Beaters on declines. NEUCOIN increased by 100% in one month. Neucoin return above 1000 prices Satoshi soon.
There is no real market for Neucoin, not on the buy-side and not on the sell-side. If you look at Bittrex: Just 3 Bitcoins would be needed to move the price to 3000. The same is true the other way around. If somebody sells Neucoin for a few BTC it goes down hard. The price can't be stable and is not an indicator in any way. The Volume says more: 0.2 Bitcoin in 24 hours. And that's a diagnosis like "coma" or "brain-dead". Even if the team would keep on with the development, and there isn't a single sign for it, there would be no chance - which is a reason why they don't work on it any more. Sometimes I read in their forum and I really feel sorry for those who try to show optimism while hiding how angry they are. But it's also obvious that the majority is pretty naive. And some of them lost a lot and if they would have used their Bitcoins smarter they could be rich now. |
|
|
|
There are two long posts without any answer!
Are you on something, or just working for Factom? Keep on pumping this thread, it's ok. For other followers we're happy to answer questions about anything related to HEAT ICO, structuring or tech that may be unclear. Many advanced parts of the project haven't been discussed and that can be done here before the whitepaper is out. You still don't get the point. I'm honest and if you read back how I started: I was very friendly and cautious! My first lines were this: "It's kind of hard to get an overview here, at least for me. I have a few questions, including a little "sorry" if they are already answered but I didn't recognize.
(...) "https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1543991.msg15556402#msg15556402Because I really was interested. I hoped that this could be a project I would believe in and I would have invested if. But: I never just buy. I want to know and to understand what I buy. And of course, I also pay some attention on reactions on questions. 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? Ah, yes: Your partner has no proper knowledge. Kind of self-destructive reply, right? What does that tell me? I could point that out pretty exactly! For me Crypto is not a game. I don't want to count just on market-reactions I have no influence on. And just by the way: This is even bad regarding marketing. Somehow you guys got an PR-article on Forbes and my guess is that you have some good connections. But man, you guys are even lazy as hell. No Whitepaper prepared and instead of answering questions about your project you try to attack me by implicating I would work for Factom. I tell you this: I'm just a normal Investor in Factom and if this would be convincing I would even have sold some Factoids to buy into your ICO! I plan to distribute the normal risk a little bit more. But of course, I won't do that. I need to wait for another opportunity. And just by the way, maybe some Feedback could help you what guys like me would buy: 1. If the basic idea is convincing in my opinion (I like the idea of decentralized exchange) 2. If I see that the presentation is well thought out. If I see accuracy in that - it tells me more about how somebody works 3. If I read the whitepaper and see the same: accuracy 4. If I analyze communication and see real self-confidence, natural self-confidence - not arrogance. Arrogance always hides something 5. If questions are answered - simply on point. If not, it's at least possible that it's a red flag if it's an important question 6. I focus very much on the economical side because even if the tech is good, economical weaknesses can end a project (DAO would have been even weak without attack/"hack" - and a risk for Ethereum) 7. If I see hard work behind it all. It's part of "accuracy" but before all: It's the opposite of "no whitepaper" (and some other things) 8. If there is a good marketing-strategy it's also good And what do you think in which points is this project strong? Point 1. The idea is interesting. But that is nothing without the other points. And maybe, which I can't know, you are talented coders. But it's hard to believe that you are accurate coders and hard working coders. And just by the way: The first I recognized and did not like is the website. Not just that it doesn't provide much infos. It's a really bad design. Not speaking about "looks bad". It's a not useful design. The second what I recognized is: The explanations are not good. Why? Not accurate. I always thought: Am I really too stupid to figure out some basic infos or what the hell is this? That's why I started carefully! So, if you still want to believe I came to spread FUD or hype Factom or that I even work for Factom - your choice. And again I pointed my perspective out more accurate, more diligent, without any dishonesty and with more informations. Is that arrogant? No. It's just true. You want money first, but you don't want to work too much for it. Hard to believe that you'll want to work more after you have the money. |
|
|
|
I think tempus has raised some important questions here. I look forward to seeing some proper responses. So far they seem poorly thought out.
Could you rephrase a question whose answer you consider poorly thought out? I think that was a poor choice of words on my behalf. What I meant was that some of the responses lack specific details, however, it may be that you have already posted answers that I have missed or that some things have not been finalised yet. The thing that I would really like more clarity on is why you think KYC/AML is not required for the HEAT tokens given the presence of fiat gateways? Have you had any legal advice on this matter? I think the fact that you will have conventional fiat funding rounds/shares is likely to make this project stand out even more to the financial authorities. Like I said some more details on the reasoning here would be useful for investors. As I understand it he was refering only to the token it self which isnt any different from owning any other crypto token/currency. HEAT tokens doesnt grant you ownership of the company so they dont have anything to do with the IPO. I think the fiat gateways would be handled by another company but integrated in the HEAT software. For the IPO I am sure the terms will be a lot different and not anonymous. Ofc this is only how I read the answers and it might be wrong. The problem I see is: 1. This project does not want to be just a "Coin-project". It's not that much about the token. They sell it, yes. But they want to develop a decentralized exchange. 2. They claim that it will be about Fiat. It's not just said between the lines, they write it into the subject: Re: [ANN ICO] HEAT: 3.0 crypto *multisig fiat*a2a hft*1000tps*DSA*PoS+PoP*e2ee chat* 3. But of course, they say it in the post as well:
LICENSED MULTISIG FIAT WALLET
The unique HEAT crypto client provides access to major cryptocurrencies including BTC, ETH, FIMK and NXT. It also allows creation, transfer and trade of any custom assets created by operators of any size. Having multi-sig for currencies whose tech is capable of such - the client thus supports fiat money accounts secured with multi-sig private keys. HEAT Ledger Ltd has joint venture agreements in place with EU wide money transmitter license pending, making the prospect of transferring real fiat money in a cryptographic ledger a reality. One of the first, if not THE first - but certainly the first multi-sig fiat!
