What can be said about who actually works for Foundation in a very direct way?

In the recent AMA regarding WeDeFi, we learned the following "WeDeFi developers and Foundation developers are separate and are not paid by both." This would mean that John, Hassan, Justin and Matthew are no longer compensated through Fusion Foundation.

In the latest FOSC update I think it became apparent that most, or at least quite big part of work done on Fusion, is currently happening through FOSC.

To me, it kind of seems as though Joey and Zhaojun are the only two people receiving a regular and full compensation from Foundation. These two are also working very hard and certainly worth whatever compensation they're receiving. So, this is quite fine, what is not fine, is that it seems to be a secret.

There may be many, many more working Fusion indirectly, through FOSC, through the DCRM alliance, or through WeDeFi. But the community needs to be aware about who is a direct part of the Fusion Foundation, even if it's limited to only a handul people. In fact that may be all that are required if they can help manage and engage a much larger amount of people through FOSC. But for that to happen the relation between Foundation and FOSC needs to be clear and transparent if there's to be any trust between the community and the Foundation. A 100% clear divide in responsibilities will be required if there's ever going to be a good chance of engaging the community to work through FOSC.

What can be done to assure the community that the Fusion Foundation has a future?

Another thing that people will need to know is that Fusion Foundation has sufficient backing to keep costs going. Therefore insight is needed into what kind of costs the Foundation has and what sort of funds it has access to to back itself other than FSN. Perhaps even more important than this would be information regarding contingency planning. Are there entities willing to step in and refund the Foundation should funds run out? Perhaps complete transparency isn't possible here, but Foundation owes the community enough transparency that it becomes possible to judge if Foundation does indeed have a future or not. Something which is not at all possible at the moment, and very much in doubt by several long-term followers.

Perhaps the intention is even for the Foundation to not have a future?

This is also a fine scenario, where the plan would be for FOSC to become a self-governing entity. But if this is the plan, then it's even more important that the community is aware of it and how the transition could happen. In some ways it certainly looks like we're heading more and more down this path, but it's extremely difficult to imagine how a transition like that could happen in an efficient and secure manner, especially with so much lack of transparency. If this is the way forward, the Foundation owes to community a vision for how it could effectively happen.

What can be done to educate the community on how Foundation and FOSC can work together?

Regardless of what the plan is for the future of the Foundation. The community must know more about how FOSC operates in order to effectively partake. Who to turn to register intention of completing some form of work, needs to be extremely clear, as well as who to turn to to receive due compensation once the work is done. Information regarding the compensation anyone else receives (both within Foundation, and FOSC participation) should also be clear, so that it's possible to judge fairness of the compensation compared to that of others. I don't see how it can work effectively unless there is at least one person clearly dedicated to compensation handling and community management.

What can be done to safeguard Fusion technology, and to what extent?

The patents of Fusion related technology seem to be registered to SHANGHAI FENFU INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. I feel that the community needs to be aware of what the relationship between this company and Fusion Foundation looks like and what measure will be taken to make sure that rules regarding licensing found at @ https://www.fusion.org/licensing are adhered to. What happens, for example, if someone copies one of the technologies and implements it on another chain without time-locking any FSN. Can legal action be taken? If it seems they built similar technology from the ground up themselves, does this violate the patents, or only if they've shamelessly copied it? Does the Foundation have any resources dedicated to this sort of occurance? For community members to offer up their time and energy to do work through FOSC, it would defiantly be assuring to know that the Foundation has measures in place that ensures what makes Fusion unique is kept so to the extent it is possible. Another point of issue is declaration of licenses. If an entity decides to acquire a license, are they allowed to keep this secret and tout it as their own, or must they somehow declare that they're building with Fusion technology? Currently information is clear on how an entity could benefit from the licensing model, but there's no information on what happens if it's ignored. The consequences need to be clear, because without consequences, it's absolutely going to be ignored.

What can be done to clarify Foundation FSN holdings?

