I think it's not too hasty if I asked for an update for our unresolved matter, It's nearly one month since I reached Egerstrom and he said he's submitting the request and will inform me once he got the result. Earlier this week I reached again to ask for the matter and your CEO is yet to read the chat although he's online for several times.

Ok, so the discussion is about your token allocation. The problem still same: show us the screenshot of this self-acclaimed discussion.


Ok, I'll make do with the current available info. So let's say, from every token sold:

33.33% will be added to LP (this is different from the 1% token added to LP that's generated from transaction fee)
33.33% is for development
33.34% for marketing, from which you use the token to initiate a manual buyback, 33.34% from 500 trillion MBF is 166.7 trillion, with current rate is around 458 BNB, equals to 218,250ish of USD, this is assuming every single token is sold on sale. I don't know how much is actually sold, but for the sake of assumption let's be positive and say everything is sold.

Back in August, you initiate a buyback, allocating 50,000 usd and managed to buyback 40,000 usd worth of mbf. And then there was this youtube influencer who impressed @mandor so much, which I think wouldn't be for a penny, but I also won't assume how much they're paid. So...

Question: when the funds in marketing reservoir runs out because of the manual buyback, what'll you do, then?


Translation: oh shit, if I keep answering, I'll be exposed and the community will see my true face. Better move his nosy questions somewhere private and controllable.

And, anyone who reads this thread, let this answer be a reference of what you'll about to put your money to: an evasive team with unclear statements.

Ahh, pardon the misunderstanding, I have to make do with the snippets of info gathered only from quoted sentences this thread as your site was down yesterday.

But, as now you have explained your project nicely, I understand better and further that there should be no problem in revealing your identity, if your intention is truly noble.

Broken down into points, your aim is simply to help funding scientists on their research (especially in biomedical field), because the (borrowing your words) "that currently existing ways are far from great". And you're afraid that revealing the identity of team will bring unwanted action from people on your field.

The way I see it, you propose two threats you'll face upon revealing the team:

1. From the scientist, or those who revolve around science research field, because they're (allegedly) "traditional", "conservative", and "resisting change". If they refuse a breakthrough funding platform because of these traits (which I doubt any would) then they deserve to be dropped from the funding list as these characteristics should not be held by any true scientist and researcher whose goal is to MAKE change and fight conservatism. Thus, an easy "nature selection" for you.

2. From the funding organization that (allegedly) feels threatened by your innovation. Worst they could do is attempting to shun you, spread negative rumors about your funding organization, which... given you're an "active, well-published biomedical scientist", rumors wont easily break reputation. And even if will, O can hardly kmagine why a scientist will refuse funding just because the fund-er currently being gossiped. Money is money. Om the other side of the pole, best your competitor could do will be to try to steal your idea, which means another and broader chances for scientists to get funded. Which... is also a win scenario for those people you initially tried to help by this project.

Kindly explain on which part of my assumption is biased, flawed, or completely wrong.

With your... unique way to reply me, I'll color code the sentences so anyone following will be able to understand easier. Red is me and blue is you.


Congratulation, you're the first project that successfully made me use discord to broaden my DD. As I am rather new to discord and probably will still have to familiarize myself with the UI, please send us screenshot of this discussion, or point me out to the date where this conversation happened so I can read them myself. Why I'm so privy about this issues? Two things:

1. The difference between the old tokenomy and the new ones lies on the staking program, which was not on the first tokenomy, and you claimed that the change were made by discussion with your community, that is not on tg but on discord, while jumping to earliest day of your discord creation informed me that one day after its creation (with no visible chat of said discussion in between) you announced the staking program, I think it's justified if people wondered where and who exactly pushed this decision.

2. Let's assume you do follow your (as per your words) community advise, these "community" are your top holders? It might be wise to inform people that at the point, you're doing a sale through whitelist and (disregarding if they're real user or just a shill accounts) many users from the community regretted that they're didn't get whitelisted and unable to hold. This means your top holders are the ones that managed to be whitelisted, which was chosen randomly. How are they represent the "community"? Does this means you didn't consider the opinion of those unlucky that they can't participate on whitelist and therefore unable to be a "top holders", and also, you didn't involve "other" part of the community (the small holders and those not lucky enough to be whitelisted)? How about those on tg? Their opinion didn't count toward the consideration? Because if they are, then the discussion should happen on as many channel as you have instead of just discord, and limited to the "top holders". Or, you can say that your decision to change the tokenomy is not based on your community interest, but rather limited to your top holders, but of course then it'll made us questions the legitimacy and accuracy of your past and future statements


Oh lord, I really hope you didn't say this. Amuse me, how many percentage of token sold were allocated for "marketing wallet" and how much currently available on this wallet? Oh, this reminds me that I wanted to ask, where is your token sale allocation information? I can only see the tokenomy, but not the token allocation. Were this indisclosible? If you're confused, I'm referring to the section that inform readers this percentage of token is used for what and that percentage is for that,


Just to be sure, again, the difference between the old tokenomy were the allocation of token gathered from sell-fee, the staking program, and the reflection? And you're currently don't have a number for your newest tokenomy? So there is a third tokenomy after these two? Or you're just simply forgot that you had them all this time on your litepaper?