4. So it's definitely meant as incentive to buy into the ICO. 5. If they can't explain how to do that - hmm... what is it? A promise to lead ppl into buying the ICO. Not more. And it's not just about that subject. 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. But it's pretty obvious that most questions are more about the market after the ICO, like "will there be a buy-wall?". And they don't even want to speak about their project. And to say: I think tempus has raised some important questions here. I look forward to seeing some proper responses. So far they seem poorly thought out.
Could you rephrase a question whose answer you consider poorly thought out?
...is again weak. Because nothing needs to be "rephrased". There are two long posts without any answer! About regulatory issues: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1543991.msg15561379#msg15561379About the token and the economical design: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1543991.msg15561785#msg15561785Or the reaction on you: "That's spot on! Thanks!"It's simply not true. And if they can't even provide a Whitepaper it's not a good sign that a guy like me wrote more lines about their project today than they did - That's kind of weird, because they get all the money.  |
|
|
|
Spoiler: Gespannt bin ich v.a. darauf wie (und ob) sie erklären, dass sie behaupten schon Maßnahmen für Fiat-Implementierung ergriffen zu haben (pending-agreements), während man nicht studiert haben muss um zu wissen, dass das fast nicht machbar ist. Nicht mal bitcoin.de hat Fiat-Accounts. Und die Regeln werden ja immer härter. Insofern, ich glaube momentan sogar einige echte "red flags" zu sehen. Sicher ist jedenfalls das sie da nen überstürztes ICO veranstalten. Edit: Genau jetzt kam die Antwort zu der "Fiat-Frage": https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1543991.msg15560380#msg15560380Und sowas ist für mich totales Gewäsch. @tempus Waves hat doch auch die Fiat-Implementierung versprochen. Wie wird das denn dort gelöst? Ich bin auch bei Waves eher vorsichtig und habe nicht gekauft. Ich weiß nicht genau wie sie das mit Fiat machen wollen. Denn während es für die Politik noch relativ schwer sein dürfte Crypto total in den Griff zu bekommen, wenn man etwa Bitcoin in Lisk und Lisk in z.B. Dash transferiert, ist es eigentlich ziemlich leicht die zentralen Stellen zu regulieren und zu überwachen in denen Fiat in Crypto geht und eben wieder zurück. In Deutschland kenne ich z.B. keine Börse die Fiat-Accounts ermöglicht. Bitcoin.de ist ja deshalb die Partnerschaft mit Fidor eingegangen. Bitcoins werden auf bitcoin.de und Fiat wird innerhalb der Bank verschoben. Wenn man das dezentral machen will bräuchte es m.A.n. zumindest einen zentralen und regulierten Fiat-Anbieter mit Banklizenz - eine Bank eben. Aber wie das z.B. in eine dezentrale Wallet implementiert werden könnte, und das dann auch noch bei Einhaltung der Anti-Geldwäsche-Gesetze - keine Ahnung. Und Heat ist ja unter EU-Recht wenn sie ne Firma sein wollen. Bei Waves ist das vermutlich anders, aber ich glaube nicht das es bedeutend einfacher ist. Ich kenne nur eine dezentrale Crypto-Fiat-Börse: Local-Bitcoins. Und selbst das ist meines Wissens in Deutschland z.B. verboten, vielleicht (wahrscheinlich) sogar EU-weit. Vielen Dank für die Antwort. Kurz könnte man also sagen: Sei wachsam bei solchen Offerten und vorsichtig, wenn die Projektinhaber das nicht aufschlußreich erläutern können. Ich hatte mich jedenfalls gewundert, daß im hiesigen Waves Thread so wenig nachgefragt wurde und die allermeisten User das einfach nur als super Neuerung angepriesen haben. Kritische Nachfragen jedenfalls gab es wenige. Ich weiß ja, viele aktive User in den Threads sind oft selbst involviert bzw. investiert und deshalb oft nicht ganz objektiv oder zumindest nicht interessiert an zu viel kritischen Nachfragen. Nun muß ich aber zugeben, daß ich früher viel zu Waves gelesen hatte und nachdem ich mir hier auch einen Account erstellt hatte, da ich auch mal einige Fragen stellen wollte, dann doch öfter in anderen Forenteilen unterwegs war und so vielleicht einige wichtige Erklärungen dazu in den Originalthreads verpasste. Ich wundere mich ehrlich gesagt ziemlich oft darüber, dass relativ viele auf sehr simple Versprechungen anspringen und das nicht zumindest hinterfragen bevor sie investieren. Der interessante Punkt ist ja: Wenn es nur um den Preis geht und Investoren gehts nun mal (fast) ausschließlich darum, dann ist immer nur eine Frage entscheidend: "Werden andere nach mir kaufen?" Und ICO's sind da aus vielerlei Hinsicht ein großes Risiko. Bisher habe ich nur eines gekauft: Lisk. Weil ich sah das sie echt gut in Marketing sind und das alles insgesamt durchdacht aufgezogen haben und klar war, dass sie damit nicht einfach aufhören würden. Und dann wollte ich je nach Markt-Situation und je nach Projekt-Situation reagieren. Und den größten Teil halte ich noch. Was mir übrigens gleich am Anfang gefallen hat war paradoxerweise das wofür sie mit am meisten kritisiert wurden: Das sie Lisk als Crypti-Nachbau und Konkurrent aufzogen. Genau darin sah ich ein Zeichen von Konsequenz und ich fand es auch clever wie es gemacht wurde. Denn sie nahmen ja Crypti im ICO an, was zwei Effekte hatte: Weniger Kritik bzw. konnten sie einigen Kritikern da den Wind aus den Segeln nehmen, und es ist gleichzeitig auch ne Art "feindliche Übernahme" wie auf dem Aktienmarkt. Sie haben also gleichzeitig "befriedet" als auch das Konkurrenz-Projekt ausgeschaltet. Und ich sehe einfach gerne gute Strategien die dann auch funktionieren. Lange Rede kurzer Sinn: Ich mag es auf so vieles wie möglich zu achten, denn auch damit bleibt noch genug Glücksspiel übrig. Und ich wundere mich immer wieder wie viel andere fast nur auf Glück setzen. |
