Only thing I know about it is what Brian Deey said on Reddit:


"(...)

Factom can prove its history on other blockchains too. We are planning on anchoring into ethereum too. This will allow ethereum apps to follow historical factom consensus without viewing the bitcoin blockchain.
No Factom will not stop using bitcoin as a publishing platform."
https://www.reddit.com/r/factom/comments/4a5cou/will_factom_move_to_a_different_chain/d0xj8m7



And that topic instantly got media-echo:

Factom Plans To Anchor Into Ethereum Blockchain

(...)

That being said, the company is well aware there are other technological advancements in existence which could make their service more versatile. A recent post on Reddit by BrianDeery mentions how Factom has plans to anchor into Ethereum and its blockchain as well, in due time. No official dates have been announced or confirmed as of yet though.

When this integration happens, any application built on top of the Ethereum blockchain will be able to  follow historical Factom consensus, without seeing anything on the Bitcoin blockchain. This parallel approach to using all of the versatile blockchain solutions available brings more decentralization to the Factom project as well, which can only be seen as a positive thing.

http://themerkle.com/factom-plans-to-anchor-into-ethereum-blockchain/

Because you speak about "greed" - Last week there was another very interesting blog-post. Also very attacking and for my opinion a little bit too much of speculation and I'm not sure if he is right to just 1% or maybe 90% or whatever. Can't say it. But it's not wrong to consider some of his theories as possibilities:  

On Ponzi’s, Equity Derivatives, and Ethereum
http://www.wallstreettechnologist.com/2016/07/12/on-ponzis-equity-derivatives-and-ethereum/

My own opinion is that it's not really be about greed, that it's not about money as priority. I consider Vitalik Buterin as visionary and genius and I believe he wants much more than just getting rich quick. But I also believe that there might be a lack of experience in the team and that Ethereum is maybe too much about being proud because of big numbers - 1.5 bn - marketcap, DAO-funding and so on. It seems like too much ambition and too less patience and focus on what it should be about - quality and stability.

For me, it's much about TheDao. Because it could have been a really interesting experiment, but instead of that it turned out to be an overfunded too-big-too-fail-monster. And the extremely high funding is suspicious in my opinion and maybe even more the intention behind for what it was most likely meant for.

Thing is: Even without a hack it could have turned out as a risk for Ethereums eco-system. And there is something in Ethereum I really don't like, I'm just unsure what exactly it is. Because I see Ethereum as very valuable but as a scientific project and I believe it will need a lot of time until it's ready for real business, if that will ever happen. The high price and the massive manipulation let it seem even more premature.

Critical article but interesting - and not totally wrong:

A Painful Lesson For The Ethereum Community
http://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2016/07/21/a-painful-lesson-for-the-ethereum-community/#494412bf5714

Bei mir funktioniert die Seite auch. Ich weiß aber auch das im englischen Thread offenbar auch andere Probleme haben. Möglicherweise eine Frage des Browsers...?

Good question... hard to answer. First: I believe that short-term-thinking (what it expresses) is natural for us as human beings. I mean, everybody would like to have what he/she wants as soon as possible. What I believe is the most important, and not just in Crypto but generally: To know about own intentions and to understand that there is a difference between to be driven by those intentions (impulsive acting and communicating -->  leads into conflicts that will be like miracles if not understood) and to make self-aware decisions. The rest is about the question what is effective? And it's not effective to be one of those who act impulsive while it can be very effective to watch it and to consider it into conclusions. And while I'm personally not really patient I hate it to have time as enemy. That's why one of my own rules for myself is: What's the best way to get time on to my side. And that can't be short-term-thinking. In best case that would be a fight that is not without any chance but with a high risk to lose.

And Factom is again a good example, because if successful it wouldn't even need trading for the price to rise - just EC-demand - and I consider time not as enemy in this project but as a "friend". But the market is part of the game, short-term-thinking is part of the game, and most likely (if successful) hyping and pumping and bubbles will also be part of future price dynamics like it was in the past.