---

Well I didn't watch the video, but if you have and you're impressed with what you saw so much that you think it is freaking good, then let's hope I was wrong and he did a small DD before accepting any project instead of just accepting and promoting and shilling whoever pay him, because from what I currently get, it's not good.

How? How exactly a public critic destroys the project? Your field is science research, your breakthrough farms critics on daily basis. And how exactly revealing who is this world renowned scientist can initiate an attack on "science" side affect your crypto project? What you propose is a funding for your science project, revealing who behind the team will not affect your current science research as long as your team keep it a secret, because the name reveal will only bring your pst research and achievements, not what you're currently do (unless it's already leaked before). If any damage happen from competitor, it's them trying to copy your "breakthrough" by going crypto for funding, which (given you've made your proposal and will be on a presale soon) you're already ahead of them.

Second, the paragraph bothered me, "who has experienced many of the problems of traditional, old-school science funding and venture capital." If your reseach is truly breakthrough, you won't in difficulties in funding. A refusal in funding for a project will only happen if the project proposed pose no future and/or the scientist themselves are questionable. So?

Oh, by the way, your website timed out.

Can you please point us out to where this asked and suggested from your community happened? I asked because I raked through your TG and find no discussion about change in reward allocation at all.


Ok, now where on earth do you get fund for manual buyback from? You're not selling or getting involved in any activity that generates income to perform a manual buyback.


Again, can you shows the newest token allocation? You don't even need to be fancy with graph etc. Simple numbers and percentage typed on this thread is sufficient to help me better understand your situation.

Allow me to rephrase my sentences.

If it's not too bothersome to you, do you mind to put an information of team's allocation locking mechsnism somewhere that can be easily seen by anyone? Given your team controlled 20% of the total supply, investor will be very worried if they can't find this info. And mostly, investors wont dig way too far into your gitbook to find this. So, a readied info on your main page (next to the tokenomy details, for example) will greatly help your case

I would have to beg to slightly differ on the case of 2017 mass ICO failure. The failure which left bad taste in a lot of people's mouth (and pocket) was initially due to the crypto boom which attract investor-wannabe-for-quick-cash to blindly put their money anywhere available without doing DD. This trend then attract scammers to launch fake ICOs where they flee immediately after an ICO concluded. The mass scam then leads investors to do what we call the ico stepping stone, they jumped from an ico to another, selling at the smallest chance of profit they got, as long as they've made it.

But I agreed on your third sentence, partially. An ICO (and from it, a project) will be successful if there's a true demand. BUT, to create a force of demand from buyer's side, they'll need to know about the product, details of the product. And you're lacking this factor. Without this, there won't be a serious buyer.

The type and characteristics of your investors are determined by the quality of your project. A shady project which seemingly will go AWOL at anytime will bring a stepping-stone investors. A serious project where everything laid in details and shows prospect will bring a strong investors.

In conclusion, a poorly presented project will be perceived as a poorly futured project will attract poorly interested people.

And how exactly does this explains the reason why you didn't build your website or WP prior to this ann launch? If you're not ready to publish critical info in details, wouldn't it be best to wait for everything to be ready and launch them at once so anyone non-tech-savvy who got curious has an access to the info they needed?

Nice findings!

Looking at OP's post history, this is not the first questionable project they posted. It seems they just accepting a project offer without bothering to do their DD, thinking that such claim as below is sufficient.


Two examples of those project I referred earlier were DeRace from back in July, which website seems no longer accessible, and ReelMood where their thread is no longer attended to since August, and looking at their tg told me that they're late at distributing their token, and are yet to send them up to when this post us written.

@bittreo, please refrain from blindly accepting projects in the future without doing your own DD. Yes, due diligence is the responsibility of each individual interested in a project, but the poster should be held accountable to certain degree of responsibility as they're posting on the project's behalf, that's why a thread creator need to do the first DD as they're the gateway of the project. I don't want to sounds superior or anything by this, but for the sake of this community, if I stumbled upon your thread again in the future and you still seemed to accept whatever project to publish (and thinking removing them altogether upon an accusation will solve the issue), I will be forced to marked you and report you in scam attempt. (And yes, I'll probably won't remember your username in a month or two, that's why I wrote names of questionable users in a book, when I stumbled upon stupid thread again, I just need to check if the poster was already on that list or not)

You don't have a whitepaper or website to better explain (with graphic and pictures) your... simple project? I clicked on your link and it redirects to your twitter page. Typing them manually also brings me to twitter.

