If you are invested ---> sell ;-)

Exactly it's (if I'm correct):

€4,493,170 - 17%

€26,430,411 - 100%

Wow, just see that it's in Euro. Didn't recognize. So you are nearly right.

In Dollar it would be $ 29.169.923 - if I didn't make a mistake.
https://bnktothefuture.com/pitches/factom-series-a


I can only guess/speculate how it's evaluated. Maybe they sit together with Bank of the Future and analyze all what's there and how much it could be worth. I doubt that it's possible to do it totally objective. I mean, how to evaluate the code for the system...

But maybe bigger VC-Investors get deeper informations about how it was evaluated and they can decide if they agree or not - if not, they don't invest. It's also possible that they already got offers to sell the whole company and maybe there were offers in that range. I don't believe it because most likely there are not many who would be able to overtake Factom, but it's possible because it's not that rare that a team or sometimes just one person builds a start-up and sells it in the early days.

But, please no misconceptions: I'm speaking about evaluations not that they really would sell the company. Hope they will never do that.

Some months ago it was this:

Blockchain Project Factom Raises $400k at $11 Million Valuation
http://www.coindesk.com/blockchain-factom-400-funding-11-million-valuatoin/

And I believe it's a very positive sign that it's value has nearly tripled since that. Even more if they give deeper infos to potential VC-Investors. The fact that the $4.5 Mio is nearly filled long before the deadline, could be seen as a sign that Investors agree that Factom is worth the $29 Mio and they see potential for more. They wouldn't buy if they wouldn't believe in it. In best case VC-Investors have some facts we don't know about yet. It's highly speculative, but if that should be the case it's about good news yet to come.

If I'm wrong it's at least obvious that there are VC-Investors who believe in Factoms future. And why not. It may be a risk, but it could be great "bet". If I would be rich I also would try to get shares, not "just" Factoids - even if I think that Factoids are also a great Investment maybe even better.

And what's also interesting: The value of Factom as company and the value of Factoids will be connected in future. Most likely never totally, but Factom's value (as a company) also will depend on how much the system will be used. Maybe they also sell applications they develop for companies but it would be basically the same. It would be (maybe already 'is') about customized applications for customers to use the system as effective as possible - for a specific use case.

All together: A lot of good signs lately. Nothing that's totally safe yet, but I can't think of realistic bad scenarios while they are obviously wanted regarding VC-money, are awarded from DHS, etc. And I really like it to see that Peter Kirby speaks about land-title-registry in that way.

Kind of funny is: Just wrote the post above about the same site but didn't even recognized that it's also about investing.
Was totally focused on the new video. ;-)

But you could be right. Looks as if they will get about $4.5 Mio.

Two interesting points there:

1. 27 days remaining and already 98% filled
2. Factom is on the first place. No other company comes close to them:

https://bnktothefuture.com/search/pitches

Somebody posted this on Twitter:

Factom Series 'A' - Making The World's Systems Honest
https://bnktothefuture.com/pitches/2982

For those who are new to Factom it's a good entry to understand the project. And one video is even new:

FACTOM BnkToTheFuture.com Pitch - Public Page
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n15R1Kkqosc

A very good explaining video. Peter Kirby answers some basic question what Factom is about and what problems it solves.

Most interesting in my opinion: Back in December they've said in a blog-post that the Land-title-registry-project in Honduras would stall. But since then there were some little signs that there is progress again. Paul Snow said in an interview (march if I'm correct) that the negotiations are going on and used the word "progress". Peter Kirby explains land-title-registry in the video and says "we're doing this with a country in central america". He doesn't say "We've tried this (...)".

Why I say that: Some believed to see a sign in the "stalled-post" that Factom would have failed regarding Honduras. I believe the opposite could be true. That it's the politics there that delays or delayed progress - but that there is progress again.


And why I believe that there may be reasons to be optimistic is maybe not even that much about Factom. It's more because of the situation in Honduras. Sometimes I google "Honduras + land title registry" without including Factom, just to see if there are any kind of news about the land-title-subject in general. And it's always about problems they have. A recent article gives a good overview about the situation there:


Despite an estimated one million unregistered plots of land in urban areas, over the past ten years, the Property Institute has only registered an average of 4,500 annually. The process of registering and titling land is long and complex, and sometimes stalls completely.  In 2015 and the beginning of 2016 the Property Institute delivered no titles at all.

The uncertainty of living in an unregistered home drastically affects the urban poor, who without a title, face the risk of losing their homes.

