Having similar wallet issues. My password isn't unlocking the wallet... weird.

They sort of are, but strangely they chose to put all of their eggs into the MintPal basket, it seems. Unfortunately, I don't see them making it in time now with the other coins moving up. It really needs a big voting push, contests, promo stuff, to have a chance.

Maybe try to get on the polo voting list, or some small exchange voting lists? I think I have like a million of these (should check my wallet) so it'd be nice if there was a place to sell them -- not that it's worth much of anything, but better than letting them just sit there forever.

Text is off-center for me, left side of screen a bit cut off.  And Links not Link's.

Strange question. Nothing really, of course. The stabilizer thing may help, but all coins may drop, whether they are from an ICO or just purchased normally.

It'll last. People have figured out how to use trolling for profit. Besides individual goals of simply wanting a lower price to buy a coin, we get competing coins creating FUD, and then the trolls after a pump sort of phenomenon. Basically whales wanting to control price after a pump, to buy in lower, and repeat the process. And that doesn't count the regular insane trolls. It's sort of tiresome.

Whether or not self-moderation gives a worse appearance than a troll-laden thread is up for debate. I won't say one choice is right or wrong. But it's really annoying to read most coin threads lately.

I barely glanced at this thread and am sort of amazed at all the trolling... for a coin not even really released yet.

I'm all for free speech and dislike most moderation, yet at the same time would say go for a self-moderated thread. I'm just tired of reading nonsense from trolls in every coin thread. Use a light touch, allow criticism, allow even some minor trolling/negative comments... but remove the completely insane,  repetitive trolls.

Of course the market is controlled by whales, pump/dumps as well as hype/trolls. Nobody has disputed that fact. Again, it just seems weird to see a dev blatantly state he will pay people to do those things as jobs.

It may also minimize how effective hype will be, since it's stated right here in plain sight that they are paid hawkers. Not that anyone should believe hype anyway, but evidently some must believe it to a certain degree.

Yeah, that one I found odd too. We all know coins have their legion of supporters, some coins must pay people to hype, or to fud competitors, but it just seems so weird to see a dev blatantly say this, and that it's considered a 'job' for the coin.

It's sort of like how DCM paid Bob for his pump group/supporters as a form of 'marketing'.

I guess it's part of the crypto game, but it doesn't exactly scream professionalism.

They may want a bit more leeway between single and double digit sats? Only a guess.
After seeing Colbert coin somehow get listed on Polo, I really have no idea what sorts of standards they use... maybe waiting for a 'bounty'?

Even though my comments about the coin, or I should say the ipo rules, so far wouldn't be considered positive, I'm beginning to feel bad for you guys. The FUDders are going way overboard now.

You could try a couple of things, one being what you just mentioned above. Part of that could be to offer a buy wall during at least the early goings of the coin, at ipo prices. That way if people have second thoughts, or things go sour really quickly, people have a way out and won't lose anything. The buy wall should be confirmed with Bittrex, so you can use the ipo funds for that (in case they didn't pay you yet), as well as assuage some investor fears if Bittrex confirms the wall.

I don't mean a buy wall for the entire ipo, as that would be crazy... just enough to cover a decent amount of people.

An early release of the wallet and/or videos may help too.

Although not fond of how this ipo is set up, which is evident based on my comments in this thread, it's a bit early to start spreading FUD around.

Maybe just stick with facts? Like the ipo offers no safeguard against the devs running away with the ipo money, Bittrex not using similar rules as polo will now use... which includes some identification of the devs, and the exchange holding all funds until they are properly used. Or comment on the somewhat shady morals of paying people to lie in trollboxes to hype a coin?

All of those are good reasons to pass on this. No need to go into scam-mode just yet, nor claim the dev is behind other coins.

I suggest waiting for more exchanges + whatever value they can put in the coin (use on coinssource, or whatever). If people want do want to sell promo coins, I suggest just dribbling out orders. No point just smashing the order book, as you'll get pennies on the dollar.

A feeding frenzy clone would make sense.

