I'm not the one passing off my assumptions as fact. You are, so the burden of proof is on you. You said this: "ICONOMI is using YOUR funds to travel the world instead of working". You state it as fact, so either you have proof it is fact or you are a lying piece of shit and are committing slander. I asked a question: "How do you know what funds he used?" that you can't answer because you are a lying piece of shit.
 
And this is your logic: Visiting NK = trying to do business with a nuclear despot. You are actually insane aren't you? and you bring up Trump like he would care about Iconomi. Damn Iconomi must be a BIG deal if Trump has his eyes on it! This is great news! This is YUUUUUGE.

Your posts are a gold mine.

How do you know what funds he used? How expensive do you think it is to go to NK for a few days lol?

He's a free man he can go on a trip wherever he wants.

You're tying to equate taking a personal trip to NK as working with a nuclear despot     what the hell is wrong with your heads?

You guys are getting really desperate with these attempts at criticism. But I thank you, this is just free ammo people can use to show how nuts you are and discredit you.

Please don't delete his post Daparski, it's too funny.

Omg guys can you believe it TheTruthIsOutThere just revealed Iconomi to be a failure on the sole basis that they don't communicate to the same degree as one other project! Such an expert internet sleuth, he's just like Mulder! I just sold all my holdings!

The selling point and vision has always been and still is profit sharing from index funds on the Iconomi platform. Still offers an "economic standpoint for investors into bitcoin and altcoins" through either the index funds or profit sharing via ICN. They said the word dividend, what, once in their whitepaper?

I'm not entirely sure what you are saying in your last sentence but ICNX is an index fund, it's value is determined by the value of the underlying assets. And how is the platform any more centralized than the exchanges you speak of? Those exchanges are controlled by a few people, too.

Why is it so hard to share a tx id or bitcoin/eth address? This is absurd. Why a bunch of signatures and numbers that mean nothing when you could just do the completely trustless thing that everybody else does and share the addresses? This is cryptocurrency for christ sake wtf is the problem?

Yep crypto is starting to mature! Hence index funds are suddenly popping up. Before you'd be hard pressed to find more than 2-3 coins worth investing in long term, now there are enough to feasibly form an index. Exciting time to be involved in crypto. Amazing how many people are still completely unaware of it.

BCAP also had the luxury of going after Iconomi therefore maybe being able to learn from Iconomi's experience. I don't think we know whether or not they had originally considered dividends before Iconomi found out they wouldn't work and decided to do away with them. Or do we? Idk much about BCAP.

Also is BCAP even an ETH token? I honestly don't know, I'm not much interested in the project because I'm in the US and not an accredited investor or multi-millionaire so I can't invest.

Misunderstanding the intention and meaning of my statement (as in the first 2 you list) is not a logical fallacy on my part (I never said that it follows that transparency and communication shouldn't be expected, and I am not arguing for or against transparency I am arguing that people have distorted views of what "transparency" means and what "communication" they should expect). Those two sentences go together and the logic that is supposed to follow is that one reason people are so used to what they perceive as "transparency" and "communication" is because they are used to scammy shitcoin projects where there is no actual substance and so devs maintain interest and hype by being "transparent" and constantly communicating with their community.

#3 is a strawman and the one I was saying I saw.

First part of #4 is not a logical fallacy just because I didn't give examples, in fact to assume it isn't true just because I didn't take the time to list examples for you is a logical fallacy in itself lol. Second part of #4 would be a fallacy as you say if the people I was directing it towards were invested in ICN (that post wasn't direct at you, it was directed at and in response to MysteryE and TheTruthIsOutThere who obviously are not invested in ICN).