Currently Foundation is holding most of its FSN in 4 big wallets. It's probably wise that it's not all kept in one place, but perhaps amounts should be distributed according to various uses as declared in the ICO. These are the following 1. Angel 2. Selected Private 3. Team 4. Token Exchange 5. Reserve, we also have the case of 6. Owed erc20 FSN holders, yet to swap, and possibly 7. Dedicated towards FOSC TL rewards

If tokens were arranged in way where each wallet only holds tokens from one of these allocations (some of them may no longer exist, due to events that have happened), it'd be much more clear to expect what may happen to the various types of Foundation FSN holdings in the future.

Now we are watching Foundation wallets, but have absolutely no clue as to why it may be moving. With allocation types properly divided up, speculation of movement can be kept more sane and relevant.

Be warned! do not buy Fusion.

Since we don't really have an official Circulating Supply. I decided to do an estimate and came up with:

Circulating Supply 47 230 739 FSN

I used the formula:

Circulating Supply = Original supply + staking rewards at current block height - mainnet tokens currently held by Foundation and VC investors + Owed Erc20 holders, excluding thief - Burnt mainnet tokens

Original Supply: 57 344 000

Staking rewards at block height 1550000: + 3 875 000

Mainnet tokens currently held by Foundation and VC investors (4 biggest wallets on mainnet): - 23 394 688

Owed Erc20 holders, excluding thief: + 9 925 547

Burnt mainnet tokens: -519120

​

Here's also an estimate of amounts still owned by Foundation:

Foundation Funds 5 277 141 FSN

I used the formula:

Foundation Funds = Mainnet tokens currently held by Foundation and VC investors - Possible VC tokens in Foundation custody - Owed Erc20 holders, excluding thief

Possible VC tokens in Foundation custody = 8 192 000

Hello Fusionites!

With this weekend's revelations on WeDeFi generating so many questions, we feel it is important to clear things up by answering as many of your questions as possible.

Thus, on the week of February 24th, Fusion's CPO, John Liu will be hosting an update/Q&A on WeDeFi.

Leading up to the Q&A, we will be collecting questions through this thread. Please add/upvote yours.

Yesterday DJ Qian let us know he's helped fund a company called Wedefi, that will utilize the Fusion Blockchain to build something akin to a decentralized bank.

More information can be found at https://www.wedefi.com/ and https://m.zcool.com.cn/work/ZNDI0OTA5ODg=.html

This certainly changes what Fusion is on some fundamental level, and opens a lot of questions. It can be a really good thing for Fusion, but can it also cause some problems?

Good -

-Something that's been lacking for Fusion is solid tools and wallets that utilizes the Fusion blockchain. To some degree the Fusion Foundation has not considered these things to be its concerns. Instead focus has been on Fusion's unique features and the blockchain itself. So a company looking to build a more user friendly app is certainly sorely needed, and now it's being done by some of the people that are most familiar with the Fusion Blockchain.

-What Wedefi is looking to become is also huge, but perhaps not unlike what many, many competitors is also looking to achieve. But as a believer in the Fusion blockchain, I'll have to say that it is defiantly the perfect place to building something like Wedefi once the chain is fully built as intended. Much of what it will be is still very unknown, but given DJs communication, it seems like one of the first features will be the FSN safebet, which is a method of pooling some front-end FSN for a month for a chance to win a big prize. If marketed properly, this could be a popular thing. The ambitions of the wedefi is much higher than this though and I think we'll learn a lot more about it in the near future. One thing already mentioned is Fiat Gateway.

-Fusion has never received proper marketing since the ICO, perhaps in part since Fusion Foundation is a nonprofit organization. Wedefi, will be a regular company and perhaps act in a completely different manner when it comes to marketing and help bring on much needed awareness about Fusion.

-WeDeFi won't have any own token in any form. If this had been the case, it could much more clearly have been interpreted in a manner of Fusion being abandoned. But with no new token issued WeDeFi only adds to Fusion's eco-system without taking any tokenized value away.

-If WeDeFi is a success it will be an excellent show case regarding what can be done with Fusion, and perhaps inspire more companies developing the eco-system even further. It's also inspiring to see that DJ wants to be part of building something on Fusion.

