In the above Stellar explorer why are there 5m TFTs. As I understand it, migrated TFTs receive a “TFTa” designation and thus can’t be traded currently. Where did these TFTs come from?
There is also $1000 in trading volume.
Can someone explain please.
Hi Georges,
Amazing you saw this already, well done
this is absolutely normal.
Stellar works with trustlines, and these 5m TFT are a trustline backed by existing TFT’s,
over time more and more tokens will go over to the new Stellar platform there will be more than 1 trustline. We are still figuring out the detail.
This trustline has been set by the TF Foundation who has TFT’s donated by farmers and from own farmed capacity.
We hope this week to have all details ready and on our wiki, please allow us to document all properly.
The following info is already known and has been communicated in bits and pieces already on update meetings:
There are different categories of TFT’s and they will have different modalities this year on how they can be traded on Stelar or on other exchanges.
hope this helps,
stay tuned
Kristof
Hello Kristof,
thanks for the summary. I guess this will not be the last time someone will ask, as this gets into delicate financials ;-):
As explained in your last paragraph (about TFTA), does this refer to tokens earned by farmers so far (for providing capacity) and individuals who got tokens from the referral program? What if they want to keep the tokens beyond the end of the year? Do they need to be converted to new TFTs, to be able to stay invested in TFTs? I understand, that Atomic Swaps are a fairly new technology, would they work between the Rivine TFTA and the new Stellar TFTs? What happens, if nothing happens-will they get zero value and hence being lost?
I guess there will be a new Wiki for all those questions?
Thanks and #staysafe
Otto
Hi Otto
I may be mistaken but it is my belief that it is the restriction whereby TFTA may only be sold via the market maker that ceases at the end of the year. This means that TFT and TFTA can be freely traded after the end of the restriction period as if they were TFT.
At that point TFTA and TFT may be exchanged as equal in value. I dont believe there is any point at which TFTA expire worthless or are cancelled but it would make sense for a TFTA holder to exchange TFTA for TFT when permitted to do so at negligible if any cost to the TFTA holder.
Best
Michael
Thanks a million Michael for clarification. This sounds amicable then. I hope we can believe in your belief 
best regards,
Otto
Actually from what I understand from the Zoom call, is that at the end fo the year, remaining TFTA will be converted to TFT so that only TFT remain…
I bought TFT’s , not TFTA’s. It’s like I have Euro’s and tomorrow the bank tells me they changed it to Dollars. You can’t do this in my opinion. Or can you clarify ?
Its not that you bought Euro’s and now have Dollars. Its like you bought Euros which are now called Dollars. Same thing, different name just to make implication/migration of some things easier.
This is interesting how does this make the migration easer?
I have a contract that states I bought TFT’s, nothing else. But ok, let’s see what my lawyer thinks about it.
I understand this is a delicate topic, we are only trying to do the right thing.
We can also just launch and thats it but then I think we can expect the price will not be stable and maybe we are lucky and it works or maybe we are not and we will loose our TFT price.
I don’t think that is what we want. We have been super transparent about this for +9 months, that if we organise a token launch that there is a need to stabilise the price and we need funding for the launch. We have done multiple community meetings and are executing the plan we together agreed upon. There are people who put lots of money in to make this token launch happen and by agreement they can sell now in this launch, everyone was free to be part of the funding for this launch, we should be grateful to these people that they made our launch possible.
The launch allows the foundation to sell tokens (with as only benefit projects to grow the project) and the people who funded this launch, that too we have also been very open about, it was the condition for the foundation to organise this launch and find the money required to make this happen. No founder or any other person, early farmer, … has priority to sell.
About TFT Network capacity & contract, you have bought IT capacity from Mazraa which is expressed by means of TFT. The TFT you have is 100% usable to be used to buy this capacity.
For the record the Rivine TFT (expressed as TFTA) can be used to buy and sell capacity, this is the purpose of the TFT token. At end of year everyone can decide if they want to move their original Rivine TFT to the new Stellar TFT, so Mazraa was completely in line with the contract signed.
Starting 29 April you can use your Rivine TFT to buy capacity (-:
Also for the record, everyone can sell their token starting July 1 there will just be predefined rules how to sell till end of the year, this is for everyone’s interest. We are doing everything possible to make the network succesful and as such there will be enough liquidity for everyone who wants to sell. Most other projects just put a lock in so no-one can sell, we are not doing that we only want to provide a mechanism to have some price protection.