How long will the allocated token for team be locked? Or will it not be locked at all? I can't find the info on the tokenomy section, and given your team controlled 20% of the total supply, it'll leave some worries on investors mind if it's not well explained.

I think we can safely conclude from your previous reluctance of a direct answer, got offensive after I kept pushing, and now evading to respond altogether by pretending my last post didn't exist, that the previous statement of binance is a self-claim and a form of (dirty) marketing that you claimed to don't like, yet apparently you did. The action is noted.

Moving forward, as well as further proving that I'm not nitpicking but asking specific and detailed (as well as constructive, if I may self proclaim), may I know your company registration name and/or number? I can't find this info anywhere on your site and whitepaper, and based on your address, your office is in UK, which (as it appeared to me) is an virtual office, and looking for "dcombat" on companies registered on this address didn't bears any result.

As @terciduk123 found and shared here (and stated on their website too), everything about tokenomy is still to be disclosed. If you're interested on joining their token offering, best way to get a quick update will be to join their tg, as it's managed by official team there, and the thread here is handled by a supporter

And i am sure you are well aware of the slight difference and intentionally uses the name as a marketing strategy that piggybacking the family's reputation, like for example those chinese spin-off brand of "channel" and "chanei" who tried to copycat-ing "chanel". If anyone asks my personal opinion, I'll say the decision to use the name spin-off itself speaks volume about the quality of the team and with it, the project they lead.

If an influential family of bankers knows their name is spinned for a prestigious project that works in financial sector? Sure, there is an infinitesimal possibility they'll strengthen your project. If a family of bankers learned about a project, a meme project (and that's my polite way to say... trashy), who state they're greater than the family? Either they won't bother at all or they'll feel too bored with their routine that they decide to have fun, and then you'll need a huge luck.

Am I too old or is the terms IFO isn't that that popular and I'm justified to have the barest idea of what it is? And sounding the similar concern by two users above me, how long will this token sale happen? Your timeline shows that ICO should happen in Q2 2021 and IFO in Q3 2021. Given we're on Q4, doesn't that mean either you should have concluded your token offering or need an update of your timeline?

I got a bit curious and took a cursory glance on their list of tg members, so far I don't think most of them are bots. Given the statement (if it's true) that they're born from the same dev of hex and nurtured by bluezilla, it is not out of the realm of impossibility that they got a hype built up by those other projects prior to the tg group creation.

I still think it's better if team official or an appointed representative comes to the forum to be in touch with cryptocommunity

Allow me to revive the post you deleted, for future reference in case anyone needed. Courtesy to loyce.

And I'd like to point out that you still have an unanswered question on your other project. I'd also like to point out that much like that project, and other projects on your history, this one seems deliberately lacking of team details.

I am waiting for your answer on that thread and on this one too regarding your details.

It seems they're still on a very early stage, their telegram group was just created yesterday (12 Oct) although their website was launched nearly three and a half months ago. Given the information that the founder of this project is also the founder of Hex, i think the official team won't be unfamiliar with this forum. Wouldn't it be better if they appear here and present answers to questions by themselves?

Let's see if I get this correctly.

After you propose the idea and "submitted" the tokenomy details, you decided it's not well suited to the project stakeholders, so you change the entire tokenomy because you think it'll be more appealing to the token holders due to the larger percentage they'll get on each transaction happens?

Based on your "old" tokenomy, holders will get these benefits: rewards, holders, burns, buyback (with the last two explained as a similar thing, with difference lies on the frequency and the form of the token given to the holders). By these calculation, they'll get 3%+2%+2%+2%, 9% from each tx happened

Based on your new tokenomy, holders will get these benefits: buyback, stable, and BPD with unknown percentage, which happen annually instead of on every time a tx happen. So, they'll get 3%+3%, 6%.

How is this bigger and appealing?

Next, about the BPD. Yes I'm aware you've wrote where it supposed to come from on your post that I quoted, the question is from where, as in from which allocation? None of the percentage given by you state there's any allocation reserved for BPD.

With (kinda surprising) recent development that you've made a decision to change your tokenomy, I think maybe it'll be better if you show us your latest details for tokenomy (and we'll pray to god you'll never change them again in the coming days). It'll clear several confusion.