|
|
|
Spoiler: Gespannt bin ich v.a. darauf wie (und ob) sie erklären, dass sie behaupten schon Maßnahmen für Fiat-Implementierung ergriffen zu haben (pending-agreements), während man nicht studiert haben muss um zu wissen, dass das fast nicht machbar ist. Nicht mal bitcoin.de hat Fiat-Accounts. Und die Regeln werden ja immer härter. Insofern, ich glaube momentan sogar einige echte "red flags" zu sehen. Sicher ist jedenfalls das sie da nen überstürztes ICO veranstalten. Edit: Genau jetzt kam die Antwort zu der "Fiat-Frage": https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1543991.msg15560380#msg15560380Und sowas ist für mich totales Gewäsch. @tempus Waves hat doch auch die Fiat-Implementierung versprochen. Wie wird das denn dort gelöst? Ich bin auch bei Waves eher vorsichtig und habe nicht gekauft. Ich weiß nicht genau wie sie das mit Fiat machen wollen. Denn während es für die Politik noch relativ schwer sein dürfte Crypto total in den Griff zu bekommen, wenn man etwa Bitcoin in Lisk und Lisk in z.B. Dash transferiert, ist es eigentlich ziemlich leicht die zentralen Stellen zu regulieren und zu überwachen in denen Fiat in Crypto geht und eben wieder zurück. In Deutschland kenne ich z.B. keine Börse die Fiat-Accounts ermöglicht. Bitcoin.de ist ja deshalb die Partnerschaft mit Fidor eingegangen. Bitcoins werden auf bitcoin.de und Fiat wird innerhalb der Bank verschoben. Wenn man das dezentral machen will bräuchte es m.A.n. zumindest einen zentralen und regulierten Fiat-Anbieter mit Banklizenz - eine Bank eben. Aber wie das z.B. in eine dezentrale Wallet implementiert werden könnte, und das dann auch noch bei Einhaltung der Anti-Geldwäsche-Gesetze - keine Ahnung. Und Heat ist ja unter EU-Recht wenn sie ne Firma sein wollen. Bei Waves ist das vermutlich anders, aber ich glaube nicht das es bedeutend einfacher ist. Ich kenne nur eine dezentrale Crypto-Fiat-Börse: Local-Bitcoins. Und selbst das ist meines Wissens in Deutschland z.B. verboten, vielleicht (wahrscheinlich) sogar EU-weit. |
|
|
|
Sehe ich nicht ganz anders, aber ein bisschen. Denn Lisk, mit einem wirklich erstaunlich erfolgreichen ICO, ist offenbar etwas das viele aus PR-Gründen schon deshalb sehr gerne erwähnen um ebenfalls ICO-Geld reinzuholen. Und dieser Forbes-Artikel war für mich der Anlass mir das Projekt anzuschauen weil es eben interessant wirkt. Ich bin immer auf der Suche nach den wirklich rundum guten Projekten. Aber Heat wirkt total unprofessionell. Absolute Basis-Informationen fehlen und wenn man dann danach fragt, gibts zuerst mal ne ganze Menge Ausflüchte. Alles, und damit meine ich wirklich alles, zeigt wo die Prioritäten liegen: Auf dem ICO.
Genau. Das ist aber nicht schlecht sondern gut. Denn das zeigt ja, daß Lisk mittlerweile ein sehr gutes Standing hat. Was diese Leute dann mit ihren Projekten anstellen, ist ja nicht das Problem von Lisk. Und beim Lesen des Artikels kann man auch nicht wirklich schlußfolgern, daß Lisk irgendetwas mit deren ICO zu tun hat. Ich habe deine Kommentare und Fragen sowie die entsprechenden Antworten im Heat Thread während des Tages auch gelesen und gebe dir in einigen Punkten auch recht ... aber das müssen wir nicht unbedingt hier diskutieren.*¹ *¹ soll aber keinesfalls bedeuten, daß du hier nichts dazu schreiben darfst  Absolut einer Ansicht. Ich hab nur kurz meine Ansicht dazu gesagt, weil mir das deutsche Forum immer so ein "unter-uns-Gefühl" vermittelt und ich zumindest sagen wollte "Lieber erst genau hingucken, könnte riskant sein". Betreffend Lisk: Das Problem ist einfach dieser seltsame Fokus auf ICO's. Denn es wird ja nicht unbedingt gesagt dass Lisk nen super Projekt ist sondern eben v.a. "Wow, die waren sehr erfolgreich im Geld-sammeln". Und ich habe genau darin durchaus eine grundlegende Qualität gesehen weil das Lisk-Team m.A.n. sehr professionell und konsequent vorgeht und hoffentlich bei möglichst allem. Aber der Fokus auf ICO's und die ganzen folgenden ICO's nervt mich ehrlich gesagt. |
|
|
|
And those priorities are obviously the ICO-money because it doesn't need money to give informations and to write a Whitepaper. (All that is correct. Obviously, our priority is to get funding for the startup company. If writing whitepaper and giving out information could be done with money, it'd be less of a problem. What they require instead, is time, scarce commodity we don't have to do things in the order we'd prefer to.) Now to the token, which was another excellent subject not described sufficiently earlier. design gives the token a real value, and the market cap will reflect the value of the system, because the more the system is used the more Factoids are burned.
