Agreed. I still have a small amount of this, wondered why the price is rather stagnant (or declining), and figured I'd check out the thread to see some news ... something.

Instead I see giant memes, FUD, and people arguing about... arguing.

I didn't plan to invest more into this, but if I did, why in the world would I based on anything I am seeing in this forum? A little mature discussion would be nice. Perhaps some updated news on PoSA or One Market news... something.

Like it or not, the FUD wars that have gone on in this thread probably has scared off a number of serious investors. Immaturity can be overlooked to a certain extent, but it can hold a coin back. I never understood the mindset of going into other threads spreading FUD/Trolling, as quite often it ends up backfiring, hurting both coins.

Anyway... any news at all regarding One Market? Dev provide any screenshots/updates, or anything?

Any plans for a PoSA code review, open source, or more detailed analysis showing it is truly decentralized?

Agreed. People aren't taking enough responsibility themselves. Way too often people buy up some new coin that has a ton of red flags, then wonder why they have been scammed. For the OP, I am curious, what three coins did you invest in that were scams?

And that said, we do need better exchanges too. If they list a coin with a hidden premine/shady code, people should learn the lesson and not automatically invest in every new coin released. That trading method did work at Bittrex for a while, although I never bothered with it ... it seemed each new coin saw a rise at a certain point. It doesn't work so well now though.

The requirements for a good exchange sound nice, but I don't see them all being met. Devs aren't going to give up their identities (although for all ICOs run on exchanges, they should), and I wouldn't expect an exchange to always wait months to list a new coin. But how about a week or two? There is no need to go right from ann to listing, simultaneously, especially if a dev promises grand things. Wait until the dev at least delivers something.

Did you really expect this group to slow the tide of alts being released? I'm not even sure it was the OP's intention -- aside from killing the coins competing with his. Most of the coins listed on various shitcoin killing lists here died of natural causes, which was to be expected. The marketplace takes care of most shitcoins, without any outside influence.

I guess indirectly this group helped influence the gravity well fix put in on AUR, although of course it was primarily due to BCX. And AUR in turn died due to the inherent flaws with the airdrop model.

One of the better ways to catch sockpuppets is probably using a registration page + IP checking. Some of the freebie coins also required a social media account (and not a recent one). The blockchain catch was a good one, but I expect the PM method of signing up probably isn't the most stringent. ORA seems to have used a pretty decent method, at least from an outsider's viewpoint.

And if there are any other ways to catch them,  it may not be the best idea to mention it here, if you get what I mean.

It'll mean the Qora dev is doing rather terrible job PR-wise.

The problem with a coin review panel here is the fact that it seems like a really large percentage of this forum, older members included, have their own shady past. Where will this coin review panel come from?

What I might suggest, but no idea if anyone would want to do it, is pick a respected developer. So someone who perhaps is a coder for hire, not a scamcoin maker himself, perhaps not even someone from this forum. People donate a monthly amount to him just to review new coins and look for hidden premines/shady things, and he could offer up a quick analysis. Consider him like a fire alarm, most of the time he wouldn't be of much use, but perhaps he could catch a handful of bad coins before they became too popular on an exchange.

Otherwise, just picking a panel here to review coins is probably a waste of time. I can see a lot of potential for abuse and bias.

As stated, everyone will claim whatever coin they are holding is the 'one' and to invest in that. Basically take any advice with a grain of salt here.

What I will suggest is... don't spend any money at all. Go to the freebie giveaway forums, sign up for freebie coins here, play with faucets a little, and just get used to things. Check out the other exchanges, maybe do a couple of small trades.

After you spend some time just learning how it all works and doing a bit of research on various coins, then choose the coins you may wish to invest in. Forget what people here say ... and definitely forget whatever you see people say in a trollbox.

Well, just checked the price of the coin, and it looks rather lovely, I see.

Although the devs have hesitations, would anyone really mind if they just did the so-called dreaded coin swap/fork to TOR? I suggested a giveaway instead, but swap, giveaway, whatever... at least it's something.

I mean, how much lower could the coin go if you did the swap? At least you are doing it for a reason, rather than because the coin is broken. Either that better be one hell of a wallet upgrade the devs are working on, or they should just take a chance and do the swap.

Nice about Polo ... much better choice assuming they take it.

And yeah, I get the backed by an asset thing. Although I am not sure I'd say this is the same exact scenario, seeing a it may be closer to, say, a stock, paying dividends vs something like gold.

I expect it won't be an issue for most investors. Just my brain wondering what would spur on people to spend the coin as a currency, if the point of the coin was to hold it to earn investor payouts. Many people here probably could care less if most cryptos are ever used as a currency anyway, so probably no need to worry about it.

I'm a little confused by some of your answers. Do you plan to use c-cex and coin-swap as part of your ICO? That is what I am curious about, who is running your ICO? I wouldn't consider either of the above exchanges 'good'. Sure, no harm with starting out with them, and even smaller exchanges can help volume, but they aren't exchanges normally used to run an ICO on.

A rewards system for purchases could spur on marketplace stuff. But I was referring more to the seemingly conflicting features of holding coins to receive investment funds vs using the coin as a currency. Although I guess that same issue arises with POS vs currency too, in a way.

Hmm... a couple of questions and observations.

Based on how this seems to work, it may be closer to a mining contract than a cryptocurrency, in a way. The devs will do some mining and other investments, and payouts are made based on coins held.

My first question is, how do you plan to get around the seemingly contrary aspects of the coin in regard to being used as a currency on a marketplace vs. 'bagholding' for investment rewards? The benefit of the bagholder concept is it should ideally lead to less dumping/selling cheaply. But the side effect is it may also lead to less people wanting to use it as a form of currency. The two goals seem to be in conflict with one another.