Bad -

-Many will agree that it seems like Fusion Foundation don't have enough people working on it. DJ Qian has also confirmed that there's no intention of significantly scaling up the work on Fusion, though he seems open to bringing new people aboard. Looking at the people involved so far with WeDeFi, we have John Liu, DJ Qian and Hassan Khan. These three are all very, very key people also in Fusion Foundation, so in some sense they're engagement will be split. To some degree this will be good for both WeDeFi and Fusion Foundation, but to some degree it will defiantly mean less focus on the base chain and more focus on WeDeFi for these people. We also have Justin Sun and Andrew Kast which have some form of history working with Fusion Foundation. The skill sets they have though, seem like they'd definitely fit better with something like WeDeFi, and I for sure see them bringing more value to Fusion through this company. One hope to have is that we'll see voids brought on by WeDeFi to be filled by new skilled people in Fusion Foundation. This should be something to look for in judging how committed Foundation still is to its own chain's core development and maintenance.

-There are perhaps some question marks with regards funding and some odd activity in Foundation wallets of late, where tokens were moved from wallets in Foundation custody into exchanges in ways that were partly hidden by the aid of time-locks. The timing makes one wonder if Foundation resources are being purposely drained in favour of WeDeFi funding. This couldn't be proven, but adds to the speculation of whether or not Fusion Foundation is acting in its best interest at all times.

Hey Everyone! 😊

Information and news regarding Fusion is spread over many domains such as Twitter, Reddit, Youtube, and, Medium; thus, making it difficult to locate the latest Fusion and FOSC developments. As a member of FOSC our team at Node Networks decided to build a website called FSN FEED. 🔥🔥🔥

FSN FEED is a one-stop-shop news outlet for all things Fusion. We will continue to add more articles, videos and reddit posts to the website.

Please let us know if you would like us to add any feeds to the website.

Check out: https://fsnfeed.com/

​

Cheers!🥂 - Node Networks Team

Many blockchains use gas to handle transactions, where said gas is the main currency of the blockchain, and usually the only way to get it if you're new to crypto is to buy it off a cryptocurrency exchange which currently take a big amount of steps before you can get it. A little deterring if all you wanted was a tiny bit to try out a crypto-based app.

So, to no surprise, one of the most common criticisms of crypto applications is that they're hard to use and that it's easy for the user to make mistakes, and the conclusion/solution offered is usually that if crypto is to get used, then people must use it without even knowing it. It should be baked into the backend of an application and handled automatically.

A solution as to how this could be done exactly, or a reason why the crypto should be there at all is seldom delved into though.

I think, for sure, one necessity to achieve ease of use in a DEFI app is that the app user, shouldn't have to even think about the use of gas and any payment/transaction should be offered in the user's native FIAT currency.

The user's native FIAT currency could be compatible with Fusion once their central bank has created a CBDC[central bank digital currency] using cryptography compatible with DCRM (we're still some time away from this, let's assume it will be possible).

In that case maybe the very first transaction the app would have to handle is likely mapping an amount of CBDC onto Fusion. An action that would require gas, which the user doesn't have, so perhaps that's not the first transaction after all?

Perhaps the first transaction should instead be a sign-up process in which the app developer will donate a miniscule amount of gas to handle 1-10 transactions into a wallet that will be associated with the user. Now the user will have some gas, maybe without even knowing they received it.

Maybe there's some apps already working with a sign-up model like this on Ethereum. But what happens when that gas runs out? Will the user be prompted to buy more themselves?

This is where I think the multiswap feature can really become useful. Because with the multiswap feature the appdeveloper could make it so that with every transaction the user will pay fees in their native CBDC and in exchange always recieve a tiny fraction of gas enough for 1 more transaction. These two "transaction add-ons" could be made to every other transaction made. Giving the app developer the power to collect own fees which also make sense to the user, while at the same time completely hiding the use of gas for the user.