That's one mechanism of attempting to provide value. And a clever one. Unfortunately, usually the best mechanisms won't win the world based on capitalism. This doesn't make much sense. The Factom-design is capitalistic. They provide incentives to get professionals running the federated servers. And they wouldn't even need speculation for that because of a natural demand if Factom is used. You are right with "attempting" because if Factom should not be used the token won't have any value. But I think to have partnerships about Smart Cities in China and negotiations about land title registry in Honduras and even DHS-money for Internet of Things Systems Security - it's kind of impressing what they do. Also that they are still under the radar in the Crypto-World. But back to Heat: It's weak to say it's about capitalism as if quality wouldn't count. Just an argument like that would be enough for me not to invest. It's like "give us money, it's about capitalism. Later we will find out if we can provide something that could have value." And just by the way: Value is always about function and function is always about quality. Sometimes people prefer "Hype" over technical quality, but for them exactly that has function - a Hype-product for example, while there are better ones in a technical way. At least there always should be the approach to deliver quality. Is there something similar in Heat? At the moment it seems to me as if it will be possible to use Heat as Crypto-exchange for let's say a "BTC - ETH - pair" without a need for the token? Yes there will be. To exchange crypto pairs directly, you need to fund the trading fees in HEAT tokens. That will happen invisibly through at either of the 2 ways: - system charges eg. BTC from your account and auto-converts it to HEAT (by purchasing HEAT from the built-in market, which further increases demand in real time)- gateway operator - which can be numerous as they integrate their replicated nodes communication to the HEAT middleware through approval of the central HEAT client admins - pays the fees (in HEAT) and charges your wallet account whatever they've agreed with you.Other avenues for HEAT demand are: - asset listing and other asset operation fees (private assets, colored accounts)
- asset trading & order setting fees
- Replication binary messages that corporate node operators use, require HEAT fees with every replication message (create update, insert etc.). Thus running the replication for eg. fast trading applications in the HEAT blockchain requires constant - although low - supply of HEAT from the operator. Combined these will form a significant flow in the form of tx fees paid out in block rewards
- Distributed Services Architecture. The distributed services economy that will come alive once this mechanism is enabled will take in some of its payments in HEAT. The usage level of these services is much broader and higher than for instance smart contracts, they're meant to be used by anyone and served to users from any custom website (Thanks to Dennis for that DSA elevator pitch!)While users pay minimum tx fees to activate services, the services work in such a way that most have to answer back to the user. This will effectually work like a non-registered subscription fee based on service usage volume, again requiring service operators to purchase HEAT from the market. For small service providers the cost is negligible (for instance 0.01 HEAT fee for 1st time activation). For large providers keeping the service running requires consistent replenishing of HEAT tokens on their service accounts. Burning of HEAT is something we haven't decided yet. Probably no, but maybe something when finalizing system design comes up in the last minute that warrants burning. We're fully aware that providing token for just "crypto payments", shopping and even asset exchange won't cut it these days. So the mechanism for HEAT token demand distribution has been, and while work in progress, will be designed accordingly. A fee-system is good. Nothing wrong about it and I already believed that it's about fees. But in combination with pure PoS and a high inflation for the first 4 years and a hard cut after that - rich get richer very fast and it will lead into economically centralization which means technical centralization if it's pure PoS. And you want to be a company... Imagine this: It's about a limited number of servers, like it is in Factom for example, but also could be more (like Lisk maybe). And it's not PoS, it's more DPoS with an election mechanism for those servers - the best will be elected and bad players will be thrown out. Honest professionals will win and the result would be a stable system - if the system/the code has quality of course. They will be paid with the token for their service. But what is a fee now would be a burning rate - consumption. That would give intrinsic value to the token if the system would be used and the price would rise naturally if that usage increases. That's kind of a translation of the Factom-economy into a system like this. It would be much more elegant in my opinion and a higher incentive to run the base-protocol and a higher incentive to buy the token while it wouldn't even be needed to buy the token from the exchange to use the system - because of what you say: there would be an internal conversion. What I see here is kind of missed chances. Because if it would be like that (or even better, I'm not a specialist) and if there would be a white-paper that points out the details of all what's planned - it could be a strong buy. And if you would start an ICO in that way you could answer on questions about that and the more people would understand that it's really thoughtful - funding would be safe and Investors would feel safe. Instead of that you give incentives like "*multisig fiat*" and claims like "If you want to be invest in a crypto startup, the odds are you won't find a better setup anywhere in the Western world." and kind of weird things like "Unfortunately, usually the best mechanisms won't win the world based on capitalism."Not enough for capitalists. But most likely enough for Crypto-gamblers. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the reply, but of course I have some more questions. To include Fiat is indeed a very interesting point. But how safe is it that it will happen?
Nothing is of course "safe". However our arrangements are further than anything I know of in the crypto sphere, except for maybe some of the XEM Japan hype that we haven't examined in detail. Haven't heard of any fiat licensing initiatives with WAVES or others. Your questions would fit perfectly on-target at their promo, and the answers would be interesting. I looked into Waves and also found too much that wasn't convincing in my opinion so I did not invest. You say: "our arrangements are further than anything I know of in the crypto sphere"What do you mean with "arrangements"? Which steps did you make to get Fiat approval? How will it be implemented technically? Do you plan a "Fiat-wallet"? Do you plan Heat as a mix of Paypal plus Multicoin-Wallet and decentralized exchange? the author of that article even expresses his concern that the EU will nearly become a No-go-area for Crypto-startups. It's just an article. I'd say such fears are not substantiated. Regulation will rather enhance the operations in part because it removes the business from the gray area and places it under the umbrella of legally accepted financial services. Sorry, but to say "it's just an article" is naive or you are intentionally misleading here. It's not just an article. Besides the fact that there are multiple articles, you can read the press-release of the EU-commission right here: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-2381_en.htmOne example, and it's not even about Fiat - just about Crypto: How can virtual currencies be used to finance terrorism and what can we do to prevent this?
Banks and payment institutions fall under the scope of the Fourth AMLD, which requires them to comply with specific rules, such as verifying customers’ identity and monitoring financial transactions. Virtual currency operators were initially not included in the scope of the Directive.
Virtual currencies are developing quickly and are an example of digital innovation. However, at the same time, there is a risk that virtual currencies could be used by terrorist organisations to circumvent the traditional financial system and conceal financial transactions as these can be carried out in an anonymous manner.
That is why the Commission proposes to bring virtual currency exchange platforms and custodian wallet providers under the scope of the Fourth AMLD, in order to help identify users who trade in virtual currencies. Bringing these two actors under the Fourth AMLD and making them "obliged entities" will ensure better controls, ensuring that they apply customer due diligence and contribute to preventing money laundering and terrorist financing.
What is the difference between a virtual currency exchange platform and a virtual wallet provider?
