Should the managers CAP the amount of investments they get from a single investor ?
GVT Bull 5 years ago • updated by Genesis Vision Support 5 years ago • 3
Should the system try to give a chance for the tiny investors to get into big money managers, or should we just rely on the first come first served approach ?
Customer support service by UserEcho
My opinion is we should strictly rely on first come first served, the manager should not care where the money is coming from, or how evenly it is spread between investors - The manager should strictly follow his best interest, in managing the money as good as he can in order to collect the success fee.
This could also be percentage based limits. Basically, one person could not fund 100% of a manager. If a person with deep pockets takes up 100% of the top manager's funds forever, this will negatively impact mass adoption as people with smaller bags will be forced to use lower returning managers. While I don't think hard caps should be put in place, I also don't think someone should be able to buy all 100%. Maybe meet in the middle somewhere, where no one person can own more than 25% of a manager's tokens? But what's keeping them from just creating another account though. This may just not be a solvable problem, and until a manager reaches a high enough level we'll just have to live with it.
Thx for your feedback! It is a question is connected with the rule "first come - first served". So, a size of investment funds is not connected with a chance to get profit. Although, in the future a current investment process will be changed since it is obvious not comfortable for all the participants. Follow the update!