Anyone have any idea when is the next quater report?

End of june? Or earlier of july?

Thanks

Can someone check how many people got more than 50 000 ICN during the ICO or is it impossible? It might give us better understanding of how far we are from the release. A quick calculation says even if all the 87 million ICN tokens were bought in batches of 50 thousand, this would mean that about 1700 people are waiting for beta access. Either way even if we still have 5300 people to go they will probably start granting their access faster now that some things don't have to be tested anymore.

Iconomi invested in Aragon? It means that Aragon will fly high.

I'm selling a Iconomi account with Beta Access and a Cofound.it priority pass.

Price: 42 ICN

my clock is synched all right.

it's just on ICONOMI that it's acting up.

everywhere else my 2FA codes work....

me too

Nice. I hope they update us with some kind of time estimste for public release soon. Or are they just going to drop it out of nowhere one day?

Thank you.

I don't think your judgement is wrong. You are allowed your own opinions, and having support and belief for something is not a bad thing.

I think everybody benefits from a healthy debate on things, and trying to get to the bottom of whatever they might be discussing. People who cry "trolling" and "FUD" don't add anything to the discussion. It's just an emotional outburst. Unless it is legitimately trolling/FUD, which can happen also - and I accept that sometimes it's hard to tell the difference.

ICNP is $28.473 million as of this writing.  20% of this is $5.69 million (amount given to "shareholders").  If you held 40,000 ICN the % of ownership is 0.4%....
 

I feel like the point that Mendeleev is making (and people are ignoring or not getting) is that there is no legal or structural mechanism that ties the value of Iconomi to the ICN token. Iconomi could very well build a massively successful company that generates billions of dollars in revenue and the only value transfer mechanism we token holders have is the belief that Tim/Jani and company are honorable men that will maintain the (unenforceable) contract that we all entered into when we invested in the ICO. There is likely no government in the world where ICN holders could prosecute a lawsuit against them. That being said, I believe in the project and the team. I judge them to be honorable in their actions and efforts. Everything that they are doing *SCREAMS* legitimate to me. But who knows, Bernie Madoff was the ultimate insider and he stole billions.

I'll only respond to the more contentious parts of your post. The rest can be left to stand on its own as your opinion.


Who says? Where can I read that this is the case? How can you prove this to me, or to a new investor?


Yes, I have. It's does sound good. However, it is only Jani's word, and a hypothetical that might never come to pass. It's a promise that "If we fail, we'll do this", but nothing more. It doesn't really answer the whole value thing, unless you're banking on them shutting down (Jani's response only gives value to a shutdown scenario)


I know my token won't represent a thing. My argument is just that. ICN doesn't represent that success either. You disagree. I understand that. In my argument, both ICN and MEND are just ERC20 tokens. The difference is in your head. And, as that terminology page says nothing more than "ICN is an ERC20 token", then the data supports my assertion at this point in time.

Until the moment that we are told more than "ICN is an ERC20 token" - then that is all it is, for all intents and purposes! This is what I'm trying to explain to you.

I understand that it is the official token that Iconomi issued (and not the one I issue), but that's its only real difference - and it's not a significant difference when we're discussing why it has any value.


I think we both agree that it's still being developed. Now IF ICN becomes only a usage token (which is possible at this stage), there will be people who go along with that change. You will likely be one of those people. And there will be people who don't like it, feel like they were lied to etc. etc.

For this, we will have to wait and see.

In my argument, both ICN and MEND are just ERC20 tokens. The difference is in your head

The context was not altered. Your position was that Iconomi is one of the only projects with any real use case. I responded to that position and stated that nobody is saying the project itself has no value. Where is your issue?


You said it to me, without making it clear who you were referring to. I accept that you were talking in a more general sense, and not about me specifically.



I will try...

SIA has a usage as payment on the network. That is its value. The same as GNT on Golem, or ETH on Ethereum.

Iconomi's original proposed value was that of a share in the platform. It is currently unclear if this is still the case, due to lack of response on the matter, and the vague description on the terminology page.

I have went over this in the past - but a dividend paying asset has clear utility, as you purchase the token in order to be granted the right to receive a dividend. Put aside the dividend/buyback debate - it is a fact that this use case would have dictated the value of the token. We would't need to worry about legalities in that sense, because the proof of value would be in the returns themselves (even if they were poor.)

