Future terms announced at the site before the sale, while one investor invested at better terms and is still “negotiating.”
In case you missed it: at yet-to-be determined, but surely better, terms. (I haven’t read the BF conditions of sale, but I assume that MaidSafe the company won’t subsidize the rent and food supplements of the piker investors.)
How is that possible?
God knows. Those who dared to follow up were warned by the mod drones (example: polporene’s warning to someone who dared to ask how SAFE sausages are made). This last question in the topic, posted 3 days ago, has not been answered:
Am I correct to assume that an investment in BF is not analogous to investments in the SPV; that small investors go with the SPV and lose 5% while big investors have different options which depend on the self-certification you give yourself on BF?
Imagine this unlikely scenario:
- The fundraising is clearly going nowhere
- The management is desperately going through their Rolodex looking for old leads
- One of them is still interested and makes an indecent proposal: instead of $X, I’ll give you half of that for the same ownership in the company and I want a fixed amount of development assistance, marketing assistance and outreach funding as a signing bonus
- The management estimates that won’t cost them more than some $200K already parked at the BF so they accept the offer under the condition the investor invests through BF
- A win-win situation for “both of them”