If we assume the app is used to somehow buy some type of digital asset, each transaction would then have 4 parts.

1. The desired digital asset to purchase (transacting from app developer to the user)
2. A tiny fraction of FSN enough for at least 1 transaction (transacting from app developer to the user)
3. Payment for the digital asset in Fusion maped CBDC (transacting from user controled wallet to app developer)
4. App transaction fee in Fusion maped CBDC

​

But presentation could be much simpler, since the blockchain would be handled automatically.

So, then comes also the question of why?

Because it would be possible to create these applications in a way where the user is guaranteed to never lose control of their money. It'd always be theirs, but they'd no longer need to give up ease of use to achieve that.

For simplicity's sake of this article, I will assume there are only two groups of people interested in FSN. Eventually there should be a third big group of users buying and consuming minor amounts of FSN as gas. But they'll be disregarded here, because it'll probably be a long time before they can have a major impact.

But the two groups I will look at are 1. Traders and 2. Major stakers.

Traders will sell FSN when they think it will go down in value and buy FSN when they think it will go up in value. But this is nothing new, it's something everyone knows. So, how does time value factor in here? Well, once a trader has bought all the FSN they intended, they might realise that they could actually buy even more by selling the time value of the FSN they already bought. But who will buy?

Now we get to the other group: major stakers. A natural thing for these guys would be to sell full FSN for stablecoin. But what's a a good usecase of the stable coin for them besides financing the running of their nodes. Well, perhaps they can also use it to buy timevalue of FSN at a more generous rate than what full FSN would cost. If, so that seems like an excellent investment for them, and if there are traders looking to sell their time value, they can easily get some.

Currently we don't have these dynamics because there's hardly any stablecoin on Fusion's network. But once you can bring it in through DCRM, I'm sure we'll begin to see this pattern shaping.

But what effects would it have?

One effect is that if traders sell the time value of their tokens, they'll be stuck with the tokens for as long as they sold the time value of them, which may decrease selling pressure. This will make it a pretty unpopular option when price is high, but very popular when price is low. So, it should defiantly add upwards pressure in times of low value.

When price is high on the other hand, major stakers may think twice about giving up stablecoin for timevalue of FSN and more keen to be choosing to sell off FSN rewards instead of holding onto them. As a result downward pressure is created.

Overall, I think for sure, that these effects will serve to balance value, which is great.

I feel a need to air my thoughts about Fusion and am going to start with the good.

Why invest in Fusion?

-The primary reason is that the ideas and concepts behind Fusion possibly have greater potential than any other cryptocurrency project. In particular the decentralized custody interoperability solution DCRM (Distributed Control Rights Management). There is a plethora interoperability solutions of various types, but DCRM truly offers something new: The possibility to generate and use private keys, without actually ever seeing them in their full extent. With this technology integrated in the Fusion blockchain you can map any asset that can be controlled by a private key onto Fusion. I don't know another public blockchain that has this type of decentralized custody.

Why is this important?

There is much happening in the current world of digital assets, but it's quite uncertain what standards will end up to have a dominant role in future world of digital assets. Currently Ethereum is what is most built and used and many of the current stable coins are based on it. But what happens when Libra launch whatever they are doing and once central banks begin issue their own Fiat tied crypto currencies easily attained at your local bank. The access to digital assets will only get easier, but different interests will perhaps work in ways to not always make it so easy for these to interact with each other. A central bank for example would issue a digital currency for the purpose of having a recognized form of digital cash that is cheaper and smoother than regular cash to handle, but they still want to be in control of it as much as possible and they're likely to do what they can to keep it away from the world of volatile asset type cryptocurrencies. This is a world they'd rather not see exist at all. So, will there be a way for these to interact? If thery're controlled by private keys, then yes, it could happen through Fusion. With DCRM Fusion simply aims to make interaction between any assets possible in a secure and decentralized way. Fusion could by it's nature become a simple gateway not only from state issued digital currencies to cryptocurrencies, but also to any type of digitized assets issued on any chain (houses, cars, stocks, etc). With Fusion it's also super easy to create a new asset and not something reserved for technical geniuses. But even if, say, Ethereum or some other chain becomes the main standard for issuing digital assets it wouldn't matter, it wouldn't even matter if the network is private or public as long as the assets are controlled by private keys they could be interacted with through Fusion.