“Many of these people have lived on the property for a long time and are elderly now,” said Anajansi Alvarado, an auditor and investigator with AJS’s Land Rights project. “If they die there is no guarantee that their family will inherit their property.”

https://www.ajs-us.org/content/639-new-land-titles-promise-security-and-opportunity



And what does that mean? It's pure pressure. It's not even "just" about uncertainty and in worst case losing land and homes. It affects a lot and  that also means that there must be high intentions in Honduras to change that situation - on the other side there may be also a lot of corruption. I'm not good informed about Honduras, but that's how it is often. But I believe Paul Snow will be right with his saying "Honesty is subversive". It's possible that Honduras could be one of the first examples to prove him right.

So, not saying there will be signed contract next week or next month and it's speculative what I write here. But I doubt they would use it as example if there wouldn't be anything to say about. I believe it's the opposite: That there is a lot they could talk about, but they can't because of non-disclosure agreements.

> 400 BTC on the weekend ist far away from dead.

Interesting questions I also thought about or more: I tried to find answers for that, other opinions. But it seems as if even those who are really deep into the subject are not totally sure how to handle this legally. Some believe: The smart contract is the "law" written in code. If that should be the case also juristically the Hacker wouldn't even be a Hacker.

If that should be wrong, and the Hack would be seen as illegal, I believe that the White Hats are not totally the same, even if legally not on the safe side.

The most interesting question is under the line what the DAO is legally. Most likely there are no laws for such freaky-science-fiction-firms ;-) It's something that is new in a lot of ways. But while I believed it's a really interesting social experiment I changed my mind about it when I saw that it was pumped up to this ridiculous overahundredmilliondollarthing. I believe that says more about Ethereum and slock.it than just that they have some creative ideas. It needs some intense intentions to risk the Ethereum-ecosystem with something like that and it would have been a risk anyway - also without a hack.

@Eliphaz Fimk


If you keep on with your fairytales, I will also keep on! Are you really that self-destructive? Are you unable to anticipate that it is impossible for me to not react if you lie about me and what I've said?


Okay, let's move on. I have time.

First about my request to show me proof where I said what you have claimed:


What are you doing here?

You try to give the impression that I would have said that there are two long posts without any answer, and now you show two posts of yours you try pretend as your answers.


But, you intentionally don't quote the full part. The links are missing!

 

Please click on my posts. Where did you reply? Is it right to this say about me:

"(...)  you claimed NONE of your previous questions were answered, and that's grossly incorrect and provocational statement. It makes you look like a troll, better ignored (...)  "


Take a look into the mirror, boy. What you're trying to do here is the total opposite of showing honesty. It's the opposite of being smart. It's kind of crazy.

You try to mislead people about the sequence of my and your own posts, while the fact that you don't quote the links shows, that it's not a mistake but intention.


It's a very manipulative attempt and at the same time it's such low-level. I don't get it.


Now something about what you said before that:

"I believe I've responded to criticism concerning business and technology. The rest to me seems about the way of perceiving our behavior, issues considered personally offensive, non-professional, suspicious etc. a lot of opinions. Opinions are by definition always justifiable, I don't see there's much to discuss about those outpourings unless clearly pointed out what the worry is."

You would like to give the impression that my conclusions are just personal opinions, right? Don't you see that you yourself proof my so called opinions as facts?

Isn't it a fact that you did not do just the basic work before asking for money?
Isn't it a fact that you show a lack of accuracy even in the explanations for the ICO?
Isn't it a fact that you show proof for your own dishonesty?
Isn't it a fact that you show a lack of sense for marketing because all this looks very bad in all possible ways?
Isn't it a fact that you show a lack of intelligence because you are not able to anticipate questions and reactions?
Isn't it a fact that you lied?
Isn't it a fact that you constantly try to mislead people with manipulative attempts?
Isn't it a fact that you even downgrade your own partner with what you said about him to blame it all on him?
Isn't it a fact that you act very self-destructive?

Show me just one line that is not a fact! I will show you proof why I'm convinced it is!


And very self-revealing is also this:



That's your quality-standard? Presenting a project like sand between sand?
No intention to present quality to be recognized as a pearl that might be worth to invest in? You are the opposite of a perfectionist.

This is you:

- making a website
- making a roadmap
- making pics  

check, check, check, let's do an ICO to get money!

