There has been some mention of Bittrex using updated requirements in this thread. Is there any truth to that, and if so, what are those requirements? By a lack of mention just now by you, I will assume the ICO requirements are the same as always.

I will also take this opportunity to ask why isn't Bittrex using rules similar to Poloniex, which includes requiring the devs to prove their identity, and no giant lumpsum payouts with strict bookkeeping? The last several ICOs on Bittrex haven't even gotten off the ground for a reason.

Looks correct for me, tokens match up with ledger amounts.

I strongly suggest they refund all over the cap people before trading starts. Besides the fact that they are holding up people's btc, it may benefit Crypti, as some over the cap people may use that btc to then buy early tokens with.

If it's primarily just for crypto people... guess there is no harm in it. For all we know it'd be a hit.

Just not so sure if anyone outside of here would look that fondly upon something called 'plankton pizza'. I mean, most outside of crypto may assume it's pizza made from plankton, and probably not exactly super appealing.

That's a mighty big wall of text there.

Of course exchange staff shouldn't make coins, hide the fact and get any preferential treatment from the exchange they work for. I expect it has happened, as well as things like exchanges holding coins they could profit from by using them as a trading pair.

But I think the bigger issue on most people's minds nowadays is the lack of code checking being done on quick listed coins (ie Bittrex) and lack of rules on exchange run ICOs (again, Bittrex). They aren't so interested in some long-running feud you have with Cryptsy or some event regarding IGotSpots that took place like a year ago.

I agree that short term goals should be the priority. I'd go as far as say throw away polling until the coin gets back on its feet. The devs could just do the explorer + quick stuff on their own. If the price gets decent again and stable, then worry about polls and longterm projects.

Doing something with the TOR code after the wallet is finished probably would boost the price. I still suggest linking a giveaway to either the APEX blockchain or have Bittrex distribute it based on holdings -- I expect that would move Apex up rather quickly.

50M to 1 Billion ... big difference.

And will there be one round of stakes, or two? Again, curious what we may be getting and max coins, but that seems difficult to figure out with the various numbers being thrown around. Probably useful for the devs to clear that up, just so when people start selling this they have an idea as to valuation.

Using Qora or Nem as a basis could make sense, assuming we know max coins + how many rounds of stakes there are.

Those complaining are complaining for various reasons. One key one is that by breaking their own rules, those on the waiting list have no chance to get the coin from refunds, as there won't be any refunds once the early sale starts. Whatever the blog says, it has been stated that some folks were getting refunds by the way, perhaps in small numbers, but still, they did occur. So the person that loses is the one who thought the rules would remain in place and who held out hope of still getting coins at IPO prices.

I won't make a bigger deal of this than it already is. In the end, it may not matter a whole lot. But it does offer ammunition to trolls/fud spreaders, which I expect to see more of after the sale starts. Those who want to buy in cheap may start a fud campaign... just the way things tend to go here. Devs should try to provide as little ammunition as possible.

If it's 50M coins, that means each person is getting around 60K each (at 811 stakeholders)? I admit I'm a bit confused, as I'm seeing different numbers being thrown around.

1000 as a starting point seems fair figuring in capitalization. 1000-4000 is very possible then. Although we need to keep in mind dumpers. Then again, NEM did quite well and seemed to avoid cheap dumps.

True... just that if it is done too often, it kills the dev's own ICO, assuming people look at the order book at all. And that 4BTC order is bizarre, since it stands out so much. If a dev was going to go that route, it'd make more sense to do it slowly and smallscale, not large orders like that. That's what I meant, a large order like that is probably more a detriment than a benefit, at least looking at it from a bigger perspective.

Some general questions for the dev ...

Played around with the site a little bit, and it looks decent enough. But I have some questions (and apologies if they are dumb questions).

Is this similar to storj, where the blockchain is used for cloud storage? It looks more like a traditional cloud storage site, centralized, which you plan to fund via crypto. And if that is the case, what purpose does the coin serve exactly?

There are always some sells below ICO prices for these sorts of things on Bittrex. They really should lock trading. Usually it's people who have a change of heart, and decide to take a minor loss on whatever they spent.

But that 4+ btc order is bizarre, I agree. I'm not sure the devs would be benefiting, however.

Devs could buy into their own ICO to sort of pretend there is interest in it, hence hopefully spurring on others to invest. In some cases, that is the only way for devs to get their own coin. But if they then put in a sell order below ICO prices, they are doing the opposite, as it shows there is little interest in the coin, and people are bailing. So I don't see how they would benefit by buying in, then selling below ICO prices, unless they figure people don't pay attention to order books at all.