Now we move forward to buybacks. Buying back the tokens does not give them value alone. They must have a base value to begin with. Now, if this were a share in the "real" world, it would be backed by the assets Iconomi holds - because there would be a legal, regulated binding to the platform. That would be the "proof" in that case, which would guarantee the base value: ownership. This is not the case right now. Your token grants you no rights to anything. It could possibly be used as an IOU in order to claim shares in future, but it is not - in and of itself - a share of anything. It is just a token on the network, that isn't doing anything, and isn't actually connected to the Iconomi assets. It is connected in people's minds - but not in any official capacity.

Because there is no clear concrete connection to the platform, no official response from the team, no whitepaper, and only a vague description of the token on the help pages, the token can be said to have no clear value at this moment in time.

That is not to say it has no value to you, or won't have a clear value in future. Your value comes in the form of expecting it to be objectively valuable one day. This is its only speculative value at this current moment in time.

Now this future value could come in the form of a more concrete explanation of how the token is backed by the assets Iconomi holds, or it could come in the form of a transition into a usage token on the platform itself. And, as I said, it could be used as an IOU to claim actual real world shares.

In the most loosely tied case, the value just comes from everybody collectively agreeing that this token represents Iconomi. That is the case that most people are running with at the moment. But that would be no better than creating my own token myself, and saying "If Iconomi does well, this token should increase in value" and expecting people to buy my token at a higher price later on. It's like making a bet, without a bookie, and just expecting some random person to pay you if you win.

Now, despite this in depth explanation, I'm confident that you still won't actually understand any of this - because you haven't understood it so far. However, I can see that plenty of other people DO understand it.

I'm trying to explain to you WHY people ask about the value. The above reasons are why. Disagree with them all you like, but that is the thought process that is driving people to question the value - and it is perfectly valid reasoning.

Buying back the tokens does not give them value alone. They must have a base value to begin with

In the most loosely tied case, the value just comes from everybody collectively agreeing that this token represents Iconomi. That is the case that most people are running with at the moment. But that would be no better than creating my own token myself, and saying "If Iconomi does well, this token should increase in value"

What are you talking about "selective quotes"? I just don't include your whole post, so that it's not a big wall of text. The links to your original posts are still there. Nothing is taken out of context. It's just a cleaner way to respond to you. Calm down.

I've not said they lied, or "muh dividends" either. And I agree that there might be issues beyond their control which are causing the changes. You're ascribing meaning/intent to my post that simply isn't there.

I also agree people can just get out if they don't like it. That doesn't mean the matter is off the table for discussion.


Then please ask for that to be added to the terminology page. ICNX and ICNP have much more detailed explanations on there. ICN's entry is just like "Err, ICN is an ERC20 token that we gave people at the ICO".

Again, your summation of where the value comes from is currently meaningless. There's an important factor in determining value that you, and others, seem to be misunderstanding - and it seems difficult to communicate to you just what that is. But it is clear that others understand this, which is why questions are asked. It doesn't mean they aren't using their heads. It means they are using their heads. Your defensive stance on this matter does nobody any good.

SIA is a good example of a token that has a clear value, by the way. ICN is (currently) not.

As for the AMA... it is much simpler to complete the first one. The questions are already there, ready to be answered. Additionally, the team are effectively granted extra chance to come up with the answers (i.e. the questions are a month old, so it's easier than answering a brand new question on the day). This works out great for the people who asked the questions last time, and it makes it easier for the team. And it will also look good for the team to say "Hey guys, we've finished answering all of those questions!" and then hold a fresh AMA a month from now. That would make a lot of people happy.

What are you talking about "selective quotes"?

I've not said they lied, or "muh dividends" either.

SIA is a good example of a token that has a clear value, by the way. ICN is (currently) not.

Again, your summation of where the value comes from is currently meaningless. There's an important factor in determining value that you, and others, seem to be misunderstanding - and it seems difficult to communicate to you just what that is.

Why would they bother doing another AMA? They'll just run away when tough questions are brought up again.

I still think they should complete the first one, instead of running a whole new one. People will just ask the same questions again anyway.


Nobody is questioning the value of the project itself. It is possible for a project to succeed, while the token that was issued to investors gains no significant value. I do believe Iconomi will come up with a solution to give the token value. What you (and others) must acknowledge is that ICN is no longer what you thought it was going to be. And that's fine. You believe in the project so much that you're willing to hold through all of these changes.

But to scoff at those who simply ask "where is the value now?" is silly. The answer to that question has been changing over time, and currently nobody can actually state this for sure. If Iconomi can't tell us on their own terminology page (https://iconomi.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/115002851065-ICN) then why should anybody listen to the answers given by fanboys around here?


Don't worry - if Jani is ever in legal trouble, he'll just defect to North Korea  

(P.S. - Daparski, that last bit is a joke)