Let me tell you what I did not say until now but what I see in the fact that you chose C-Cex for the ICO:

1. Lack of money --> they are known as cheap
2. Lack of sense for marketing ---> their reputation is bad, especially because they did a lot of Scam-ICO's


An ICO that clearly shows the priority on the ICO instead on the project. Plus C-Cex. Money is needed, right? But too lazy to write down at least a simple Whitepaper! How long would that take? Some hours for a bad one. Some days for something that wouldn't be special but would give more insight. Some weeks to do it right and in combination with an audit for example. But you are too lazy even to write some lines down. And sure, my posts are too long! And the missing Whitepaper is nothing. Wherever I look into I see the same pattern.

But high promises and arrogance plus naive low-level-manipulative-attempts and an attitude as if you would have the natural right to ask for money because you guys made a website, a roadmap and pictures.

And sure, there are enough naive and unexperienced guys and even more gamblers to send you money. You will learn that money can be pressure. It creates very intense identifications over a long time. And I'm not speaking just of Scams. It doesn't matter what you plan. You will find out that I'm not guessing.

See, I have good news for you: I won't bother you anymore. I'm okay with the answers you gave, even if there are still a lot of points I have a different opinion about and also some questions that are unanswered. But, I'm just responsible for me and I made my decision if or if not to invest.


But let me tell you also this:

Besides the fact that you guys did not prepare basic informations like a Whitepaper, and besides the fact that you list a lot of "headline-incentives" to buy the ICO in the Ann without detailing it out to give more information which would give more trust, it's especially the way you react on questions that makes me suspicious. I see dishonesty in that.

Because: While I'm obviously critical I never was personal offensive or not on topic. I don't take things personal but I take things serious. As an Investor I try to be as professional as I can be. I want to know if I see reasons to believe in a project and that means especially in the team before I give away my money and take the normal risk that is given even in the best projects. We are in a high-risk-market but it shouldn't be Las Vegas. And it shouldn't be about donations to guys who need money. It should be an agreement: Investors give money and take the risk to lose it, what is always possible. And those who get it, do their best to deliver what they've explained in detail before. You didn't do your part.
You want money before doing the basic work which would give trust and would already give a lot of answers. And because of that you have to face questions. And those questions could be opportunities to line out what this is about. But you chose another "strategy" and it's the opposite of honesty.

You say not directly to me but indirectly about me:

"I see only two questions from Tempus unanswered: (...)"



One post before you started with this:

(...)  you claimed NONE of your previous questions were answered, and that's grossly incorrect and provocational statement. It makes you look like a troll, better ignored (...)


What you did was this:

1. Claiming I did something what I never did  
2. ...to say that would be "grossly incorrect and provocational"  
3. ...to justify the implication I would be a "troll"
4. ...to have reason to say "better ignored"


And in my world that is "grossly incorrect and provocational". And because I said:

(...) I would appreciate it if you show proof (just quote where I said that), especially if you try to mix that up with words like "troll" to justify what you say with "better ignored".


...you see reason not to address this request in the fact that it's not a question with a question mark.


And all the other stuff in my post is totally on topic. It's critical, yes. But again: You could use exactly that as opportunity to explain your project. You wouldn't have to do that as favor for me. You could use my posts to show your professionalism and I'm sure: Potentially Investors and also those who already did invest in your ICO would be interested.

But: Aaah, damn! I forgot to word it in questions with question marks!

And you know what you do. That's why it needs an additional reason:

"Most of Tempus's long posts consist of something else, so it would be useful to lay out the questions in clear manner. We're quite busy though (...) "

You believe to see "something else" in my "long posts". As if it's a weakness to point things out and a strength to be superficial and ignorant. And I made the mistake not to lay out questions in a "clear manner", plus: you are busy.

It's always the same pattern. And man, you are busy? You should have done some work you did not until now. Nothing I see is in any kind professional or thoughtful. It's all rushed out. That's in best case the reason why you feel uncertain which is the reason to blame that on others. In worst-case you have to hide even more which could be anything. I won't list my considerations because that would be too speculative. But of course, before I would give my money and take the risk I consider all kinds of possibilities. I mean, we don't know each other right?


And you did that, blame it on others, even with your own partner!

Priority is: You are fine. Others have a lack of knowledge and you need to give an order the he gets back on his desk or in my case:  

"grossly incorrect and provocational", "troll", "works for Factom", "better to be ignored", "it's about something else"


What do you believe how I would react if I would take that personal? For me it's just revealing. It's part of the lack of professionalism that is obvious. And the best idea is nothing if the team behind wouldn't be able to deliver or if the team behind acts dishonest. And you show both. Not saying that I believe you plan a scam. But I believe that the team behind this project has a clear priority to make money first and there is a lot of risk that there will be a lot of justifications later to not deliver. Or if, that it will also show this pattern: Rushed out, not thoughtful, not accurate, lazy, without strategy, and so on. Maybe that will change, I can't know that. I can't even know if it's just about you or if you are just the public face for others behind the curtain. It's speculative but I say it as a little sorry in the case that you have to take something that's not just yours.