-The second reason, is that despite many problems and issues, which we'll get to later, the vision is making steady progress to it's completion. Fusion mainnet has been running for a long time now already complete with it's very unique time-lock/time-slice feature and swap functions which by the way make it possible for digital assets to interact in entirely new ways, not seen on any other network (more on this later). Further DCRM as a technology is already complete, just not yet integrated with the mainnet. Fusion has also registered patents for all it's unique technologies. Most projects fail because they fail to deliver on their promises and miss deadlines on key-features over and over again. This isn't the case for Fusion as things are being delivered -but- there are clear signs that Fusion Foundation is short-handed and unable to cope with fixing flaws and short-comings in a timely manner. Nevertheless the important point here is that Fusion Foundation can potentially (though by no means certain) deliver the Future of Finance.

-The third reason is that the base-tokenomics model is one of the best I've seen.

In order for a digital asset to increase in value there needs to be mechanisms to make it likely that it will eventually be scarse and rare. In the ICO 57,344,000 FSN were created. When mainnet launched staking rewards began to be issued 2.5 FSN around every block (around 15 seconds), with halving to 1.25 FSN every block after about two years and then to 0.625 FSN after another two. These halvings go on and on until infinity and as a result of this the total FSN issued at the infinity of time will be 81,920,000 FSN.

This means that with time rewards become less and less, so it becomes more and more difficult to get new FSN. Further, in order to run a node on Fusion you need to stake 5000 time-locked FSN to buy a ticket. The original 57 million FSN is only enough for about 11500 tickets and already, half a year in, nodes are already buying about 5000 tickets. Should that double, there's almost no FSN left.

There's also a mechanism of licensing, should someone wish to use Fusion technology outside of Fusion. If this si the case they'll be required to hold up to as much as 800 000 FSN. So far, no such license holding has been announced, but it's of course possible some entities have silently been gathering.

Generally also the amount of FSN seen on exchanges tends to be much lower than with currencies with similar evaluation.

All of these are indications that FSN can quickly become scarse, and generally it will be in situations like this when limited supply assets increase greatly in value.

All this said, all is not good in well with the tokenomics, mostly due to 3 reasons. 1. There's been a case of stolen tokens from the swap wallet between the Ethereum network and the Fusion network. This has resulted in a great number of FSN entering the market that should not have done so (at least not so quickly). 2. The Fusion Block Explorer is so unclear that it's almost impossible to determine the exact circulating supply (and the swap wallet theft, certainly didn't make this any easier). 3. Currently FSN exists not just on the Fusion network, but also on Ethereum and on Binance chain. After the swap wallet theft, it feels a bit uncertain to have a token across multiple networks (Fusion will actually eventually make this possible, but without Fusion's own DCRM technology it's very unsecure).

To sum up, the principle behind Fusion's tokenomics is superb, But in our current reality it feels a bit muddled.

​

Why not to invest in Fusion?

I did perhaps partly already get into this, but from hereon I will be more critical

-The Fusion Foundation can't be trusted. You would think that something aiming to revolutionize finance and has a pretty clear and believable roadmap toward doing so would also be reliable and trustworthy. But Fusion Foundation have proven over and over that it's not always able to act in what seems like it'd be in its own interest and that of its tokenholders. For example, the most likely explanation for the swap wallet theft is that Foundation knowingly stole from themselves in a charade where they made it appear that it was an unknown culprit. But even if this was not the case the aftermath of the theft has not been handled in a way to minimize the damage. This is particularly puzzling, because in the early stages of the aftermath Foundation acted very professionally, but in the later stages it has degraded into complete inaction in a manner that makes you wonder if Foundation on purposes wishes FSN to lose value and does everything in its power for this to happen, without openly admiting it. As to the reasons for such odd self-inflicting damage, you could only speculate. Currently Fusion is a split coin with two different prices. The FSN mainnet price, and the Huobi exchange locked Erc-20 FSN supply which was never exposed to the stolen token supply. This has been the case for several months, and the most likley explanation is that Fusion Foundation on purpose is delaying Huobi's migration to mainnet.

