Thought so. Any chance of starting work on it in the background, yet still do some of the other stuff? I'm not sure what sort of funding you have.

Otherwise, I'd lean towards some of the smaller, quicker things first.

I see this weird mindset used to put down most alts. Yet they are posting in the alt coin section, where it is sort of obvious this section deals with people investing in alts.

BTC is currently king. But people are using alts to increase their holdings and put it back into BTC. It's like people buying penny stocks, hoping for a good return on investment, to then use those funds to buy up apple or ibm stock.

Sure, some folks hold that penny stock forever hoping it goes insane, but that is their prerogative.

Just so I fully understand the over the cap stuff, if we invested a certain amount and it was after they already reached the cap, we are put on a waiting list ... basically waiting to see if anyone decides to sell their stake back? How long before we get a refund on that amount?

I put 1 btc into it, so not a whole lot, but only half made it in time, apparently. Just wondering when I'd either get the extra btc back, or the waiting list time ends.

What sort of timetable would it take for the decentralized market?

Talking about a couple of weeks, or 2-3 months from now?

I'm leaning towards that one, or the explorer or mobile wallets, just unsure of the time difference to implement each. If the explorer or mobile wallet can be done fast, like a week, I'd probably say one of those first, then the decentralized market.

That is the thing I found most annoying about NXT. Every little single thing requires payment of 1 NXT. Send NXT... make a bid on the exchange... change a bid on the exchange... always requires payment. I half expected every time I even logged into my NXT account it'd try to grab a coin from me.

It's not like 1 NXT is worth a lot, but when you just keep a handful in your NXT account, it's really easy to run out.

Better than nothing, but depending on ratio, it may not be ideal.

If half the ICO is on Bittrex, people will still say you can walk away with half the funds. It'd be better to simply say how much you want for your time, have Poloniex host it entirely, you get that specified amount upfront for your time/work, the remainder remains on the exchange. So long as whatever you want for yourself is reasonable, people would be fine with it I expect. It's just when devs are handed 100 BTC+ for basically doing nothing, that people worry.

They probably don't eat pizza in the wild either.

Not sure if analyzing a meme for accuracy matters a whole lot.

At the least, it'd probably make a lot of sense to wait until the deadline (13 days from now for max) before deciding to put any money into this. If the numbers are insane by then... yeah... may not be the best investment. They are already sort of insane as it is.

I wonder what percentage of this community are the ones even investing. Before people even really even knew the IPO was open here, there was already a lot of money in the IPO. I am assuming companies/investors are coming outside of the crypto community too. It's not like some random alt that just made a thread here a week before the IPO opened ... it had a ton of exposure.

To be profitable, buyers would have to come from outside of the typical crypto community, most likely. With that amount of money invested, they surely could make some noise marketing-wise. So it'd then be those not typically interested in crypto, reading about some wildly successful IPO, or an article about how Ethererum is the next 'big thing'... and so on. Not so sure there is enough of them to make this profitable for investors buying in now, but I wouldn't say it's impossible either. It's certainly risky though.

It is an interesting scenario. On one hand, the coin is certainly unique, has professional coders and a ton of exposure. But the sums being thrown at it are getting scary. I wonder who will be left to buy it after the ipo is over.

It doesn't mean it still can't be profitable, as nobody knows. It's just riskier than I would have thought early on. Mining probably would make more sense than buying now, assuming someone already has mining equipment.

Yes, pretty sure those are polo rules.

But I meant Poloniex, sorry, just lazy typing.

I was waiting for the coin's website, which I would assume have the whitepaper, rather than download some random file on my PC. Call me paranoid, but I typically like to minimize downloads from this site if at all possible. For most wallets and downloads I use a virtual machine, which I didn't have access to when replying to this thread (using my laptop at the time).

I also made no comments here as to the coin's specs or features, simply the ICO itself.

I didn't see your whitepaper yet, so didn't know you listed your identity. That is actually more than I even asked, as I meant simply providing your identity to the exchanges.

As for Polo rules and safety of development funds, nothing is 100% safe. But it offers more safeguards than just handing over a giant sum of btc to any developer. Assuming I understand their rules correctly, devs only get funds when they need them, in order to do the things they stated they would. No giant lumpsum payouts and strict bookkeeping.

Of course an exchange could just walk away with the funds, lie, or do whatever with the btc, but assuming we trust them at least somewhat, it is a safer route in my opinion (at least for the investor), than seeing a dev just be handed 100+ BTC. And even if you think it's no safer than how Bittrex does it, the general impression to investors is it would be safer. Which then should increase those investing = more money for you and the exchange.

Strongly agree and have mentioned it in other recent Bittrex ICOs threads too.