**************
Use this feedback to think about it. Money won't be a compensation for the pressure you will earn if you go on with that. Disappointed Investors are much worse than I am here. And it will be a lot of pressure in any case, because all ambitious projects involve a lot pressure even for the best teams around. Take a look at Ethereum and their security-problems and the DAO-mess, or the critiques Factom gets for a delay, or in the past because of Trolls who told lies about the Honduras-negotioations and so on. It's never easy. And we speak about really professional and big and skilled teams.

And just by the way: Factom made their ICO over a year ago. But to give trust to their Investors that they are not for the money before they deliver, they have three Milestones to meet before they get the 100% of the money. M1 is done. M2 will be hopefully soon. They got just 1/3 of the ICO-money until now. What I want to say with that:

They did everything possible to show that their focus is on delivering the project, which was detailed out and audited long before the ICO - to give trust to their Investors.

And before you repeat I would work for Factom to implicate it's about "something else": Use logic. Factom and this project are in no competition but totally different. It wouldn't make any sense for Factom to attack it and I'm in no relation to them - just as a simple Investor who not even bought into their ICO (wasn't aware of it). I only mention Factom because I see them as best example I know of for real professionalism. And I did the same with Factom what I did here. And I've seen how they reacted on critiques and on trolls and their lies. I never saw any signs for dishonesty but natural confidence.  


And that is what hoped to find here as well, because I really like the idea of a decentralized exchange, but... yes.

Usually I'm careful with words. But if I wasn't, I would appreciate it if you show proof (just quote where I said that), especially if you try to mix that up with words like "troll" to justify what you say with "better ignored". And keep in mind that I started very friendly and with a honest intention for answers, because I hoped to find a project I would see as good Investment. And I was friendly in all of my first posts, even if critical. Now I may seem not to be, but I'm still factual/on topic. Plus: Keep in mind that it's needed to ask to get infos everybody should want to know about - there is no Whitepaper and the ANN is a list of "headlines" without deeper explanations about why and how.


This is what I found what I've said about questions and answers:

Post 142:

"I'm kind of concerned if I ask 3 questions and the two most important ones are not answered."
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1543991.msg15557115#msg15557115

Post 158:

And there are still missing answers/infos to my previous questions:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1543991.msg15556402#msg15556402

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1543991.msg15558325#msg15558325
 

Post 210:

"All questions I had I needed to ask and there was nearly no answer that was convincing for me personally. No problem if others have another opinion."

(...)

"There are two long posts without any answer!

About regulatory issues: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1543991.msg15561379#msg15561379
About the token and the economical design: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1543991.msg15561785#msg15561785"



Post 216:

"And if I ask 3 questions and 2 are important but just the one that is not that important is answered while the other ones are ignored - what would you think?"
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1543991.msg15563436#msg15563436





My concerns about PoS are basically two points, but I know that some guys who are much more experts than I will ever be, pointed out a lot of more flaws. But I will list my two main-concerns, especially when a coin starts with an ICO:

1. Over time there is no way to avoid a very unequal distribution. The big stakes are like a money-magnet, so it's a rich becomes richer - system right from the start, and that may even be more the case if the start is an ICO.

2. Costs for an attack are just one time costs - That's different to PoW.


And while the incentives to do an attack on a cryptocurrency may be not very high that could be different when it's about an exchange.

And this may be interesting for experts, which I'm not:

Excellent paper on why Proof of Stake is fundamentally flawed, linked to by Gavin Andresen in his AMA.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2jwbvr/excellent_paper_on_why_proof_of_stake_is/


Why I point on that subject is because I'm really surprised to see an ambitious project starting with PoS when there are so much publications of flaws - or they are not correct.



How does the token enables the technology? I understand that it's a fee-payment system. But I don't understand why it needs a token for it. Wouldn't it be possible to take just the fees of the coins that will be traded on Heat? And the fees could be paid out to those who secure the network and it would be a more like DpOS-System without a high inflation token in combination with PoS which will have impact on the economy, in a worst-case-scenario even on security.  

And since you want to run some more investment-rounds - If you wouldn't do this ICO but develop something you already could show, and of course, write a Whitepaper before, you could show "proof of concept" etc. It could be really an interesting project while it now looks more as if it needs a token to do an ICO even before you write a Whitepaper. And just by the way: That's the main-point why it needs questions to come to conclusions that are based on informations.  