For #5 what part of "They are in slack from time to time answering questions, they are on reddit answering questions, they consistently post updates on medium when something worth conveying to investors comes up." is not true? Sure "something worth conveying" is subjective, but your subjective opinion of it is no more valid than mine or theirs. Have they not updated the medium blog with a new post after each major change? Perhaps the update is not in depth enough for your liking, but that's subjective. Calling my opinion a logical fallacy would be admitting all of your opinions are fallacious too, so be careful where you tread or you may discredit everything you say.
And asking questions "Really, what the fuck do you guys expect? For them to personally reply to each and every single one of your individual questions and concerns?" is not a logical fallacy- I actually want those people to tell me what the team needs to do to satisfy them because it seems like no matter what the team does they will always have complaints, like how today when they finally updated their list of employees (something they specifically asked for) that was somehow spun into a new complaint.

For #6 I use a strawman as before (although let's be real here, nobody thinks I actually believe them to be children or babies and that I'm trying to convince people that they are indeed true children or babies and that therefore they should ignore them solely on those grounds- I'm just trying to insult them), but my statement that "And if they did do that you would probably still find a way to twist it into something negative, such as 'why aren't you working rather than spending all your time here answering question'" is conjecture (notice the "probably") based on past happenings (see above about how they found a way to twist the thing they were previously asking for into something negative when they finally got it).

For #7 why do you think every argument to support a conclusion is a fallacy? I'm not sure you understand the rigorous definition of a logical fallacy. Or the point of an argument, which is always to support a conclusion... And I guess saying it is more professional to address everybody at once through official releases vs addressing individuals is subjective, but do you really disagree? Wouldn't it be better and more professional if they answered all your and others' concerns in an official format not directed at individuals and that won't get buried by subsequent posts/messages and therefore not need constant recapitulation? Is this not how communication with investors is handled in conventional markets? Do companies call up individual investors to answer their questions and provide them with new information one at a time or do they release financial reports, development updates, public statements, etc?
And notice how when I say "To do the latter could even be considered providing insider information to them depending on the nature of the information." I include the words "could ... be considered", and "depending on the nature of the information"? Well you just committed another fallacy by attempting to reduce that down to meaning that answering every single question asked would be considered insider information which is simply not what I said.

Fair enough. They could have elaborated further or included various other reasons why a buyback makes more sense than dividends. Such as:

1) Not having to treat dividends as taxable income
2) Not having to send some of our shared profit to exchanges that aren't the actual shareholders (this could be a huge amount of our shared profit going to exchanges considering how much people generally store their coins on exchanges, although you could argue this would also provide a nice incentive for people not to hold their coins on exchanges)
3) Not having to send some of our shared profit down the toilet to ICN at addresses that have been lost
4) Not having to spend ETH gas on each and every transaction when sending the ETH dividends to each and every address with ICN in it (people argue this would be less than the exchange fees during a buyback and that may be true at first but since fees are a % and gas is a set amount per transaction the exchange fees scale proportionally to the amount of profit as a percentage while the gas expenses will scale to the number of addresses holding ICN- and this could be manipulated, for example some ethereum loving asshole could decide to split his ICN up into as many addresses as possible so they have to spend as much as possible on ETH)
5) Legal and regulatory issues. Paying dividends may classify ICN as an unregistered security (in the US, at least) which was one of things people originally harped on.

Again go read the fucking medium post before you comment on it. It says more than you continue to allude to. And if you expect them to be able to predict/foresee every regulatory/legal issue they might bump into while trying to do something that has literally never been done before and has little if any legal and regulatory precedent you are a complete idiot and I have a hard time believing you are working in the financial sector at all.

People behind the bitcoin ETF sure were able to foresee all the legal and regulatory issues that would get in their way, right? That's why it got approved by the SEC first go, right? Oh wait it still hasn't been approved. Lol do you even think before you type?

Did you not read the post about the switch to buyback? It explained why they did it, it explained how they would do it (without providing information that would allow people to take advantage of the buyback by front running it). They didn't simply "announced it" and leave it at that. So what else exactly do you want them to explain to you? If you don't like it, that's one thing, but stop lying and acting like they didn't explain themselves when they made the change.

7? Please elaborate. I see 1.