I suggest going that route and push to get on Poloniex. At the very least, getting on there should increase volume some and increase the price a bit.

And although you seemed against it, I'd also suggest Austin Global, Atomic-Trade, SwissCex ... smaller exchanges, as no harm in extra volume. It may simply just take an email from you to get on some of those.

The name and focus of the coin always seemed a bit confusing, to be honest. I assumed you were going for the cute meme/fun little coin type of thing with the Plankton concept. A coin that people wouldn't really take seriously, but maybe some money could go to charities, some foods/contests would go to traders, and the coin would chug along at 5-10 sats and that would be pretty much it. Perhaps  due to the plankton name it could be linked to whale  conservation, or something similar, as a focus.

The food aspect is a pretty decent idea, but as I stated, I don't quite get how Plankton ties into it so well -- if the coin is meant to be serious. It's like making a WORM coin -- food for birds -- and then trying to tie the coin into food for people. It's not exactly appealing.

I'll assume and hope that Qiwoman plans that pizza franchise without using the Plankton name ... I mean, Pizza with a Plankton logo has some serious marketing hurdles to overcome. It's like having a giant bug logo on your pizza box ... most people won't say, 'Yummy'.

I guess if you focus just on crypto traders, perhaps they'll overlook the plankton logo and just think of food for trading. But again, FoodCoin or something like that seems like it'd make more sense. At least you could use a logo of something that looks edible then.

Well, to the person who was asking for a guess as to price, you could use qora as a basis, figure out proportions based on max coins for each coin, then just use qora's price per coin... and that's a guess.

Or use NEM  as a yardstick and calculate it that way.

How many coins per stake is each person getting again?

Focusing on the food industry isn't a bad idea, and it's always a good idea to give a coin a purpose. My only hesitation might be the name of the coin... I mean, for alt giveaways and normal crypto stuff, associating Plankton + food is fine. Just normally, most people don't typically associate Plankton and think of food, outside of perhaps Krabby Patties. It's sort of like plankton = algae = tiny bugs != food for humans.

FoodCoin, minus the plankton bit, might have worked a bit better if going serious with the coin.

The latter part is was what I was getting at regarding min. amount of coins that needed to be sold. Sometimes devs decide to cancel the ICO. Or probably worse, like take whatever they can get and just abandon the project. But if just enough is sold, and the rest destroyed, it could end up being a profitable situation for investors. If it sells out, that means there is a lot of demand there, and typically that is where profits are made too. Middle ground is the iffy part... tends to go bad for a lot of investors.

So if at the end of this you are sitting at say, 10-30 BTC, you'll still go forward?

The biggest problem you will probably face is overcoming Bittrex ICO skepticism and association with all the failed ICOs. Even though you can argue your coin is different, it has a working system, and so on ... people may not be willing to look past the exchange. We'll find out though.

What is the min. amount of ICO you guys need to take in to consider the ICO valid? I can't see you getting 500 BTC, but at what point will you say it's enough and the project can continue?

Architect coin required an 80% buy-in (I think they got a couple of BTC and didn't come close), so they just had Bittrex buyback the coins.

If the coin sells out, or sells poorly, it actually could be worthwhile for investors to consider this. The middle ground tends to be the dangerous area.

I think it less an issue if the software is real, or even if it's a good coin. Perhaps you haven't kept track of Bittrex ICOs, but they have sort of gone like this:

XLC (dev never used ICO funds for coin, coin tanked)
DCM (dev team ran off with over 100 BTC, coin delisted)
Harmony (coin price tanked)
Iceberg (price tanked, no idea about devs, didn't keep track of that one)
Architect Coin (DOA, never was able to complete ICO, refund given)
Venture Coin (also appears DOA, current ICO)

Don't mistake volume for popularity, as a lot of people sort of despise Bittrex at the moment. It's just bad timing to try to run an ICO there right now, at least under their regular rules.

That's what I find odd. Up until recently, we were given the impression that the coin was submitted to Bittrex and Polo, for perhaps a simultaneous ICO. Then the word was Bittrex changed their ICO rules, with the assumption that they were more stringent -- yet no updated rules were ever announced or posted.

So everyone will figure the ICO is the same as every other Bittrex ICO. If the dev is on the level and has a good coin, wouldn't there be much more to gain by waiting for Poloniex? If not, you also have Bter (they just pulled off a 750 btc ICO for Crypti), or worst case, just do it through regular escrow. Choosing Bittrex now for any ICO is probably the worst choice, as you'll get lumped in with a ton of bad coins just by association.