See, I can't know why you chose such a design but just the 40% in the first year would really be enough for me to step back, even if everything else would look good in my opinion. 2 reasons:

1) ICO's are often bought up from groups who are behind the ICO. That's not meant as accusation but generally it's something an Investor can't be sure about and we've seen that several times. And to see a very high inflation rate in the first year would be an indicator for me to think about exactly that. That it could be intentionally.

2) And to say it's an incentive for initial adoption could be a wrong strategy. Because: Even if I wouldn't think about the possibility I spoke about above: What you see as incentive to buy also means high inflation! And that means sell-pressure.

Conclusion:

If I combine those two concerns out of Investor-perspective who has just the informations you provide, I would wait, even if I would believe in the project in general. I would expect to get it cheaper some time after launch on the exchange. That happens to a lot of ICO's (by the way: Also Factom was cheaper after launch for some time and I also did not buy into the ICO). And we've seen that several times just the last couple of weeks.



Okay, I understand the technical solution. What I still have doubts about is that it will be possible to get a license for a decentralized exchange - and yes, I understand that it's about the partner-company. But the EU even wants to regulate Wallet-providers what shows the tendency.

But if it should be possible I expect that you need to do all the "know-your-customer-stuff" and that contradicts in some ways what it's about to do things in a decentralized fashion. To say it with other words: I don't see much reason to not use a centralized exchange like Poloniex instead, because it's possible to use it nearly as if it would be decentralized. I buy and withdraw what I bought and I deposit to sell. And it's not EU-law.

Not sure why, but also some of my questions that are technical never were answered - besides my questions about regulatory issues regarding Fiat-implementation and my questions about the economical design. Just for example:

1. Why did you chose PoS? Why do you believe it's a good solution for a project like this one?
2. Don't you believe that PoS leads into centralization over time and a weak system?
3. Why a pretty high inflation for the first four years and a hard cut down after the fourth year?
4. How do you plan to implement Fiat into a multisig-wallet?

And just by the way: It's kind of funny to show disappointment because of a lack of tech-questions while you guys not even prepared much infos about it, like a whitepaper. You both write a lot more about your plans to make one investment round after the other and you pay much more attention to explain how to send money into the ICO than in technical stuff.

Nothing to thank for!

What is really important is context. Single informations are nearly worthless because even if it is an correct and objective information/fact, knowledge (context-informations) is needed to interpret it. The more context-informations you have the more it's possible to "zoom out" to see a bigger picture. And if informations are nearly totally subjective it's even more important.

Your example is interesting. I also pay high attention to interviews for example and if I can find out if somebody shows real and natural self-confidence or arrogance or uncertainty and so on. It's never objective and I believe it's important not to be sure about such conclusions. But I write down my conclusions as assumptions. And I do that over time. Like a diary for projects I follow. It's always "information" plus my "interpretations". So it maybe says more about me than about the project ;-) but what I can do is to find out if I'm more right than wrong over time.

And btw: That't also something that I find fascinating about Factom. It fits to my way of thinking about all kinds of things, because under the line it does the same as a system. It records hashes that are connected to informations. And it's not just about what is there. It's also about what is not there. One single information wouldn't say much. But a sum of information can reveal a lot. And if something is missing exactly that can be revealing. It's really a powerful idea, even if it seems simple.

1. I'm not totally sure to understand correctly. But you can do basically two things with your Factoids:
a) trade it on an exchange
b) convert Factoids into Entry Credits to use Factom to record data.

And if you do b) your Factoids are "consumed" or "burned" - out of the system

2. about 73,000 Factoids each months. I believe that is a fix number and won't change.

3. Is an old information they did not update. It is kind of burned.

a) It was shown in the Block Explorer but it's not anymore. No clue why. It is possible with the software but I didn't try yet. Brian Deery explained how to do it. You also can use this: http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/factom/
But I know that coinmarketcap also is not always up  date regarding the total supply (I know it because of another project)

b) It's kind of predictable because Factoids are converted into Entry Credits and there 73k are created each months. What I expect is that there will be inflation in the first time (maybe for years) because I don't believe that it will fall below a price where more Factoids are converted into EC's than new created. But the total number is not predictable. Over time I believe it could go up to 10 Mio or something like that. But I don't believe the initial total supply ever will double.

I'm also no coder. I'm not able to read out much infos out of code. What I do with everything is more that I collect informations and try to ask myself: For what does it stand? And the github, without other informations around it, is not that useful. But at least it's visible if there is activity and how much. And some more things.