I hope this answers your concerns and that you realize we do everything possible to make everyone happy.
I will try to explain I hope I do it good enough, will check with Rob later.
technically & legally: the original TFT is a token as result of farming IT capacity and the Rivine blockchain is used as consensus mechanism, lets call this token the Rivine TFT.
Legally spoken this TFT is a token which allows you to buy & sell IT capacity. As such certain organisations like Mazraa have sold future IT capacity by means of these TFT, Mazraa has by contract to allow their customer to buy the IT capacity by using that TFT.
After consulting with the community the Foundation suggested to organize a token launch. To do this we effectively launch a new token. Called TFT(A) on a new blockchain Stellar, lets call Stellar TFT.
This is a NEW token (TFT(A)). The foundation creates a token where the property is that each Stellar TFT(A) is backed by a Rivine TFT or has been farmed since May. Stellar works with trustlines and we as foundation make sure that the trustline is correct between the Stellar TFT(A) and the Rivine TFT. To do this safely the Foundation created atomic swap mechanism, which is super safe.
No tokens can be lost, indeed a atomic swap is used to make the conversion which means if something goes wrong you are back at original situation.
From end May (the first farming round on Stellar blockchain) all new TFT’s will be Stellar TFT’s.
So legally and ethically we are 100% in order, its up to the organizer of this new token launch to define the rules, ofcourse the organizer wants to make sure that the community follows.
But do realize the Stellar TFT is technically a newly created token with certain properties.
I totally understand the dilemma Kristof and these are my thoughts without getting into specific token economic details.
I am a believer in free markets in any economic platform. Free demand and supply dynamics. Note I am not opposed to market markers … but not for price stabilazation. As their name implies the purpose of market makers is to “make a market” as in to provide liquidity and not as a price stabilazation mechanism.
The second point I would like to make is when a certain class of token is given priority like in this case to sell first before another on the premise that these token holders helped with the launch it undermines the other token purchasers. As if to say friends and family money isn’t worth as much. But we all know without the f&f money we wouldn’t be here at all.
Food for thought.
I agree, but without the funding for the token launch there would be no token launch at all and same for foundation without funding for the projects there is no grid because there would be no technology, so that defends the current structure which is not new, this has been communicated before we started organising this token launch.
About marketmaker you are right, its the wrong name, maybe we need to use other name.
More people told me this, we used the name because we are still trying to find more funding so we can put liquidity behind the marketmaking function which would defend the name.
If we only use a marketmaker bot for price protection its clearly a wrong name.
on another note, I would appreciate everyone here uses their real names and be open about their identity, see our rules of communication of this forum.
We do believe in freedom of speech but not in the right to do this anonymous, please update your name’s and maybe even put a picture. Many thanks for your understanding.
am going back to other work, will not be back for couple of hours, talk soon…
Like I said … it’s a dilemma.
A name change from market marker to whatever name wouldn’t change that the proposed effect is to limit free economic markets which are efficient and produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people by the equalizing sellers and buyers.
If this project is as great as many believe then why are we scared to allow the price to float freely? Why are we scared to allow free markets. Finally, on the other hand, why also would tokens holders that aided the launch need a priority date to sell any tokens? They wouldn’t.
So, the best case scenario of having two classes of tokens is that we are kicking the same potential issue 8 months down the road. - Then what?
thats a little bit late now to say this I believe.
We got people to support the new launch by buying TFT and now we say they should not get prio? Others were not willing to help? Its not like we didn’t ask.
So giving new investors a benefit happens all the time, so why would this not be right here?
There is free market + somewhat of a price protection till end of year which I believe in these times is a good thing to do, I don’t understand why we see this as bad?
I believe many people will like this and as such more will be entitled to become part of our ecosystem, I personally believe most people in our ecosystem want more stability not the crazy crypto fake market making game.
I am sad to hear you feel this way Kristof. We did help. We all did.
Some 3 years ago and some more recently. People invested as much as they felt comfortable at the time they could. It’s not a question of not willing to help. It’s a question of economic ability for each and everyone of us.
At the end of they day I am just an observer. But you have the absolute authority and responsibility. Please use it well.
g
This is disrespect for early investors sorry dont like this statement!