Virtual currency exchange platforms can be considered as 'electronic' currency exchange offices that trade virtual currencies for real currencies (or so-called 'fiat' currencies, such as the euro). On the other hand, virtual currency custodian wallet providers hold virtual currency accounts on behalf of their customers (by providing virtual wallets from which payments in virtual currencies can be done or received). In the 'virtual currency' world, they are the equivalent of a bank or payment institution offering a payment account.
If you think about what that means, you should understand that there might be some problems for Heat even if it's just about crypto-currencies. But you even say there are "pending agreements" for implementing Fiat. The Commission proposes to bring virtual currency exchange platforms and custodian wallet providers under the scope of the Anti-Money Laundering Directive These developments last week have scared many people I know. I'm not worried, as it's something to be expected sooner or later. The fast track that AML implementations within EU now seem to take doesn't affect HEAT, for two reasons: a) Fiat operations are only one part of HEAT's many focus points. Not marginal as they have great potential, but not overly significant either. b) More importantly, we're prepared for compliance. We have national money transmitter license application pending, coordinated through a JV partner Fintech company that can't be disclosed yet. This license, when obtained, will enable fiat payments on tech that uses HEAT or a white-label implementation of it. We expect it to be feasible, if not plain right simple, to extend the license to EU wide operations. 1. And again: It's not just about Fiat but of course, Fiat is even harder. 2. And again: Lack of information. When there would be something you could say to raise trust there is something like "can't be disclosed yet". I don't criticize if you can't give all details. But I believe to see some red flags if there is too much talking while giving basically not really informations. 3. And what is a "national money transmitter license"? Or was it just a typo and you wanted to say "international"? For me it looks as if this project needs to implement a "know-your-customer-system" to have chances in the EU? KYC is not a problem. Our JV partner uses it all the time, and also FIMK is using government approved KYC in its basic income structure. We can deploy sufficient KYC procedures both technically and otherwise at any time to either our own operations, or the operations of a customer / partner. That said, the HEAT token itself won't be needing KYC / identification any time soon. HEAT is a virtual currency, decentralized p2p ledger like any cryptocoin. The legislation concerning virtual currencies apply here. While I'm not a legal counsel I know that everyone is responsible for her own usage of a cryptocurrency - not the developer of the token. Yes. It's not illegal to develop a cryptocurrency and there is no problem so far to use it as a user etc. But you want to build a decentralized exchange, including a multi-coin-wallet. And if you say: "KYC is not a problem. Our JV partner uses it all the time" - why do you want to develop a decentralized exchange? If it will be all connected to a central "JV - partner" to get things legal, one important point of decentralization is missing in my opinion. And maybe it's possible, I don't know. But if you plan something like a know-your-customer-impementation it's something you should speak about before in my eyes, instead just saying "we have a pending fiat agreement" without giving any infos about that. And really, I'm not sure what to believe because I'm not sure if you really know what this is about. I mean: You even say you can really deploy sufficient "KYC" - infos about FIMK-Users. You are aware that the "C" stands for Customers? It's not about your informations as a company. And it's not just about IP's that download software like a wallet. It's about the real identities of Users. If you really can deploy that for FIMK-Users - that's kind of concerning for a cryptocurrency to say the least and I don't believe you can. I believe they will close all possible ways to go into or out of Crypto without them knowing pretty much about it - because but not just because they want their taxes. I don't think that's the case. If it is however, then nothing will help. HEAT is as prepared as can be. It already is the case that they regulate a lot of possible doors from Fiat into Crypto and back --> exchanges. And that seems to be true for all Fiat-exchanges nearly all over the world. And to say "Heat is as prepared as it can be" - that's just another claim. I don't see much where I believe you are prepared. I need to think about the possibility that it will run into a lot of problems because of hard EU laws and will be illegal very soon - or already is illegal I know the laws rather well. We've successfully pushed FIMK through two accounting periods, full reporting with the accountants whom I consulted to take the necessary measures to make it smooth. All without issues with the authorities for a nonprofit official organization that received 250 000 EUR in cruptocurrency funding. Not for the faint of heart. HEAT Ledger is fully transparent, official limited company with reporting requirements fulfilled, constantly being advised by qualified accountants & legal team that helps us steer through the ICO & IPO phase. ICO and subsequent options release and IPO in a high bureaucracy EU country, the whole process sanctified by the government authorities. That's what we're doing. I believe that you are mostly on the safe side regarding the ICO. As I said: That seems to be the priority, while there is no transparency for your potential ICO-Investors. There is no Whitepaper, there are no Informations about how to make Fiat possible, technically and legally. Even the Crypto-part is pretty much of a black whole - at least for me. For example: Why 25% the first 4 years while only 5% after that? And why PoS? PoS is a very weak design. Ethereum tries a lot to find a solution for the weaknesses of PoS with their Casper-plan, but I don't believe that will work out. But at least Ethereum is really transparent. They discuss those things openly and there were a lot of informations long before their ICO. Same with Factom. There was a whitepaper and reviews and Feedback and there was a Thread months before the ICO. Heat: Nearly all important informations are missing. But an ICO. If I believe that you guys maybe not really know how and if you can make this legal but already saying you will even implement Fiat and that there are pending agreements about that - how can that be possible? The HEAT token itself is not fiat related. Fiat is done through a separate fintech company that will receive the license(s). I can only say we've gone to great lengths with our accountants and lawyers clarifying the required processes since starting this plan about 6 months ago. Legislation is a moving variable, however our team is staying on top of it. If you want to be invest in a crypto startup, the odds are you won't find a better setup anywhere in the Western world.I hope this has eased your concerns. I'll attend to the token technicalities in the next message. are strong words for a project that asks for money without giving basic informations. You're not just saying that this will be a great project. It's already the best setup in the western world. Let me tell you this: My criticism is not personal. But what I always focus on, besides the base idea (which I like) and the economical design (which I don't like) and the whitepaper (which is missing) - is the team behind. I try to find out if they are honest. I try to find out if they are professionals. I try to find out if they are precise and skilled and where they see the priorities. And what I believe is that you both are most likely good coders. I'm not, so I can't say much about that. But at least you show your faces and you have coding experience. But besides the lack of information and the impression that this ICO is pretty much rushed out, you told me about your partner that he has not the proper knowledge to reply on my questions - not even regarding the token. And man, there is one team with only two guys. And you both want money for a very ambitious project without revealing much infos - and you want me (and readers) to believe that one of both has no proper knowledge about the basics of your own project? The thing is: I don't believe that you believe that. That's the reason for my impression that there could be some things you try not to reveal. But if you really should believe that your partner is not able to reply on such questions (what is the token for? - basics!), it's even worse. Again, not meant personal. But I believe it becomes clear that I won't invest. |