If you look into it:
https://github.com/FactomProject/

You see the "headlines". And you can see when there were the last updates. Above is currently:

factomd
Milestone2 work
Updated 40 minutes ago

Without context-information it doesn't say that much. But if you also look on other updates it already says: high activity. Because there are several others that were updated the last 24 hours.

But you also can click on one, if we do it with factomd you can scroll down and read what it is about. It's an explanation for Developers/Coders but it's readable and we can find out what it basically is about. And if you already know that everybody is waiting for the next big update, and it's called Milestone 2, you can see: factomd is basically Milestone 2 - which becomes clear in the explanation. For example:

"This is the M2 codebase, which is a direct implementation of the Factom Whitepaper."

You can also see who made the update. It's above: Steven Masley Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/m2-api'

You can click on "branches" (also above) and then you have "Default branches" and "Active branches". In the second one you'll find the latest updates and infos about the persons who did it and when it was updated. You also can click on it and look into the code if you like.


So, what could it stand for?

1. They are very active. Very often there are several updates per day and often on weekends as well.
2. It's about transparency. They obviously take it very seriously.
3. It says something about diligence. It's not just about hard work, it's also about accuracy.

I don't believe it's a big thing for them to do it that way. But if you have some experience with other projects in the Cryptospace it's different to a lot of them. I know of projects that are under development and they pretend to be open source, but the last update is very long ago. If those teams should work hard they are not accurate. And who knows if they really work on it? I don't buy projects like that.

And like I've said: It's not just about that. I try to collect little pieces of informations out of everything that is communicated. Communication is never just "writing down what I want to say". It's everything that is expressed and perceptible and in general it's more than people intentionally want to show. You could analyze my posts and find out a lot more about me than I obviously say and maybe I wouldn't even like everything you find out. What I try to say is: It can be done with everything. With Twitter-accounts, reddit, videos of Interviews, etc. And it's never just about what is there. The context is very often also about what is not there.

And I focus very much on all kinds of communication to find out more than is intentionally communicated. But it's only possible to come to good conclusions in combination with context-infos over time. And if you always ask: "For what could it stand for?" you'll see more over time than before and you'll learn more and you'll come to better conclusions. That doesn't mean to be on the safe side. It's still possible to be very wrong. But it's also possible to reduce the risk of being wrong.

I understand what you want to say, but under the line I disagree and I can use your band-example to explain it. You ask which band name we can remember after 5 minutes. And you are right that the colored-party-band-name is an eye-catcher. But what does it say about the band what for associations does it trigger? I don't know what kind of music they make but I would never expect Metal. I wouldn't expect a serious Band. It doesn't need to be bad, but I would expect guys that want to have some fun and who wants attention and in some ways I would expect that to find in their music as well.

For me it would be the band "Origin". The name sounds cool, not this childish  burning-a-church-for-the-master-down-bands with unreadable names. I also don't know if I would like their music but just the name looks more "adult"/grown up. At the same time it fits to the general style of a Metal-Band.

And if we translate that to Crypto, I don't think it needs an eye-catcher that is totally out of norm with something. Lisk as a name is good, I think nobody will disagree much. The Logo is a little bit online-game-style. It's not a big thing but it also could be like "Lisk! Our new Iphone-Game, find more gemstones than your friends!" With other words: I would like to see something that transports more what Lisk is as message. And one visual message in my opinion should be simplicity. It should not give an impression of complexity. Another message should be Strength. I would search for something that combines those two messages and maybe more. I'm not an expert for design. Not sure if the logo above is that perfect, but it's good.

But most important in my eyes is: It doesn't need to be something that screams for attention. Because everything and everybody who desperately forces for attention also transports something that is very weak between the lines. At least when it's about serious business - not speaking about that Band, because it's entertainment.

Interesting answer. But my problem with your complaints is not that you have a different opinion. What constantly triggers me is shallowness, because you always do the same: You implicate something without detailing out what is behind. And while I can understand some disappointment about M2, because it's a simple fact that it's late, I think you sometimes cross the line with some of your implications. And even regarding M2 you are superficial. Because it's always about reasons. The question should be why they are late and it's not hard to exclude some potential reasons you constantly present as possibilities. You questioned that they are working hard. You questioned their dedication. My simple questions are not more than meant as motivation to detail that out. But you never do that and we play that game since months. I mean, we have something in common: We don't write thousands of lines of code to develop something. We both have time for more or less silly discussions in a forum.  

So let's do that at least a little bit deeper.