Why would a marketplace prefer using your coin over another? What benefits are there to anyone using it as a currency?


How is the 'coins held' per user determined? Going by wallet holdings, I assume? Blockchain?
And for payouts, you mentioned  the 'one wallet card'. Do you mean payments will originate from that wallet card, to the user's regular btc account, after they set it up in your payout system?

As for the ICO, I strongly suggest something like Poloniex, seeing as Bittrex has been taking a hit to their reputation lately as far as ICOs go. Strict rules and bookkeeping seem necessary for this project anyway, so stricter rules from an exchange probably would go over a lot better than escrow or regular Bittrex rules (heard they were changing their rules, but still... a lot of people have been burned there).

A tad more extreme than I'd prefer. And all it would result in is a competing forum for alt coin announcements.

What I tend to suggest is more education, people posting when a coin looks shady, pointing out red flags, and so on. Although unfortunately that quite often seems to turn into FUD campaigns instead ... giant red text, memes, insults, etc. It turns into noise, which people just drown out. Still, it can help (if people post sensible comments) and some ICOs and coins fall apart when valid criticisms are made.

I also differentiate between scamcoins and shitcoins personally, although I expect many here don't. A plain coin that many here consider a shitcoin, noise, or whatever, tends to be rather harmless if it doesn't have a premine. People get into an uproar over the number of coins being released, maybe thinking they are taking attention/funds away from their own, better investments. But in reality, the marketplace decides, and most of the time those coins just die off on their own ... so to me, they are hardly the biggest problem here.

It's when devs run off, devs dump with giant premines, hidden or not, don't deliver ico coins, promise features and don't come close to delivering... that it's a problem. And besides education and pointing out red flags, I'm not so sure there is an easy solution to those issues.

Mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I certainly wouldn't mind seeing less coins pumped out, and for the ones being released, more high quality coins. But at the same time, I'd probably be against this idea. The reason being, I don't think it'd really help.

First off, some coins probably would go to a competing forum for alt coin announcements. And some real devs would suffer because they couldn't make an announcement until that 200 post requirement.

But that's not the real problem. I think we'd simply get a sockpuppet problem instead. Devs would build up accounts, or hire people to make accounts, just to get to whatever requirement is needed. I can see people here simply hiring themselves out as 'account makers'. Sure, I guess it could cut down a small bit on new coins, but I don't think there would be as much benefit as people expect.

What we really need is more exchange accountability.  If an exchange releases a coin with a hidden premine/shady code, they really need to be pay the consequences for not being more thorough -- when I say 'pay', I mean more bad publicity and therefore less profit for them.

There is also the issue of investors not really being accountable enough either. Way too many people buy up coins as soon as they are released on an exchange, even if they have tons of red flags, then complain they were scammed. Sure, there are way too many scams here, but in the end, greed seems to overwhelm people's good sense here too often.

Okay, thanks. If Bittrex uses somewhat strict requirements, it should help a little. But as I'm sure you have noted, there is some level of distrust with Bittrex lately.

How long will the ICO run for (if the ICO doesn't sell out), and what is the base price per coin?

And after I stopped being lazy and checked the ann page, I see that info. 4 week ICO? You sure about that? Seems a bit on the long side.

I don't think it's that bad yet. But they certainly seemed to have ruined their ICO model, with very lenient rules and bizarrely running so many, so close together. I think this is what, around 4 ICOs on Bittrex in like 3 weeks now? Iceberg - Architect - Venture and now this one?

I assumed the dev was also going to do a Poloniex ICO too, as earlier he stated he was applying for it. It seemed to make more sense to me than exclusively holding it on Bittrex, especially if he plans on selling the ICO out.

You stated earlier that you were also applying as a poloniex ICO... is that still planned at all?

Did Bittrex improve their ICO requirements, and if so, are the rules posted anywhere?

Unless they have instituted more stringent requirements, I expect the coin to get the typical scam comments, as there simply were too many people burned from past Bittrex ICOs. Ideally you would have just done this on Poloniex.

If you could simply state that the exchange is holding all funds until you need them, no giant lump sum payments, and strict bookkeeping, I expect it'd quiet a lot of doubters.

I usually try to sign up for freebies, but somehow missed this one. Anyway, assuming I'm not too late, sent off a PM to the dev.

My mistake, for some reason I though you destroyed a decent amount. I was thinking of the SRCC stakes thing... just saying it may have been better to keep some of that giveaway for this promotion.

And here are my current stats:

Name:    poornamelessme
Posts:    1443
Activity:    210
Position:    Full Member

Can't promise I'll do it for the full month, but we'll see. It just depends on if I sign up for any other signature campaigns and if they are picky as far as other signatures go.

I'm not entirely sure I'd say they appear to have no ideas, but the concept of the coin seems to be that the community decides on what they want to see. They could just as easily say everything in their polls are their 'ideas' and they will add them over time. I'm not saying they would do that, or could... just that because a coin asks a community what they want, it doesn't necessarily mean the dev team has no ideas.

Where they are strongly lacking is marketing/PR. They do need to present the coin a bit better, get the coin out there (articles, whatever). I don't mean hype either, just general info and communications. Maybe they should look for a team member who can handle that for them. I can use the TOR stuff as an example... besides coin holders who closely followed the thread, I doubt anyone even knew TOR was being worked on. It wasn't in the first page of the coin ann, header, and there wasn't a lot of hubbub about it. In hindsight, that obviously was a good idea, as TOR didn't work out. But PR-wise, they need to do a better job.

And wallet-wise, I strongly suggest they list what features will be added, offer screenshots when available, and a rough estimate of release date. It probably goes without saying, but make sure it works 100% with no bugs before release... think you get one shot with it. You have a strike against you with the TOR problems.