If you want to quell investor doubts, ask Bittrex to use the same guidelines Polo is currently using for ICOs.

That means no giant lumpsum payout to devs. You just get paid funds when you do whatever you say you will. So if you need funds for paying workers, you get the funds each week. If you need money for more developers, bounties, marketing, whatever... you get it when you need it, not all upfront.

That is the only way people would trust a dev from running away with the funds after a week or two. Or just sort of dragging things out, nothing new added to the coin, until it slowly dies.

XBC ... first dev ran off with funds. Second lead dev ran away, as well.
DCM ... complete disaster, entire team ran away with funds. Lead dev of XBC included here.
LCL, Mil, etc  -- disasters for investors.
XLC ... same dev as XBC originally, did nothing for the coin with ipo funds. Coin completely tanked.

I'm probably overlooking some, but that is the general rundown of how ICO coins run on Bittrex/Polo has gone so far. Of course many of them made money early on (hint to anyone investing in this), but that is why people are skeptical and also correlate how Iceberg has done with how this coin may do.

Yep. But people may not look at it that way. People equate all sorts of things in cryptoland, true or not.. and running an ICO right after Iceberg tanked, from the same exchange, using the same payout model, may not work that great. Then again, people evidently have really short memories here. I would have thought that DCM would have killed Bittrex' ICO model.

The salary idea isn't a bad one. I just meant it would have been nicer to see a coin succeed or fail based on its merits, not paid hype/fud. It would occur regardless just from regular investors, but the devs wouldn't be behind it.

You of course are also setting yourselves up for some skepticism, as any hype people hear may simply be from paid hawkers ... not that I think anyone should believe hype/fud anyway, but if people do, they must assume it is partly genuine. If you advertise you are paying people to say those things, how effective will the hype be?

Running this right after Iceberg coin tanked may not be the best move. I'd much rather see ipos run using Polo's ICD guidelines rather than how Bittrex does it. And if Bittrex reads this, I hope they do realize they run the risk of running their IPO model into the ground by holding so many IPOs close to one another... and without any safeguards against devs just running away with funds after a week.

And is it just me, or does it seem a tad nonprofessional to advertise job spots for people to hype your coin on trollboxes + pay whales for followers (ie pump/dump groups)?

Of course it happens all the time, it just seems weird to see it blatantly stated here as a job advertisement. It's basically paying people to lie.... just the flipside of  a job offer for people to spread FUD against other coins.

I assume Bittrex is simply waiting for the price to get high enough before they list it? Usually with cheaper coins I expect they want some leeway between single/double digit sat levels.

There are some other small exchanges to try too -- Austin Global, Atomic-trade, King Koiny and those guys. All small time, but even baby-sized exchanges never hurt.

I'm not sure why anyone is surprised by the current price. Bittrex also has none of the ICD rules Polo currently does, the primary one being no giant lumpsum payment to the devs. That means they'd have an actual incentive to add new features to the coin in order to withdraw any ipo funds.

Rather than complain here about the price, I suggest people contact Bittrex and ask them to institute the same ICD rules Polo uses for any future ipos they may run. If they keep doing ipos like this, they'll run the model into the ground.

Of course, that was my point. I was just replying to someone who viewed it as if the devs made a mistake by setting up a deadline when they did. It's very well possible that they purposely missed the deadline -- in the end, it probably would be more profitable that way.

Something I find interesting is how they set up their PoSA countdown -- hype generated, prices went up 2-3x, then sort of semi-silence (besides the fixing bugs stuff). Deadlines are one thing and even missing them isn't the end of the World, but when any dev sets up a deadline, even a minor miss can have pretty drastic effects.

But as to what is potentially interesting and I have wondered about is... is it on purpose? I expect a smart dev could have looked at Drk, how they handled their release candidates and thought to themselves -- why can't I do the same thing?  Probably more money was made on Drk by releasing a bad fork, than a good one... silence and delays lower the price a bit more. Those who sold at 2-3x prices can buy back in at really cheap levels, and all a dev has to do then is release whatever it was they were working on, Release candidate in Drk's case, or PoSA here. More money to be made that way than a proper release on time.

I may be too skeptical, but again, just something I wonder about sometimes. Devs can influence price down easier than they can up, and sometimes it's to their advantage.