And what we know about this market can be included into whatever somebody believes about Factom. I believe that Factom has a tremendous fundamental potential. And I'm not surprised that a majority doesn't seem to recognize it while it could also be a reason to be concerned. Some react on a dump like "what is wrong with this project?" as if the price would be omniscient while it says nothing - could be a dumper who needs money because his car exploded. ;-) But is it rational to believe that the short-term-thinkers will drive the price if they will get signals which trigger their impulsive behaviour? It's not just rational, it's a safe prediction. And is it rational to expect that those signals will come? If one has reasons to believe in Factom as a project, yes. So, it's something that can be included in the own strategy while it doesn't need to be something to be concerned about or even change the own attitude.




Yes, it's always about anticipation and conclusions can be right or wrong and sometimes something can seem right because something happens like predicted while there are other reasons. ;-)

And problem in short-term is simply that it's nearly impossible to predict something for short-term without insider-knowledge. Short-termers react on trigger. And in most cases it's just the price plus volume. Some are good in chart-analysis and those who are good in it make more profit then losses but that has not much to do with the projects. For me technical analyses is an info but on my hit-list it's not in the top10.

Yes, right! It's a good sign for increasing attention. Factom becomes more and more recognized but without coming close to a hype, so there is still a lot of room.

Attention is a very important factor (without any attention nothing would be possible), but I also mean more than "just" that when I speak of a "psychological market". It's just very hard to explain, because it's nothing objective and it's not possible to make statistics about it.

One example: Identification. The expression of Identification is something like "attached to"/"tied to". Psychologically it's kind of simple but hard to explain it's "mechanism". It's about something that is "new" that is connected to something that is already there. Maybe weird example: If somebody you don't know gives you a stone, you'll ask what's wrong with him and throw it away. If a woman you love gives it to you it's also still a stone, but it connects - because it stands for something that is meaningful for you. And to connect, to build up identification, it needs understanding.

In Crypto the highest intense identification is profit. But the identification is much deeper than just money. In the end, money stands for "perspective" or "chances" and "feeling safe", also for "power" and so on. It has deeper meaning than just the number of Bitcoins or the dollars in cash. But, there is an extreme conflict: While it stands for something that should last over a long time (nobody wants money and what it stands for just for some minutes) everybody wants it quick. And the Crypto-market is really extreme in that. It's about "i want much!" and "soon!". And that's the point where people believe to invest while they in fact just bet. They believe to invest because they believe that the Dev-teams develop value that will last. But they "invest" in projects that give short-term-signals. And if teams give short-term-signals it says something about their intentions. That makes the whole Crypto-market very paradox. Because what is green for longterm is red for short term and the other way around. If a Dev-team gives too many "buy-signals" for short-term, I consider all possibilities of dishonest actions of the team. Paycoin was a masterpiece-example. ;-)

And the identification with short-term-profit can not connect to Factom. They simply don't give those signals but counteract it. And Ethereum gives all signals. They give long-term-signals and they are long-term-focused. But especially the market itself is a short-term-signal and I believe it was manipulated and is manipulated, and I believe it's done very strategic. It's not the price why I believe it. It's the volume. But also the smart marketing of Ethereum for the Crypto-Public involves a lot of short-term-signals that are "build" on longterm-signals. That's a very effective combination because it gives additional trust.

Factom is different. They don't give those incentives and the market doesn't give those incentives. Some believe that good news like partnerships should be enough for a hype. But all partnerships were long-term-signals. Azure, Honduras, Smart Cities, etc. --> longterm. What was short-term? Chinese exchange: Yuanbao ---> first pump. The pump of march was a combination of pure manipulation and "Vitalik Buterin is invested in Factom!". It's a short-term-signal because the price itself was and VB is a "identification-figure". I can't be totally sure if that was the reason for the pump, but I don't know of any other reasons for that sharp rise. I even believe that it was very strategic. Enabled margin trading plus bot-army plus the Vitalik Buterin - hype. Until now there never was more volume in the Factoid-market and the price was on an ATH. And it had nothing to do with Factom.