Agree! Nobody of us can really know. I believe, even the team is maybe still not totally sure when they will release it. But my assumption is perfectionism and my reason to believe that is mainly the github but also that they show that they work hard on a lot of other fronts. Reading posts of Brian Deery, watching Interviews with Paul Snow, seeing Tiana Laurence explaining Factom on conferences, seeing Peter Kirby doing the same (last video for example) gives me an opposite impression of a lack of dedication. I have zero doubt that they are very dedicated, that they're working hard and that they are honest. And I would really like to learn more in the case I'm wrong with that.




To say a delay is "unacceptable" implicates a lot but says nothing. Unacceptable why and for whom? Before all: It implicates that it's true that there is a big lag. Why do you believe it's big and based on what comparisons? Some Coin-Devs who release one weird feature after another nobody will ever need?

I tell you what I think about releases in general: They are very often just incentives to push the price in combination with market-manipulations. Factom could do that as well but never did. In combination what I said above, exactly that can be seen as sign for what I say above -  professionalism.  


And just by the way: Max Kordek (CEO of Lisk and a good guy in my opinion) was in China and promised a blog-post about it. This blog post is delayed because he was in Russia and the Ukraine right after and obviously ill after that, and he has to move to Berlin and his conclusion is this:

"Updates regarding my visits in China, Russia, and Ukraine will come as soon as possible. Sorry for the delay here. I won't say a concrete date anymore (learnt my lesson) but it will obviously be in July."
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1346646.msg15568340#msg15568340

And again: It's not about a monster-release like M2. It's just about giving informations about his visits in China and Russia. And if I see that somebody is the opposite of lazy I see professionalism in the fact that he learned the lesson not to give exact dates. I even see more professionalism in Factom because I don't know of any exact date regarding M2 or something else.




There may be some misconceptions about the word "Investors" here. I mean, what is that? Did we really invest in Factom? The ICO-buyers did and VC-Investors did, but we are in fact more speculators. We bought Factoids on the market. In my case because I wasn't even aware of the ICO. Otherwise I would have bought. What I want to say with that: You act as if they owe you something while it's on you to do your "job" and show some dedication to do it right. If you have reasons to believe there is something wrong with Factom, just sell. If you believe they should speak more about what's going on you shouldn't ignore what they let us know (and that's a lot. new video yesterday!) and the reasons they gave several times for not repeating that they won't give promises or fixed dates.

And that's something you also misrepresent: While they made guesses when there would be the M2-release they never made promises or gave an exact date.





And that's what I meant with "crossing the line". You spread around the possibility they could be in financial problems. You demand them to share this info with us which implicates that info is true. And then you say "This might be a pure speculation, however, this is what I was told."

Not even important if true or not? It's really revealing about yourself. Because what do you do here? At least you should do what you demand them to do. Be transparent! Share your infos! And I'm not saying that because I believe your infos are valid. I believe that if you would detail this out it would become obvious that it's bullshit. I mean, who are these "other Investors" (which implicates you are an Investor)? Who are they to believe they are that good informed? Did you ask those guys why they sure about that and how valid this info is?

And what do we know about the financial situation of Factom? We know that they got some money because of their ICO and seed fundings. The latest news was about $199k from DHS. We see a growing team, they hire while it would be more rational to fire people if there would be financial problems. We also know, and that is a fun fact: They got only 1/3 of the ICO-money for M1. You criticize that they didn't release M2 yet, but if they would run out of money exactly that would unlock another 1/3 of the ICO.



Which "coins"? And just by the way: To say "another coins" implicates that you believe Factom develops a "coin".

And to say they wouldn't post very often which would be unacceptable in your opinion is again more about you as that it's an info about them. It's not even true. There is much more action in Factom when it comes to news than in a lot of other projects I know of.




You say: "we have served the purpose of providing initial capital"

That's new to me. You did buy into the ICO? Or how did you provide initial capital for Factom? Didn't you say you bought after launch on Polo? And those who really bought into the ICO have not much reason to complain. I don't know much opportunities where it's possible to make 1000% in less than 12 months and even more if we focus on the ATH of march.

And what is it that you want to "feel important"? How should they show you that you are important to them and what do you do to show them you are? Accept it as a fact that we are not important. This is not a coin. We can show support and we also can give critique as feedback and maybe it's helpful. But Factom is not a cryptocurrency. They don't focus on "Factoid-adopters". We have the opportunity to benefit regarding the price because of the work they do, because of the fact that they focus on real users. And please answer this question: Do you know any other project that is taken serious from companies, institutions and even countries like Factom?  