|
|
|
In der Tat sieht dieser Artikel ein wenig wie eine PR Aktion aus. Ich will mich aber auch nicht zu weit aus dem Fenster lehnen... Jedenfalls wird Lisk neben Waves erwähnt & verlinkt. Es wird auch kurz darauf eingegangen, weshalb der Gründer Svante Lehtinen hier diese Möglichkeiten sieht. Und wenn sich daraus einige neue Interessenten und/oder Investoren für Lisk ergeben - okay, warum nicht. Sehe ich nicht ganz anders, aber ein bisschen. Denn Lisk, mit einem wirklich erstaunlich erfolgreichen ICO, ist offenbar etwas das viele aus PR-Gründen schon deshalb sehr gerne erwähnen um ebenfalls ICO-Geld reinzuholen. Und dieser Forbes-Artikel war für mich der Anlass mir das Projekt anzuschauen weil es eben interessant wirkt. Ich bin immer auf der Suche nach den wirklich rundum guten Projekten. Aber Heat wirkt total unprofessionell. Absolute Basis-Informationen fehlen und wenn man dann danach fragt, gibts zuerst mal ne ganze Menge Ausflüchte. Alles, und damit meine ich wirklich alles, zeigt wo die Prioritäten liegen: Auf dem ICO. Falls also jemand darüber nachdenkt in deren ICO zu investieren, wäre mein Rat genau hinzuschauen. Wer wissen möchte wovon ich spreche kann einfach in meine Post-History schauen und dann prüfen wie meine Fragen beantwortet wurden - und ob. Spoiler: Gespannt bin ich v.a. darauf wie (und ob) sie erklären, dass sie behaupten schon Maßnahmen für Fiat-Implementierung ergriffen zu haben (pending-agreements), während man nicht studiert haben muss um zu wissen, dass das fast nicht machbar ist. Nicht mal bitcoin.de hat Fiat-Accounts. Und die Regeln werden ja immer härter. Insofern, ich glaube momentan sogar einige echte "red flags" zu sehen. Sicher ist jedenfalls das sie da nen überstürztes ICO veranstalten. Edit: Genau jetzt kam die Antwort zu der "Fiat-Frage": https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1543991.msg15560380#msg15560380Und sowas ist für mich totales Gewäsch. |
|
|
|
And... I really don't get how that should be possible even without Fiat. And you don't give informations yet. The thing is: Even if all what you say is true it seems not professional. And I can't know if it's true, not saying you guys are dishonest. Your questions are legitimate but a staff member without proper knowledge made a mistake and came in answering them in a bad way, giving an impression most of the important parts are being avoided. That's not the case. Like mentioned I'm going to address that in good detail and it takes up to an hour of writing which I'm sure you understand is scarce on the first whole day of ICO. We have a lot of stuff to do. Up to half a day of time for answering extensive questions of forums would be modest. Thanks for you patience! See, the problem here is that if you ask yourself if you would see this as a professional project, what would you think? And you say your partner "made a mistake and came in answering them in a bad way, giving an impression most of the important parts are being avoided". You do the same exactly now if you compare my post and what I questioned and what you quoted and reacted on. For me it's not just about the fact that you didn't provide basic informations (like a Whitepaper) before you do an ICO. It's revealing if I want to know more about your priorities. And those priorities are obviously the ICO-money because it doesn't need money to give informations and to write a Whitepaper. And like I've said, there are: 1. professional projects 2. non-professional projects 3. scams Not saying it's 3. But I'm sure it's also not 1. My guess for now is: It's a mix of 2 and 3. Maybe honest intentions but money before. And I only would invest in 1. |
|
|
|
This sequence would be much better (for any project btw)
Whitepaper
Roadmap
Testnet, alpha client
ICO
Genesis block, livenet beta client
Whitepaper first is always good sign of something that was being worked on by someone for some time before marketing anything (ex. Satoshi, Vitalik)
That's true. Our whitepaper is in advanced phase and was planned to be released at ICO launch. However, when you engage in a large project, especially one that has timing restrictions on several front (such as the ICO scene - very time sensitive and with perplexing level of interrelations between projects. Take for instance HEAT NXT acceptance and Ardor holding incentive. How do they relate? Not always how you'd expect) then numerous things change constantly on your face and you have to improvise. Take irreversible choices & carry on no matter what. There are optimal projects, and then there are projects that get done  There are professional projects and there are non-professional projects and there are scams. And I'm not sure what this is, but it's not professional. You guys ask for money before you provide basic informations! And to say that it's about time restrictions sounds kind of weird. Professionals would write a Whitepaper before they even think about ICO-terms and long before they make agreements to make an ICO. And in best case there is an audit of the Whitepaper. I really don't want to spread FUD. I looked into this with good intentions: To find out if I should invest. But I never invest in something I can't get infos about. Most of all important links on the site lead into nothing and to more questions. Whitepaper: "H.E.A.T. Ledger technical white paper will be released here by August 1st 2016." Github: Can't find even a link Local Representation: "HEAT employs online representatives in various countries and areas for local promotion. Please contact us at info[at]heatledger.com if interested." I mean, two guys but they claim to have "online representatives in various countries". What is that? "Online representatives"? Are they part of the team but want to stay anon? And there are still missing answers/infos to my previous questions: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1543991.msg15556402#msg15556402Yes, you said "later". But don't you think potential Investors should be informed about that before you ask for money? I really would like to know more about those pending agreements. Lisk for example has a lawyer and they gave information about that guy before. What they want isn't very simple but much more simple like your claim to implement Fiat. Not sure if that is possible without a banking license. Bitcoin.de, the german Bitcoin exchange is not allowed to provide Fiat-accounts. They work together with a bank (Fidor) to be on the safe side and like I've said before: It needs a verification process to get approved on their platform. Your claim that there are pending agreements regarding EU-laws means: You want to play by EU-rules. And... I really don't get how that should be possible even without Fiat. And you don't give informations yet. The thing is: Even if all what you say is true it seems not professional. And I can't know if it's true, not saying you guys are dishonest. But your priorities are obvious. You ask for money before the basic work is done, even before you give basic informations. |
|
|
|
What I can figure out: After 4 years there will be 25 Mio new Heat tokens which means 25% inflation per year - which is kind of high in my opinion. But I really don't understand this way of explaining the economical basics of a project.