But: Is there potential to be identified with Factom as an idea? Absolutely. It just needs understanding. Factom even has more potential I believe than Ethereum regarding that. The system itself can be very "binding" to customers. The idea behind that is beyond making business but meaningful in many ways. That means: There is a lot of potential and it's mainly a question of time for the "public" to grow into it. And there is a tendency, and that will most likely lead into a price hype, because at some point those aspects multiplicate with itself. One scenario for example is: More and more long-term-focused Investors invest and the price begins to rise. The price itself begins to act as short-term-signal and people try to find reasons. Not important if there are no real reasons. They find reasons. But if there should be real reasons, good news, they will take it even if those reasons should again be long-term-signals.

And especially: The more time passes by, the more the people will believe in "soon". With other words: Factom builds up suspense out of itself and a lot of aspects will act additionally and multiplicate with each other. The potential I believe to see in Factom as a project and it's idea is more powerful than anything else I know of (in this space). The same is true with focus on it's market. All what is on "red" for short-term-thinkers now, is not just green in my opinion. If I'm right with my prediction, it's a catapult.



 

 
E-money can be very different things. It can be something like Paypal or something like Bitcoin. And if we speak about Bitcoin or at least the concept behind: cryptographically secured, decentralized, international etc., it's an offensive attack on the established system. And the idea is not underestimated by authorities. My impression is that nobody really knows how to handle it, but it's nothing politics and finance like. And they figured that the idea is very powerful, but it's a threat and I don't expect that it will be easy to become mainstream. I expect that they will fight it, but not in an offensive and obvious way. In worst case they regulate it to death and do bad marketing against it (terrorist-financing is one example). But at the same time: The ghost is out of the bottle and there are already potential Bitcoin-successors that will be harder to regulate. More anonymity, better decentralization and so on. It will be a fight behind the curtains, invisible for the majority of people.

And that is also something I really like about Factom. It's not that offensive regarding the established system. It's not that much of an attack. It's more like an offer, but if used --> it would change a lot. I can't know what Paul Snow exactly means with "honesty is subversive", but I believe it's about that aspect. It's not about replacing anything. It's more about changing from the inside out. And it's not just about a technical solution to solve existing technical problems. If used it can change thinking. Because a company that uses a recording system like Factom will have to think about what they do and how. For example: Banks usually have going on a lot of illegal activities that shouldn't come out and they have data and documents about it. If investigated they often destroy it. Happened multiple times and happens most likely every day in a lot of companies and institutions etc.. And if that (data was destroyed) comes out it's usual not to find out who was responsible, at least not provable. And Factom is not just a system that can potentially reveal dishonest activities. It's also about preventing because it changes thinking. If it's not that easy any more to get away with dishonest (and illegal) activities, the question is: Is it worth it?

And my concern in the beginning was: Who will want it? But Paul Snow is right when he says that it's not easy to say "I don't want it!", especially if the system gives additional incentives besides the honesty-aspect to use it. It can lower costs, it's about security, it has a lot of practical use and I don't know of real barriers (if high quality). And somebody who would say "no, better not!" - that's not easy to say, because it could be revealing regarding intentions not to want it - it could be about dishonest intentions. And nobody is open about dishonest intentions in front of honest intentions. Dishonesty always loses in such situations. And that's very powerful, but before people understand that potential they need to understand Factom beyond it's technology.