Really surprised the coin has done as well as it has so far. I feel like an even bigger idiot for forgetting the deadline for the ipo now... just have my baby-sized bounties and whatever tiny scraps I got off early dumps.

If cryptos were anything like 'real world' companies, a lot of people would be in jail now. I understand what you are saying, but I was simply offering suggestions as to how to appease a lot of concerns people have. And I should add, rightfully so, after every single ICO run on Bittrex/Polo has tanked, many due to devs walking away with the money.

Personally, I never invest more than I am willing to lose, and didn't invest in Iceberg at all. As for the couple of exchange-run ICOs I did invest in, I got out with profit before they fell apart. So don't take my comments as some sort of 'sour grapes' thing. I simply think Bittrex should use the same guidelines as their main competitor, which probably would make both themselves and those running ICOs more money in the end -- if the devs running the ICO is honest, that is. A dishonest dev can make more money being... well, dishonest.

I only mentioned bittrex/polo ran ICOs on purpose. Of course others have done much better, NXT being a prime example. Perhaps I am in the minority, but I feel if an exchange decides to run an ICO, they hold some responsibility as far as how honest the devs are and how the funds are used. Exchanges do make money on these things too, after all, and if an exchange like bittrex evidently wants to run these things over and over, they could simply put an employee in charge of bookkeeping and payouts.

Polo now has guidelines such as these:

Poloniex must have the coins for the ICD upfront.
A plan for how the ICD funds will be used must be submitted.
Poloniex will hold all ICD funds. All withdrawals from the account holding the ICD funds must be approved by Poloniex staff, and must be consistent with the submitted plan. A public ledger will be kept of all withdrawals, including their destination and purpose. Do not expect to make massive withdrawals on the ICD funds account.
An ICD can only be made by an established member of the community.
Identity verification (preferably through a scan of a government issued ID) is required for all users wishing to create an ICD.


Two things stand out. Identification + Polo holds all funds and withdrawals must be approved by staff and consistent with the submitted plan. No massive withdrawals.

I hope the OP and Bittrex are paying attention.

With so many people burned over ICOs gone bad, expect people to be both skeptical and angry, and spread FUD of their own.

Hopefully consider the suggestions of escrow/staggered payouts as needed. I wonder how an ICO would do if a dev simply said, okay, we are taking 35-40K for developer salaries for 6 months to a year, paid out weekly  ... all other funds the exchange holds until needed for coin marketing/purposes only. Strict bookkeeping will be used and public addresses provided.

I expect some folks would still complain, but really it probably would quell most complaints. The only real advantage any ICO coin has over an existing one is the ICO funds. If used properly, its a LOT of money that can be used for marketing, new coin features and listing on various exchanges.

As of yet, I don't think any of the past ICO coins have used their funding for anything besides increasing their dev's bank account.

That's it. I wouldn't worry about the rates though, as look at that volume. The promo here and the stakes giveaway can't support that price at any real volume yet. Hopefully if the coin gets on other exchanges and if some use is added to the coin, it'd support a higher price.

Unfortunately that is the real problem. The devs didn't add any value to the coin and of course vanishing didn't exactly help matters either. The new team doesn't really have time nor funding to do much in the meanwhile.

I expect the best time to sell will be before it hits MP, a week before it should get listed. Although of course if everyone thinks that same way, perhaps not. I guess just look for those seemingly random pumps that occur on Polo, which appear to be working less successfully each time they try it.

Aren't masternodes working fine, payouts going out, and so on? I assume the current price is just a correction... basically happens regardless when any coin is oversold on a pump.

And why would anyone buy/sell based on what that site says anyway?

Crypto Analytics is bullish on DRK in the very long term.

Until development and a working model is completed on RC4 there has been a temporary SELL Rating placed on DRK.

I will add more findings I learn more.


If anyone buys/sells any coin based on such an in-depth written analysis, then they sort of deserve what they get.

This has come up multiple times. Any reason why they won't fix it? Seems like a really simple thing to change.