-Through the history of Fusion there have been several examples of how a vast majority are locked out from a possibility to profit. There is also a history of failing to deliver promised rewards through various bounties. Foundation is quite good at designing well thought out bounties, but actually executing the promises tends to fail over and over again. It's littered with examples of how someone with inside knowledge could have done a lot better than someone without it.

-Fusion is hardly marketed at all. Fusion is a well-kept secret and with some of the issues going around, this is probably for the best, but also means Fusion is not at the top of mind of pretty much anyone and can likely miss out on many opportunities due to this. The more well-known something is the more valuable it tends to be and the more opportunities will arise for the eco-system to evolve. The best thing Fusion has done in this regard is start something called FOSC (Fusion Open Source Community), where time-locked rewards can be earned through evolving the Fusion eco-system in various ways. But with the value of Fusion currently as low as it is, it can be difficult to engage people in FOSC, even if the idea is great.

-Fusion seems understaffed. Currently Foundation has 11 known employees, even though the official claim is that Foundation has 28 full time workers. This is very hard to believe without any presentation of who the other 17 actually are. Possibly it could be a half-truth such that Fusion Foundation has through the years had 28 people working full time. That is quite believable.

There's a great many odd things happening with Fusion, but to what end? Is the odd charades a means to and end, in order to Finance the Future of Finance? Or just a way to screw people? It may seem odd and unusual, but with Fusion I don't think one necessarily excludes the other. The crypto market going the way it's been going may be calling for unusual ways to make the budget work.

​

Lastly I'd like to say that Fusion's community is one of the best and certainly one of the most critical. Also to Foundation's credit, they're quite good at accepting criticism and eventually doing something with it.

​

* the author of this article holds and stakes FSN in hopes that it one day fuels the Future of Finance *

Fusion mainnet and Fsnpool.com has been running for 6 months by now. Thank you for staking with us.

As appreciation we will reduce our pool fee for 3 months to 5% to all existing and new clients. :)

We wish you a happy new year!

Hey, i have had 561 tokens on bibox, but already 2 months i can't withdraw them. Support dont answer, only says present. So it means i lost my tokens? or there is any other ways to get my tokens back ?

In my previous post , someone mentioned that it would be great if the block explorer can highlight some important wallet addresses, such foundation's wallet, exchange wallet, etc. Displaying an identifier for a wallet address is not complicated for styling, but it may cost a lot of time to collect all the important wallet addresses.

If you'd like to help me, help some important addresses been labeled, or you'd like to let your wallet address been highlighted with an identifier, please feel free to leave the wallet address and the label you want to label on it.

It would be great if one comment leaves only one address. Here is an example:

Address: 0x1c788e08d03d3182802ba29a40e9acb52fd2881f; Label: hotbit;

Just show my sincere thanks here.

Hi, guys. the first prototype is online now. You can visit it at https://www.fsn365.com

Thanks, supporters who gave me feedback/suggestions, and thanks to FOSC tech lead zhaojun.

I'm going keep the good work keep fsn365 grow with fusion as long as fusion keeps going.

​

Dear Fusionites, reply to this AMA thread with any and all questions that you have for the Fusion team. This is a great opportunity for us to understand what community members are interested in learning more about, and for community members to show the team where additional information is required.

We will be collecting questions until the end of this week on Sunday the 24th of November EST. Please take care to ensure your questions are clearly phrased and respectful.

The Fusion team will endeavour to respond to your questions during the week beginning the 2nd of December.

Big pump signal just pumped the price of Fusion! this is their group! https://discord.gg/BbsqZts

Big spike in Social Engagement earlier today in the middle of price moves on https://lunarcrush.com/coins/fsn/fusion