And I'm not a tech-guy. That was always my biggest weakness in this market. But I try hard to understand ideas and how they are designed into a system. And I believe Factom's design is more effective than Bitcoins or Ethereums. Some say, that because of the federated servers Factom wouldn't be really decentralized. But that could be very wrong because of the election-mechanism, the auditors and the "kick-bad-actours-out-mechanism". It gives additional security while at least theoretically Mining-farms could turn against Bitcoin and nobody could do anything against it. Some believe that Bitcoin-miners wouldn't have any intention to do that because for them it's about money and they wouldn't ever attack the source of money - Bitcoin. But that implicates that they mine for money while it's at least theoretically possible that for example some mining farms are already in the hand or even started from secret-service-agencies (governments). And while Bitcoin is already a battlefield because of human weaknesses and additionally in a fight with the established system, a system like Factom can easily be part of the established system while changing it .

Plus: Data is more meaningful than money - while money is basically data.

Under the line it will most likely be about the technical base of Factom. If it's possible to develop it in a way that is in line with the idea and the thoughtful design. If yes, I have no doubt if it will have success.

This is also interesting. Factom just posted this video on Twitter:

Factom Developer Insights - Brian Deery
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcEZNeypL7M

And it's really interesting what he has to say, but especially at about 9:50 he is asked what his biggest win is this year. His answer is about working with Honduras and he goes more into details. It seems, that it's Brian Deery who is most active there, and he has been since years and even before Bitcoin.

It also underlines what I already said here about Honduras: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=850070.msg15613177#msg15613177

After the "Stalled-post" end of last year, it seems that things have changed to positive again.

I highly doubt that Paul Snow, Peter Kirby, and now also Brian Deery would talk about Honduras like they do it - and as said: Brian Deery even much more in detail - if there wouldn't be progress. I consider the Blog post as outdated.

Yes, I don't disagree. While I really don't know what the best-case-potential is regarding EC-demand, I believe that 1 bn in a month is clearly underneath. I was always the opinion that if they deliver quality it will be used and over time it can be expected that not just the team builds Applications for Factom but also other Developers (it already happens if I'm right, but more testing). It can be the same like in Bitcoin or Ethereum but in some ways even better.

In longterm it can be about much more than 1 bn per month. Factom is such an open system and potentially for everybody with a computer or also phones (photo-app's or whatever), that a potential EC-demand is not really limited.

But something like that needs some time. The next months I expect the price to be a result of speculation without EC-demand as a base but what I call "psychological market". And the good news is: Besides it's fundamental potential the Factoid market also has a lot of room regarding all psychological aspects. And that is something I expect to "catch up", because there is a recognizable tendency that is positive. That's why I say in my long post that all signs I know of are on green.

1. Not hyping - giving informations.
2. I'm in since October - my activity here is not dependent on it's price
3. It's not a "coin"
4. Read my long post about it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=850070.msg15634362#msg15634362
5. Focus on all what's about "superficiality". It's about kids like you. ;-)

Good news again:





https://twitter.com/factomproject/status/755396233993289729
https://letstalkpayments.com/medici-top-21-blockchain-awards-announcing-the-leaders-working-with-technology-of-the-future/

A bad distribution is no buy signal.

Ah, ein Deutscher! :-)

Nichts zu danken! Schreiben hilft mir meine Gedanken zu ordnen. ;-)

It's really an interesting question if Factom as a company should have higher value than the marketcap of Factoids. Right now it's most likely okay, but just because I don't believe that it's really possible to calculate values before the real show begins - Factom as finished system and ready to use.

But I agree that in case of success, the marketcap of Factoids should and will most likely be above the value of Factom as company.

One scenario:

Let's say $3 Mio (per month) would flow into Entry Credits to factomize all kinds of data of alls kinds of companies and individual users, that would also mean: Factoids for $3 Mio per month would be burned.


The equilibrium-price per 1 FCT would be at:

$3 Mio / 73k new FCT's per month = $41


The Factoid-marketcap would be at (assuming the total supply stays stable) = $359 Mio


I'm just speculating here, but the interesting point is:

If Factom succeeds there will be one obvious indicator --> The number of Entry Credits that are used per month.