Transparency and communication are hype words bred from the scammy nature of most projects in crypto. Where a project has no real purpose, no end game, no product, so instead of being able to speak for itself it requires the team to constantly hype even the most insignificant of developments. If you really need babysat by the team on bitcointalk or reddit everyday then grow up or leave, they don't need you- we don't need you.

And besides, Iconomi has been more transparent than a plethora of projects with similar or greater valuation than Iconomi that I don't see any of you fuckers complaining about. They are in slack from time to time answering questions, they are on reddit answering questions, they consistently post updates on medium when something worth conveying to investors comes up. Really, what the fuck do you guys expect? For them to personally reply to each and every single one of your individual questions and concerns? We get it, you are children and you need your hand held... And if they did do that you would probably still find a way to twist it into something negative, such as "why aren't you working rather than spending all your time here answering questions". Plus it is more professional to release an official statement rather than talk directly to investors. To do the latter could even be considered providing insider information to them depending on the nature of the information.

BTW MysterE are you really that dumb? The beta for the platform is already active, people are already buying/selling ICNX and making money off of it. Try telling those people the platform and their profits are fictitious.

Just because ICN can benefit from additional purpose doesn't mean it was worthless before that additional purpose. Let's try to avoid logical fallacies, shall we? And you are by far NOT the only person to raise legitimate concerns so stop jerking off all over yourself. But yeah, there is a reason (some of) you're posts aren't removed, because they aren't just FUD they are legit concerns and valid points and aren't coming from an obvious sockpuppet account, and you are actually willing to debate your arguments in a reasonable and respectful manner. You shouldn't be conflated with the likes of TheTruthIsOutThere. I think even you would agree his motives are pretty transparent and malicious.

Did you forget cofound.it is splitting away?

Why are you trying so hard to make something out of this when you don't have all the information? It only further exposures your secret motive. Why not wait and see what is really going on? Maybe they were shitty emplooyees and they found better ones, maybe they just needed people with specific skills and no longer needed people with others.

Robinhood is a terrible person to quote from slack also, he's a trader not an investor he purposely manipulates sentiment in there to align with his current position. From what he was saying yesterday that position right now is out of Iconomi, so he's not looking for good news currently. The contrary, he was hoping ICN would go lower so he could buy back in.

Concern troll is concerned! Oh no! Better listen to the account with the name TheTruthIsOutThere that was made 8 days ago specifically to bitch about Iconomi non-stop despite obviously not being involved or invested in Iconomi. Seriously, just look at that fuckers post history and it will be clear to you why they are here.

I love how you even try to flip good news (an update to the team and documentation to reflect that) into bad news. You were one of the people to say the OP needed to be updated to reflect new team composition but now that you can't get upset about that you find something else to get upset about.

This personal also apparently has no concept of what a PR agency does either, if you think anybody needs to come babysit you in slack or on reddit or even here you need to grow the fuck up and look into how things work in the real world for a change.

And yeah, another developer at this stage is obviously the better move because they are still in the development phase. Right now there is no finished product to market, why would they start PR and communication rushes right now if they aren't even sure exactly when the product will be finished- that would just be setting people up for another let down.

I guess it doesn't work on firefox, switched to chrome and it is working now.

Iconomi is going to release quarterly financial reports, if they fail to do this for Q1 then we have a problem. I believe it is supposed to come out this month. Q1 ended on March 31st we have to give them time to compile the report.

Business plan as in a whitepaper and a roadmap? Because Iconomi has both of those, although they do need to update them to reflect changes. They have kept us up to date with most changes (such as switching to burning and the splintering off of cofound.it) through their medium posts, though. https://medium.com/iconominet

Iconomi is not a fund, ICNX is a fund and ICNP is a fund but Iconomi itself is not. Iconomi is- for lack of a better word- a cryptocurrency startup. You can follow ICNX value in real time and there are good reasons for not giving away re-balancing information ahead of time (to prevent front running, this was outlined by them in their "business plan"). They recently told us how many users were currently on the platform and how much they had currently collectively invested into ICNX.