That's a misunderstanding - there'll only be 1.25M tokens per year released after the initial 4 years. That's 5% inflation on year 5, and declining from there quickly. So, it's 25% inflation the first 4 years and then it will be 5% inflation per year? You see Dennis is just a simple coder who got carried away with some PR ambitions  . I've pointed him back to his desk and will address the very relevant subjects soon. They require lengthy explanations and slapping links on your face while omitting the important parts is not the right way. Okay! |
|
|
|
1. The token
2. Fiat, Crypto and EU laws These are excellent subjects we're paying high attention to, I will comment a bit later. Okay, thanks! Pretty eager to learn more about that. |
|
|
|
3. The blockchain:
It's said: "2-tier reward structure: Proof-Of-Stake and Proof-Of-Presence (Online storage of blockchain slice files)"
a) What exactly is "Proof-of-Presence" and what's it's practical purpose?
b) What will be the inflation rate?
There was a post some time back that describes this. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1543991.msg15522831#msg15522831As for the purpose. It's an incentive to store otherwise not required archived transactions. If you scroll to the bottom there is a mention on inflation rate. http://heatledger.com/ico.htmThanks for the reply! It's really not easy to understand. Maybe it's my fault but I have questions everywhere I look. I'll try to explain my problem with a screenshot:  Clear is: "25 Million HEAT tokens (+ extra 5 Million, if fully reserved)" will be the initial total supply. Blocktime will be 25 (seconds), but I have no clue what "stage changes" are. What I can figure out: After 4 years there will be 25 Mio new Heat tokens which means 25% inflation per year - which is kind of high in my opinion. But I really don't understand this way of explaining the economical basics of a project. ************** And to be honest: I'm kind of concerned if I ask 3 questions and the two most important ones are not answered. Maybe I sound a little bit over-critical but on first sight I really thought: Wow, this could be an interesting project - which is why I try to understand. But if I can't figure out the purpose of a token I also don't know why it should have value in future. And if I don't know if a project maybe will be illegal very soon or already is, it's even more concerning. If you say that there are pending agreements with the EU about Fiat-implementation you already have a deep understanding of EU laws and you know what they plan. It's more than just possible that a project like this one will be illegal if there will be no technical implementations to take away all anonymity of the users. That's already hard for centralized exchanges but just for example: I know for bitcoin.de (german Bitcoin-exchange) that it's that way since years. All users need to go through a verification-process. I don't like it but the state potentially can know how much Fiat I use to buy Bitcoins (when, how many etc.) and if I withdraw it etc. I believe they will close all possible ways to go into or out of Crypto without them knowing pretty much about it - because but not just because they want their taxes. And I really would like to see a decentralized exchange without that but I wouldn't know why to buy into an ICO if the token is not even needed to use it, and I still don't know. And I can't invest into a project if I need to think about the possibility that it will run into a lot of problems because of hard EU laws and will be illegal very soon - or already is illegal. I'm not very educated regarding laws but you absolutely need to be. And if it's true that there are pending agreements - you already are - and the other way around. And, tbh: If I believe that you guys maybe not really know how and if you can make this legal but already saying you will even implement Fiat and that there are pending agreements about that - how can that be possible? What kind of lawyers do you have to believe the EU will say: "Sure, it absolutely needs a decentralized exchange to make it easier for the ppl to get their Fiat into Crypto and that even anon!"? |
|
|
|
It's kind of hard to get an overview here, at least for me. I have a few questions, including a little "sorry" if they are already answered but I didn't recognize. 1. The token
What exactly is the purpose of the Heat token? For example: In Factom the token (Factoids) is the incentive (payment) to run the federated servers. On the other side: To use Factom as a system (let's say to record and timestamp transaction-data), Factoids are converted into Entry Credits and "burned" through that process. That design gives the token a real value, and the market cap will reflect the value of the system, because the more the system is used the more Factoids are burned. Is there something similar in Heat? At the moment it seems to me as if it will be possible to use Heat as Crypto-exchange for let's say a "BTC - ETH - pair" without a need for the token? 2. Fiat, Crypto and EU laws
In the Ann it's said "HEAT Ledger Ltd has joint venture agreements in place with EU wide money transmitter license pending, making the prospect of transferring real fiat money in a cryptographic ledger a reality. One of the first, if not THE first - but certainly the first multi-sig fiat!"To include Fiat is indeed a very interesting point. But how safe is it that it will happen? Some days ago I've read a german article about new regulatory pressure in the EU, mainly to prevent money laundering (also terror-financing). It's said that those new Cryptocurrency rules are harder than in New York, and the author of that article even expresses his concern that the EU will nearly become a No-go-area for Crypto-startups. For those who understand german: "Virtuelle Währungen sollen EU-weit reguliert werden. Weil es alle Arten von Wallets treffen kann, droht die EU zur No-Go-Area für Bitcoin-Startups zu werden"https://bitcoinblog.de/2016/07/06/virtuelle-waehrungen-sollen-eu-weit-reguliert-werden-weil-es-alle-arten-von-wallets-treffen-kann-droht-die-eu-zur-no-go-area-fuer-bitcoin-startups-zu-werden/English article about the issue: "The Plan contains many initiatives to tighten anti-money laundering (AML) and know-your-customer (KYC) laws, by the end of this year, and includes two separate sections that would affect cryptocurrencies, which they refer to as “virtual currencies.” The larger section targets terrorism funding directly, while the smaller is specifically about pre-paid debit cards, which several bitcoin companies now offer.