Again you try to hide what's behind. You just claim something as fact while standing in front of a mirror. It's all about you. Which "currencies" (again you implicate it's about a currency in Factom)?

You often mentioned Ethereum as shiny example for how it should be in your opinion. The Ethereum team would be professional. They would deliver. They would be transparent. But they need a Hard Fork. They need a DAO-bail-out. They have serious problems because of Solidity! Ethereum has no real solution for their economy - plans to switch to PoS with Casper without really knowing how and how a PoS-System could end in longterm.

And like I've said before: DAO showed a lot, and I'm not speaking about the tech or the hack. It showed priorities. It showed that they are willing to risk their economy to give an impression of value that doesn't exist and never existed. Nobody with an IQ above room-temperature and some experience can seriously believe that DAO was funded without millions of team-money. It was all ETH. They funded an experimental hype to use that to fund other Ethereum-projects to develop an illusion of value. Nothing of that would have gone beyond Ethereum itself. A big bubble. And than there was the Solidity-weakness and now they have to face serious problems.

I also say that because if you want to make up theories about financial problems, you should think about potential motivations not just to release something like DAO as a nice social-technical-experiemt but a totally overhyped and blown up bubble. After reading about the idea I thought "Nice experiment". After reading about the $150 Mio funding the picture became clearer. Taking such a risk is stupid or highly motivated. And my assumption is that it's very shady. There are theories that DAO was meant as solution to find a way out. Because it gives the Opportunity to fund something with ETH that is not ETH to use that to fund the own people and/or to sell it for Bitcoin or even Dollar. Think about that. And why don't you complain in the Ethereum-Thread?

I mean, one thing you could focus on first is how often Vitalik Buterin writes there. I know when it was the last time. January 12. Not sure about other team-members but if you believe BCT is that important - let them know. And then do some research about their fundings and finances and potential financial problems. You'll have fun doing that, I promise. Or not, because you are invested.




It's not logical to believe in the potential of a project while not believing in the team. If I would detail you out a great plan of a money-machine-project it would still be stupid to invest a single satoshi if I'm not able to develop it. And while I believe that your intentions are not to FUD it is still what you do, if you just try to make points with a lack of arguments and a lack of facts while spreading rumors that are obviously based on hearsay. I also write down my theories about Ethereum for example, but at least I give arguments. And I could also give prove that I warned to invest in DAO before their ICO was finished. I could give prove that I said things like "I believe Ethereum will run into problems" many months ago. And I'm not an expert. I just think about what I know as facts and what can be recognized "between the lines".

1. You believe they don't work hard enough? Why?
2. You believe they are not dedicated enough? Why?
3. You believe there won't be a M2 release?

New video from Factom:

Factom at the Texas Linux Fest 2016
"Our core developer Michael Beam presents Factom at the Texas Linux Fest 2016. http://2016.texaslinuxfest.org/node/26"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWZUr3-7g_s

Are there more Bitcoin-addresses? On this one: https://blockchain.info/address/1HEATQCfWJKPWb8612K2oGR7EE6XPqNYHj

...are 180.5774978 BTC right now. But above is said 248.534 ?


Edit: Got it, I forgot C-Cex.

Ich sehe allgemein gerne das Potential für "win-win-Szenarien". Und grundlegend war das m.A.n. eines auf mehreren Ebenen.

Crypto ist einfach eine echt wilde Mischung. Es gibt viele die einfach echt faul sind und dann nur reagieren und eben eher wetten. Dann gibt es aber auch viele die v.a. unerfahren sind weil sie relativ neu sind. Ich kann mich noch erinnern, dass ich zwar immer schon versuchte möglichst viele Infos zu haben, aber manches ist einfach auch Erfahrungs-Sache. Zum Teil lasse ich die Finger von Projekten weil mir gewisse Personen im Umfeld auffallen die ich auf meiner "Shady-Liste" habe. Oder weil man einfach auf Kleinigkeiten achtet auf die jemand kaum achten kann der noch keine Vergleiche ziehen konnte. Und was man auch merkt: Viele sind echt jung. Mit 20 (bin 36) war ich z.B. viel impulsiver und ungeduldiger.

Da spielt vieles mit rein. Aber irgendwie macht das auch einen Teil der Faszination aus. Und ich versuche Crypto sogar extra als eine Art Spiel zu sehen um die Distanz nicht zu verlieren - was nicht heißt das man nicht spielt um zu gewinnen (und mit Spiel meine ich natürlich nicht Glücksspiel). ;-)