And that will have direct effect on the price for Factoids because of Factoid-consumption/burning. And the psychologically-driven market will do it's own to set the price even higher. I don't believe in the equilibrium-price because markets tend to price in not just obvious "current" success and facts. It's always about anticipating the future. In Factom it just needs an absence of bad news while good news like new partnerships could even lead into a hype and a totally overpriced Factoid-market high above the equilibrium-price.


With other words:

The Factoid price will be a mixture of objective EC-demand and speculation on exchanges. As I said: I expect the equilibrium-price to be a price base but anticipation of future success will level Factoids higher on exchanges - assuming there are no bad news.


The value of the company is much harder to predict in all possible scenarios, because I have no idea about what is to included. But of course: If successful, they would make a lot of profit because of several reasons if there is high demand for the system. Most likely they will run at least one federated server, they will sell applications, they own a lot of Factoids and they can sell EC's directly etc.

But EC's are not necessarily a "profit-machine" for Factom because it's possible to buy Factoids directly of the market to convert it into Entry Credits and there also can be other EC-stores.


So, my personal opinion is that - if Factom succeeds - the marketcap should at least not be below the value of Factom as a company. There is an additional reason for me to think that:

If they shouldn't succeed, it's much easier to get out of it for Factoid-holders. I see that as a Factoid-risk-feature ;-)



But, to be serious again: I really believe that there are high chances that Factom will have success because all signs I know of are on green. But regarding the price for Factoids I focus more on psychological market dynamics than on supposed hard facts. Reason is: Objective informations need interpretation and that is always subjective. And it's never about facts but about impact of facts. It's about intensity on the "public" and that is dependent on attention. And that is the most interesting and most underestimated subject in this project and often seen totally contrary to my own point of view. If I find out that the "psychological market" lags behind fundamentals it's a buy. And that's the case for Factom since they made their ICO.


If we look at the current price it could be seen as a healthy and rational anticipation of future success.

The current FCT-price predicts a demand of about 115 Mio EC's per month.  

Calculation:

Current price: 1 FCT = 0.00235 BTC = $1.58
New created Factoids per month: 73k FCT = $115,453

115,453 / 0.001 (EC-price) = 115,453,150 EC's



So, it depends on what somebody believes about Factoms potential if he/she believes to see a buy-signal here or not. But the fun-fact is: The majority still does not see anything. ;-)

But:
It's not irrational to say: Okay, that is way above the current demand and there is not much reason to level it much higher for now.

It's also rational to say: Factom as a system is in development. They've finished 1 of 3 steps while M2 can be expected to be released any time. And the real show will begin as soon as the system is finished.  


And since there are very good signs, all the good news of the past, partnerships and negotiations with companies and governments, set all fundamental signs I know of on green while I see no sign to believe in the opposite. The M2 delay is seen as negative and in comparison to other Crypto projects people believe to see a lack of communication, but the thing is: The majority in this Space (Crypto) still believes in rules that are not common for companies. In comparison to companies, and Factom is not just a decentralized blockchain-project but a company, Factom acts very open and transparent.

What I want to say with that, and I figured it right after Factom's launch: The psychological market lags behind fundamentals.

What I mean with that becomes more obvious in comparison to Ethereum:

Ethereum always got high attention, which can be seen in the highly successfull ICO but also it's price dynamic. And even the headline is a "hit": Smart Contracts. It's an eye catcher that ensures attention - a  fascinating mix of science fiction and what is already possible in computer science. But while the ETH-market predicted something that is not rational to expect any time soon, real business, there were several psychological reasons to overdrive the price to a marketcap of above $ 1.5 billion.

