WETH is an ERC20 token that is needed to trade on that platform since it's not possible to trade with ETH directly. You need to convert your ETH to WETH to trade. If you have WETH and you want to withdraw you need to convert to ETH using the “unwrap” option.

I don't think so, smart contracts, in their current state, are not free from having bugs and vulnerabilities, so they can not be used as real contracts in the real world, not for now.

Bull run and stability are contradictory terms. Bull runs are triggered only by speculation. Adoption will never produce such effect but a long and steady rise, which is much more preferable. In fact, bull runs and crashes hamper the mass adoption of cryptocurrencies.

It's obvious that the entry of large and reputed platforms would impact on centralized exchanges. In the future I think many people will move to decentralized exchanges, once they manage to be more user-friendly, and the ones who stay on centralized exchanges will look for the more secure and reputed ones.

Even if he was healthy, he must have done it. When reports say he was the only one who knew the private keys of the wallets, is it to be supposed that he has memorized them? He must have saved the keys somewhere.

Some day the EOS team will need to facilitate the free creation of EOS wallets if they really want to build a big community around their project since most people are not willing to pay to create a wallet, no matter how cheap is to do it. Moreover, what will happen if EOS price rises in the future? Will wallet creation costs rise as well?

In fact, this is the reason why ICO teams usually decide to burn unsold tokens and this is the common practice. People will always trust more in facts than in words.

I think there would be no way to do that. Once the countdown ended, they both would try to send the coins to another address at the same time, so the only way the legitimate owner could keep his coins would be by spending a higher fee than the hacker and being lucky.

The difference between ICOs and STOs is just the token's function and definition. If the project fails, the token will be worthless, calling it and defining it as STO will not make any difference.

It depends on the project. Most ICOs burn unsold tokens once the ICO has finished, but there are ICO teams that choose to airdrop unsold tokens between investors or keep the tokens for themselves and lock them for some months or years. It's not mandatory to burn the unsold tokens but in any case they must state what they will do beforehand and in the case they keep the tokens they must explain why they make that decision and what they will do with those tokens.

It's a basic thing, if you are claiming that your coin is backed by fiat money you need to prove that what you are claiming is true. If not, how can you expect people to trust in your coin?

Reading their method, I wonder how it's possible that they were successful before. In this case, the Gamblr team only needed to do a simple check to avoid being scammed.

In fact, many times are investors themselves the ones who ask ICO teams to not list tokens in exchanges until the market situation changes. For ICO tems it would not be a problem to list their tokens now, after all, they have raised the money they needed and their own tokens are usually locked for one year, but they prefer to do what they think is better for their investors.

Those masternode coins can be an interesting option only if you have some coins that you are planning to hold for a long period of time and, in the meanwhile, you want to use them to get a few more coins, without expecting too much. If not, they are not worthwhile.

People who are constantly asking when a new bull run will happen don't realize how desperate they may look in the eyes of whales, people should stop thinking on that and let things just happen. I don't know if there will be another bull run but if it happens, it will not be predicted by anyone.

This kind of airdrops should be seriously discouraged. They only contribute to congest the network with useless and unnecessary transactions.

It's a matter of time. For the moment, it's mainly private institutions who are offering these blockchain courses, but over time public universities will offer them as well.

What will happen if all investors chose the "risk free" option? They say in that PDF that they will freeze all the funds received from the contributors who chose that option, so, they launch an ICO, they receive funds, but they can't use them to develop their project, what's the point of launching an ICO then?

If I'm not wrong, the original BCH is now BCHABC so there are only BCHABC and BCHSV now. That means that the joint value is much lower, even taking into account the recent market drop. It was supposed to be a war with one winner and one big loser, but it's quite possible that this war ends up with both sides losing it all.

The EOS biggest problem is that if you want to create an EOS wallet, you have to pay for it, even if you just want to test the platform. This is a barrier that curbs EOS adoption. It's true that the amount you have to pay is small at this moment, but it's also true that users will prefer other platforms where they can create a wallet for free.