You must generate addresses to show your previous balance

"An upcoming fundraising campaign, he said, will be a combination of an equity offering for qualified investors through BnkToTheFuture (minimum $1K) and a further sale of already-existing AMP tokens.

AMPs will also be offered on BnkToTheFuture.com, synereo.com/sale and YUNBI at a fixed price, starting at thirty three thousand satoshi per AMP. The price will increase at different stages of the one-month sale and offer bonus AMPs depending on the number purchased."

Source
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/synereo-unveils-tech-behind-its-decentralized-web-1473099722/


So you are expecting AMP price drop to 3k? (~43%)



my mistake, you said 33not 3, so the question is how do you expect to sell amp at 33k satoshi each when the current price is ~5,2k

thanks.

why dev dont pay 5BTC and go to Bittrex ?

just bought some (3400) skycoins on c2cx.

i belive in skycoin.....to the sky

Let me share my view on the distribution model. I would offer the following:

The max. BTC balance limit per one linked BB address for the share calculation purpose should be set. All the addresses with BTC linked amount exceeding the limit are treated as if they had the max. limit, not more.
Example:
The limit is 200 BTC for the total BTC amount linked to one BB address. All the BB addresses that have more than 200 BTC linked to them are considered to hold 200 BTC for the share distribution calculation.

This step will be supported by the community majority I suppose.
I assume there are no many BTC holders owing more than the limit who created several BB accounts.

The above approach will create more uniform BB distribution without unnecessary centralization at the early stages.

You can argue that some ICO fund holders promised to distribute their Bytes to their token holders. And with this approach they don't receive much.
If they receive the full Bytes amount with the current rules it will create unequal conditions for the regualr BTC holders and other token holders (Waves, for example).
Waves token holders could sell their tokens for BTC before the distribution and buy their tokens back after the distribution. And after that they would receive even more Bytes from the Waves team.
My question is: 'Why should regular BTC holders pay for the Waves token holders investment decisions?'

One of the distribution goals was to include ACTIVE users. The Waves example offers a PASSIVE distribution model.

Another argument for not giving many Bytes to the ICO fund holders: Why should Byteball finance and support its competitors?

Exchanges wallets can be included or excluded in manual mode depending on their will to distribute the Bytes to their users.

There's addresses with tiny BTC amount that are receiving close to 1% of distribution, according to that website.

Based on the progress of address linking that we've seen so far, I have to make a few adjustments to the future distribution plan.  Nothing changes for the first round (December 25) but the rules for further rounds are optimized to maximize the long-term value of your bytes.
....

What are you thinking?
And where do you live?

Just a scam,after the dev have went to China and met Zhang Hong!

2779 x 15 = 41 685 BTC.

Either way, when it hits exchanges many people will learn and be excited about it. So having a light wallet will be important for ease-of-use for all new people. If not a light wallet, at least a web wallet (e.g. like blockchain.info).