Thanks, I assumed hundreds of altcoins, many valued at several sats, were equivalent to btc. Are you saying I shouldn't have invested my life savings into Comedy Gold, Taxi Coin and Urea?

People know the risks involved. They are looking either for that .01% coin that will replicate some of BTC's success or are simply playing the markets, converting profits back into BTC. And if they don't understand the risks and that putting tons of money into a coin based on a meme may not be the best idea in the world, it's a life lesson.

Thanks, I was wondering where all that info may be and how it all worked. I'm probably not quite trusting enough to invest in anything listed there, but it's good to know for the future if something does pop up. At least I know where to look for more info.

I barely trust people on this board to not send me links to virus infested websites. So I'd have to answer with a no.

But there are certainly similar situations with coin ipos, so I guess it's basically the same thing as selling on that exchange. It's just with ipos, or this forum, you can use a little deduction sometimes to determine if they may be on the level. With that exchange, where do people post info of what they are selling?

Nem folks did it here. But for other commodities, how do you determine just how sketchy they may be?

I just mentioned NEM as it was the easiest example to think of. I've used the exchange, but not very often, so was simply wondering the same as the OP ... is there basically no recourse if whatever you buy isn't actually given to you? What's to stop people from listing silver, gold, or whatever tokens and just taking your money and running away?

As for NEM, using the exchange for tokens sort of made sense... in a sneaky way. It increased the value of NXT for a while.  So if the NEM devs held any NXT, it was like an extra bonus. It's sort of similar to what the Maidsafe folks did with their ipo Mastercoin payments.

Have the devs stated an approximate date for onemarket to be released?

It'd actually be smart for the devs to sort of stagger the release of each sort of close to one another... release posa when onemarket is about a week away. That way you get a bounce from posa, plus a general build-up in price during the wait until onemarket is released. It's sort of like how dark did their rc releases, but without the dropoff in price in-between waits.

Although those drop-offs, like now, do serve a purpose too, for those who sell at a high, buy back in low, wait for next rise... repeat.

I've wondered how that works too. How do we know there is anything backing up what people are selling?

Not saying this to spread fear into people, but pretend the Nem guys just vanished, and didn't swap tokens for actual Nem. What is to stop people from simply lying about whatever they are supposed to be selling?

Is it like eBay, but no recourse if the buyer doesn't get anything?

I have great timing... I recall the bonus was being increased (thought it was planned to go to 25-30%) and sort of forgot about it. Figured I'd log in now and place an order for an amazon card at whatever discount was in place. Of course I time it just at the same time the discount goes down to 10%.

Obviously I haven't kept track of things here so closely. When is the POS fork planned, and does the recent Veri exploit or whatever occurred have any effect on how POS is set up in Noble? I believe there was a 51% attack just based on staking coins?

Based on this thread alone, I wouldn't entirely rule out the psychopath hypothesis, but I expect some have to be getting paid. I'm curious if anyone has ever admitted to getting paid to spread FUD though?

Lesser trolls are probably just hoping to buy in cheaper, or don't want a coin to rise because they already sold... or spread FUD because of some form of crypto tribalism, where they think knocking another coin will somehow make theirs more valuable. But it would take a true nut to post FUD for days on end, non-stop.

Noticed that about Energy and another coin or two, as well. I wonder if they are using automated voting, as they jumped up unusually quickly. It could be that some of the lower coins are taking that chance, figuring there is nothing to lose. Normally they'd risk losing those votes, but if a coin has no chance otherwise by the deadline, there is no risk.

You can give it to maccd123 if he'd otherwise be too late.

I'll list my SRCC address when payouts are due, as I still need to fix the nodes on my wallet.

I'm willing to switch over to a SRCC payout instead of BTC, if anyone still wants a BTC spot. I previously asked if btc people could have that option at the end of the month if we so chose, and was told it'd be okay. But I don't want to hog up a spot if someone else wants it.

Ah... that could work then. Although keep in mind with this giveaway the coin may be devalued a bit (giveaway people tend to dump, unfortunately), so significantly less coins at possibly a cheap price may also result in less people signing up for the signature campaign.

Guess we'll find out though. If value is added to the coin before the giveaway coins are given out, it could equalize it a bit.