The more objective informations and assumptions and also the high risk of a very complex system don't match with that price. In my opinion it's still way too high - I mean, even if the Hard Fork that will happen tomorrow, will be without any problems there will be sell pressure because of unlocked DAO-ETH's. And the HF is the opposite of a good sign for future trust into the system, even more in combination with obvious risks regarding security. And even if the situation would be "okay", the question is: Is there already a demand for smart contracts? My impression is that it's about computer since, about investigating it, not about business yet. And even if, there is no reason to assume it would need that expensive ETH's to meet a potential demand.

Conclusion: The psychological barrier for the market is low in Ethereum, while the barrier to use it for real business is high out of several reasons.


In Factom it's the total opposite. The headline is something like "recording hashes of data". It's not an eye-catcher but in fact a psychological barrier -  most of all people just ask "What?". Or that's not even true. Most of all people don't pay any attention and ask nothing. ;-)

But truth is: There is demand for a system like Factom since there is data and it's an increasing market. There just wasn't a system to do what Factom will offer.

Conclusion: The psychological barrier for the market is high, while there is a low or even no barrier on the business side - there is high demand.


Plus: Kind of funny is that while Ethereum is in fact an overcomplex system, Factom is not. But for the psychological market Factom seems to be complex, because the majority does not understand it. It's eco-system, the Factoid to Entry Credit conversion, is also an obvious aspect.

It's a high barrier if we think about it with focus on a psychological market while it's a low barrier to use Factom as a system because it ensures that companies don't need to touch Crypto (and some other advantages that can be seen here: http://bravenewcoin.com/news/transactional-currencies-entry-credits-and-gas/. )



I could list up more points. But all of these aspects indicate a high barrier for the crypto-community to buy into Factoids on exchanges and a low barrier on the real business side. After figuring that right after launch I bough into it. And in 2015 it was even more obvious because of the total lack of attention which was obvious because of the low volume. And that (lack of attention and understanding) was already true for the ICO. They could have made much more money if people would have understood what Factom is about and which problems it will solve. But the Crypto-space is superficial and with a focus on short-term.

And just by the way: If the ICO would have got more attention of people who would have tried to understand Factom, the ICO would have been not just more successful for Factom, but also: The total supply would be higher and it would have started at a higher marketcap. That's also something a  lot of people don't understand.


One additional point, because it's really interesting:

The Factom-team contradicts the psychological market. What I mean with that is: They don't play by "Crypto-rules". They don't communicate that much like other teams with the community. They don't give release dates, they don't care about complaints about a delay, they don't make any marketing for the Factoid-market etc.. Again it needs research to figure how active they are. They are just not with a focus on "us" but they are very active regarding development and also in marketing with focus on potential customers. All good news about partnerships are a result of that - I mean, it's more than just obvious that they are very good on that side.

And I don't know if they do it (contradicting the psychological market for FCT's) with intention but they do it pretty effective which can be seen as an indicator for intention.

Is that a bad sign or a buy-signal? In the Crypto-space, with all it's superficiality, it's scams and hypes and impulsive driven markets, it's seen as a bad sign. In fact it's a "deeply green". Every time I recognize that the psychologic is past the fundamental signs it's nearly a safe buy. That's why I sometimes said that it won't even need good news. Just an absence of bad news in Factom.

Reason is: The psychological market will catch up. It's delayed which is a good sign because it's a indication not just for fundamental potential that is obvious in Factom. It's a safe sign to be early while the majority still doesn't pay attention. And nobody ever made any profit by being the last one who bought.


And in Factom: Wherever I focus on ("aspects" like it's eco-system or how the team acts etc.) I see those paradoxes, especially in comparison to Ethereum - which is a totally psychological driven market and the Ethereum team does not contradict but triggers it. That's also the reason why I expect Ethereum to go down. The psychological trend is broken now because of negative fundamentals. It's possible that bad fundamentals are ahead of a psychological market now. The current situation could be more serious than the majority believes. In Factom it's the total opposite.


@D-Lux: Didn't write this just for you - it took me away with my brain-storming. ;-)

Thanks for that info! I didn't really look into it because I always thought it's needed to invest more. Did you invest?

