Post #3247

Signature not verified

This entry might be using an old signature, or it was signed by a key that does not exist on the server.

The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Veteran Blockchain Investment Firm

Allow us to clarify our position regarding our efficiency. We are going to set both nodes to 50% efficiency rate upon entry into the authority set.

When we become successful in setting up the framework for the largest blockchain endowment in the country, we will be proponents for reevaluating and directing a portion of our efficiency based upon the price of FCT. Our intention is to give up half of our potential earnings from the nodes to the advancement of the Factom protocol, whether it be in grant pool contributions or through the WVU endowment fund.

[I]I believe the 25% you will allocate to WVU will have to be paid to you as the ANO first, and then you forward the appropriate amount to WVU. (even if you provide a payout address that WVU "owns" you would still be the organization that generates the revenue and would carry the tax obligation). If this is true; how will you handle the tax-implications of this setup?[/I]

Firstly, we are contributing 50%. We have discussed this with our legal team (Gordon Law of Chicago) as well as the WVU Foundation. There are measures and laws in place to alleviate the tax burden of contributing entities as well as the tax the WVU Foundation may get imposed upon them.

[I]2) What is the lowest FCT-price point you will be able to operate with two servers?[/I]

If we are just talking about servers, no guard nodes, and no backups running constantly, then based upon our proposed technical specs and calculations, FCT will need to remain above $4 before we begin talking about burning through our reserves. We can scale down the technical aspect of our server to a skeleton operation to save costs, but we would not want to maintain that for the long-term.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.