If on the level, the devs stand to earn more money by using Polo rules.  I also don't quite get why Bittrex is running several ICOs so close to one another, or at the same time. Space them out a bit... each time people get burned (DCM, Iceberg), it just leaves behind a collection of wounded investors. They need time to heal.

Something easy to add, and really takes 2 minutes to apply for from a dev standpoint, is coinpayments. It doesn't mean they'll take the coin, but at least get on their voting list or however they choose coins.

Getting used as a currency, even smallscale on a marketplace somewhere, I think is always important for a coin.

The problem with spread out funds is it doesn't offer any safeguard really. You may not be aware of past ICOs run on Bittrex, but DCM did that same exact thing. They spread their ICO money amongst 6 people, over 100 BTC.

They all vanished and took the money with them. They locked the coin's thread and I believe the coin is either delisted or about to be. Coin went from 10K+ to a couple hundred sats.

Again, I really think using Polo rules where an exchange holds the funds until the funds are used for what the devs say they will, and offering identification to the exchanges, would benefit both the exchange longterm, the devs running ICOs, and investors.

But if a coin isn't innovative, does that mean it deserves to be called a scam? Many do, many would say it is a shitcoin and perhaps even should be killed off. If a new coin isn't innovative but has an active community + dev, why is it a problem to anyone?  Most are harmless, and if truly worthless, will die off on their own anyway.

And yet people feel such coins take attention away from their investments. It's too subjective to say what coins should live or die, just because it may not be innovative enough. That is where the marketplace comes in.

And I first assumed URO was a joke, someone making a coin as some sort of weird metaphor for shitcoins, using Urea instead of shit. Shame I didn't invest in it, as it sure went up a lot, at least for a while there.

Your previous post gave a different impression:


It certainly reads like your concern is that newer coins are taking BTC away from your investments. If you were concerned newer or existing coins are scamming people, then that is a different issue. Although determining what coin is a scam and which isn't, can be a tad difficult. People can point out obvious stuff though without veering into fud territory.

I brought this up earlier in this thread and stated my definition, and asked how others define a scam or shitcoin, but don't think anyone did.

A scamcoin to me is a coin where the dev promises features and doesn't come close, when a dev bails on a coin, when a dev runs an ipo and doesn't deliver coins at all, when there is a hidden premine, or a giant premine and the dev dumps... and things like that.

A shitcoin would simply be a plain coin, no unique features necessarily, perhaps a hired gun as a coder. If there is no giant premine hidden away, they are pretty harmless. Market forces take care of most of them. A perceived shitcoin may actually end up being popular too (ie doge), based on community involvement, so it's not like they are all completely useless.

And what occurs here for many is: a shitcoin is whatever coin that a specific person isn't holding. It's too subjective. I've seen 'shitcoin killers' in this forum brag about hyping coins listed on that shitcoin killing list. Or have shitcoins in their signatures, yet still go on a rampage against other perceived 'shitcoins'. It's a mess, and again their only goal is basically what you stated -- to kill coins they think are taking attention away from their own investments.


And yes, I have seen people hold out hope that they haven't been fleeced. It just occurred in the ConcealCoin thread. People did speak up when things looked suspicious (including myself) and we pointed out how the dev of VastCoin apparently was the same person, trying to run the scam again. I pointed out the similarities in the logos, as an example.

And that is what I think people should do. Post in threads pointing out potential issues, or things that are rather blatant scams. You can't protect against scams before they always occur (again, how would you stop ConcealCoin in one day?), but you can educate and provide info as you see it. No FUD, not trolling, just point out potential problems. That may help protect against some scams.

But nope, it won't protect people's investment in some 1 year old ALT that isn't doing well, if they think newer coins are getting too much attention. That is a separate issue and really nothing to do with scams or shitcoins.

For many, I think this is the true reason they are so against what they call shitcoins or scamcoins.

Sure, reducing scams would be nice, but whether consciously or subconsciously I think their main objective is their own profit. The mindset that some new coin is taking attention away from <whatever I am holding>, so let's try to kill it. There is no altruistic goal, although many try to hide behind it.

It's a misguided mindset in my opinion. There is no guarantee that killing a handful of new coins, whether they are innovative or not, would all of sudden make some older coin gain additional interest.

If a coin is truly useless, let's say something like taxicoin (apologies if anyone actually owns this), it'll die on its own. The market will take care of it.

Otherwise you just get people subjectively choosing coins which they think are lackluster or taking attention away from their investments... and thinking of ways to kill them. Basically what that shitcoin killing group was about, sorta. I say sorta, as they also included a ton of nuts, hypocrisy, and a shitcoin maker started the thread to begin with.

I'd much rather see people focus on stopping scams, not trying to destroy coins because they think it's a shitcoin, or somehow taking attention away from their own investments.