The question is, if the value of the company and the value of the system (marketcap) are kind of equal or will be in future. I think it's only safe to say that it's connected, that the value of both will be highly dependent on the use of the system - the demand for Entry Credits.

A safe conclusion for now is:
Those who bought the shares give more money and pay higher a price than Kuala Investments last year. It's safe to say that they are obviously very optimistic about Factom and it's future.


But I don't believe that it's possible to see more objectivity in the value of the company as in the value of the market-cap. Both are not objective but speculative. Both involve the potential of the future. And no doubt, it's absolutely rational to think that way because there is a high potential. I believe Factom's potential could be even higher. But before Factom really starts it's service we can't know how much demand there will be. And it will be the future demand that will give objective informations about the value of Factoids.

At the same time it will never be totally objective because it never will be totally stable. Exactly that will be exciting if Factom will be wanted, because it's rational to expect an increasing demand, maybe even an exploding demand. And that would be a massive trigger for the market.

Kind of paradox is: For me it's much easier to "predict" subjective tendencies of the market than to predict the potential of future objective potential, like the future demand. I thought a lot about potential scenarios for Entry Credit demand in future but I don't have enough knowledge about use cases and how it would be used and so on.

One example is Honduras: If there should be a signed deal somewhere in the future the market would hype it. Something like that would be a very intense psychological trigger and it's likely that the price would explode. But who knows how much demand that would be? I mean, one bank would have most likely much more demand than land-title-registry of a whole country. But again: I don't know for sure, because it's also about how Factom would be used.

Objective informations and subjective reactions on the market can be very paradox. The latest news about Venture Capital can be seen that way. On the market it's something like a "low-intensive-trigger", because it seems to give good objective information, but I'm not that sure that it really gives objective informations about value. But of course, it gives positive signals.

A good summary about Factoids and Entry Credits (also about Ether):


Transactional currencies - Entry Credits and Gas

DISCLAIMER:
While I work for Factom, the opinions expressed in this piece are, as always, my own.

(...)
https://tpbit.blogspot.de/2016/07/transactional-currencies-entry-credits.html

Interesting article. And I agree with a lot of those points - without any irony.

But what I'm excited about most is: Could be a good show if some of the projects that are called out with a less or more critical spin (nothing wrong with that, like already said) should strike back. Heat doesn't seem to be the most untouchable project in this space. Won't be boring to watch, that's for sure! ;-) 

I understand your opinion and it's not wrong to just ignore them. But I always was the opinion that FUD is an opportunity to turn it.
And sometimes it's not even real trolling. Crazyivan for example can write like a troll but I don't consider him as one with hidden intentions.

The other guy I replied on: No clue if agenda or not.

You are funny. That a project needs funding and that they would raise more VC was clear and it's nothing special.

But it's kind of weird to speak about cash-flow-problems if they can do it and they shares are sold long before the deadline.

Would be easier to take such an info serious if they would fire people, code in a lodge and sell grandmothers diamonds at ebay. ;-)

If you wouldn't have started like a troll (Factom is total bullshit.) and just repeated what others complained before, without even reading what was posted some pages before, what should I do? I tried to refute complainers with arguments. But even I get bored if it's always the same and about superficial stuff like "there is a delay and they don't say when M2 will be".

Thing is: Those who really want to know what this project is about should invest some hours and do deeper research. If those who do that still see reason to complain they should not invest or sell if they've bought before. If they believe to see quality they should be patient. Because when it's obvious that a team works hard, a delay can be seen as perfectionism. It also could mean they try and try and try without getting things done because of a lack of skills, but like I've said: Do your research and come to your own conclusions. I can't do that for you and out of your perspective there is not that much reason to trust me. I could lie or I could be wrong.

And sometimes I just say: Sell ......because if the M2 delay is a reason to say Factom is bullshit - the conclusion is already finished. I believe it's superficial but it's everyones own choice to be.