For ICNP they have good reason for not announcing which projects they invest in until after the ICOs have closed (and they said this was the way they would do it from the get go in their "business plan"). You can track the ICO funds that were raised at their respective ICO addresses. They have disclosed each investment into ICNP after the ICO has closed as they said they would. They have disclosed the profit they took from their Golem investment, which brings me to the below point in regards to the buyback:

The reddit user acts as though Iconomi is just like "we have earned some money, will buy back!"
But Iconomi said they earned 1000 ETH by selling 1/3 of their ICNP investment into Golem, they said they would use that 1000 ETH to buy back over a 90 day period. They also previously disclosed how much they originally invested into Golem shortly after the ICO had closed. I think they will disclose more details surrounding the burn after it has been conducted, as with the funds they don't want to disclose how it will be conducted prior to prevent market manipulation and front running. If they don't disclose such information then we have a problem, but again just like with the Q1 financial report it is too early for us to act like there is already a problem.

The way that person is presenting the situation seems purposely misleading. Iconomi has been far more revealing and transparent than they allude to. And I'm not saying they have been perfect or that there aren't things they need to improve or need to address.

From my perspective these are the legitimate issues right now with Iconomi.
1. Why aren't we trading on more platforms yet? I don't think this has been address yet and this either needs to change or at least be addressed with a proper reason/answer. It was nice to see we will be added to shapeshift though. Perhaps ICN is trying to stick with more financially mature/professional platforms such as Kraken and shapeshift? They should at least explain their reasoning. If we are suddenly on polo or bittrex only after their ICN is unlocked that would be a huge red flag.
2. They need to disclose the rate at which people are being provided beta access to the platform and an estimate as to how long before release to the general public (an estimate not only for ICNX but also the DAMP as a whole), or in other words they need to readjust their roadmap/timeline/"business plan" to reflect recent changes/delays.
3. They need to disclose where Iconomi, INC. has been incorporated and clarify what ownership rights are given to ICN holders.

In regards to 3. Jani said this:

     jani8x 5 points 1 month ago
    "In a favorable jurisdiction we can not name yet. As I said: it's SPV."

https://www.reddit.com/r/ICONOMI/comments/5vi3go/details_please_on_iconomi_inc/de2xpmi/

Probably not something they want to disclose willy-nilly on reddit or BCT, where it will get buried anyways and forgotten. Also I imagine incorporation of a crypto company can be tricky and take some time, or at least Lisk's process of doing so sure made it seem that way. Also people need to stop acting like they know what kind of legal and regulatory issues Iconomi is running into, and how SPVs and NDAs work in this sphere. What Iconomi is doing is brand new and largely unprecedented so unless you have also tried to start up and incorporate a company for managing crypto index funds (and want to be a fiat gateway as well) you probably don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Look at how long it took Lisk to form a non-profit and how little information could be disclosed during the process (and subsequently how long it took for them to produce their first financial report), what Iconomi is doing is likely more difficult considering they are not a non-profit, want to be a fiat gateway, are dealing in index funds and are responsible for management of other people's money, etc.
Give them time to do this the professional way, by making an official statement when everything is in place. I imagine it will be disclosed in the Q1 report, let's wait and see.

I've been away from the scene for the last few days so I may have missed additional information that came out during that time so somebody let me know if that is the case.

That link doesn't seem to be working, is there another?

Alex Fork is connected to a friend of mine from high school on linkedin. Thought it was kind of odd since we are from the US and my friend is not involved in crypto or any tech industry. So I asked him why they are connected and he said he doesn't know him and that he just randomly received a request from him and accepted it. So in otherwords, Alex Fork is spamming for connections on linkedin. Why? I mean I am connected to people I don't really know on linkedin, but they are at least within the same or similar industry as me or went to the same university or are acquaintances I've met at least once and they have at least SOME connection to me in real life.