“The Commission proposes to bring virtual currency exchange platforms and custodian wallet providers under the scope of the Anti-Money Laundering Directive,” the Plan states. “These entities will have to apply customer due diligence controls when exchanging virtual for real currencies, ending the anonymity associated with such exchanges.”http://bravenewcoin.com/news/the-european-commissions-divide-over-cryptocurrency-regulation-grows-wider/My question is: How sure the Heat team can be to find a way through this obviously hard regulations, not just as a decentralized Crypto exchange but even for Fiat? For me it looks as if this project needs to implement a "know-your-customer-system" to have chances in the EU? 3. The blockchain:
It's said: "2-tier reward structure: Proof-Of-Stake and Proof-Of-Presence (Online storage of blockchain slice files)" a) What exactly is "Proof-of-Presence" and what's it's practical purpose? b) What will the inflation rate be? |
|
|
|
Is the price fixed, When will be the end of Stage 1?  ?? when the inventory of each stage runs out, it advances to the next stage. BTC is still at stage one, and I assume so is ETH, the rest are stage 2 or 3 You are connected to this project? |
|
|
|
That article contains information that is not true. "So far, the team has completed their crowdsale, resulting in a US$5.75m round. However, as the Bitcoin price increased since that time, they are now sitting at a US$9.1m “valuation”. This also goes to show why it is important to hold on to Bitcoin funds after a crowdsale, instead of converting it to fiat currency right away."Well that is just his opinion. Which is not based on fact. If ethereum sold its bitcoins right after the crowdsale they would have got alot more money to spend on the development instead of losing alot of money to the falling bitcoin price at that time. Many other coins faced this problem too. Lisk was just lucky to have bitcoin go up. "Some exchanges have opened up alternative trading markets for Lisk. Poloniex, for instance, lets users trade LSK against ETH and USDT."
That is another false statement. Poloniex allows LSK trading in only LSK/BTC and LSK/ETH. I think JP Buntinx just writes in a way where his articles meet a certain amount of words per article and he doesn't check if info is true or not. I really don't know why this is making me angry but I just had to write this post. I agree. It's seems rushed out. Pretty often Buntix is not thorough. I even know a Buntix-article about Factom that attacking and full of bullshit. To be fair: He also wrote some good articles. This one is at least not negative. |
|
|
|
On Steemit: An Introduction to Factom
https://steemit.com/investing/@modernbuddha/an-introduction-to-factomIt's nothing new for those who know Factom and the Ann-Post is more informative. But what I think is interesting - one comment below: (...) Their mission would solve lots of problems. I come from a financial background (CPA/external auditor) and I hated 'verifying' every damn thing the client gave me! |
|
|
|
Ethereum created $1.5 billions in market cap from a funding of some $18 million.
How much value will Factom create with their current number at some $2 million and new round of financing to be disclosed at anytime?
Should end up being something like 1/4 or 1/5 of $18 million this year. Any thoughts? Far fetched? What valuation do you think Factom raises at in their A round? How much value do you think they can create?
Going by these numbers, Factom should be worth something like 1/10 of Ethereum if they can create the value we think they will end up doing this year.
If they can deliver on M2 (they will), I could see by Q4 - $5-$6 min / 40M-50M cap. With M3 in Q1 2017 even higher. Also add in FOMO and sky is the limit. What a trolling BS. Based on what? On one grant and being part of Microsoft Azure. FFS, lots of other coins ve been included into Azure as well. The fact remains, Factom team has failed to deliver for now. Still waiting to see how long will we have to wait for M2. From Q1 to Q3. Sure, 6 months delay in tech world is nothing. Or is it? Very real possibility. It won't be long now. Be patient dude. They will deliver. I ask the same question again. What do you base your predictions on? Hope it s not the fact you hold FCT and would like to see its price going up. Pure speculation given the tech, many contracts in US, China and incredible team. No brainer. I agree with most of your arguments besides incredible team. 6 months delay in delivering a very important milestone cannot be attributed to an incredible team. Funny is that you believe in Ethereum. Several times you compared both with the "conclusion": Ethereum has such a great team because they deliver etc. But do you see the damage? I'm not talking about the ETH-price. They have to face fundamental problems and a huge loss in trust. Investors on Polo may buy or not buy. The price is no indication. Which real business-partner would use Ethereum if they have to consider that it's near to impossible to be on the safe side with Solidity? DAO was coded from Ethereum-developers. And Factom: They already have real business partners! They need to consider everything they can think of. They can't just release something and say: "Let's try if it really works." They need to test everything for a lot of scenarios. And don't get me wrong. I also believe that the Ethereum-team is absolutely high-level. But if I consider everything that is needed to deliver a high-ambitious project like Ethereum or Factom, I would say: The team of Factom is more professional in every sense. And that's not just visible in what they do. It's also visible in what they don't do. They don't hype. They don't deliver something premature like DAO to get fundings for even more potential premature Ethereum-projects (slock.it) etc. They don't waste their time with high-risk-moves nobody can't predict in what bullshit-situations it might turn into. And, just btw: Ethereum is so damn manipulated. Just the DAO-CFC... I can't prove it, but I don't believe that it was possible without funding of the team-members themselves. That might be another reason to bail it out. I'm glad that we don't see such things in Factom. What we see is: A great idea, a very thoughtful design, perfectionism, skills, professionalism, honesty, hard work. Sorry to say i agree with Crazyivan, The Factom team are the worst ever in keeping people up to date they should look at Maidsafe they also are in a huge delay, but atleast they have weekly updates and statistics amd testnets. Thats how a great team should work. Several months ago, and not just once, they (Brian Deery I believe) said that they would appreciate testers. I don't know how many contacted them to act as testers. I did not because my technical knowledge is limited and I think a good tester should be able to give good feedback. But: They asked for it! Updates: Of course they could give us more infos about the status. But what they've said several times makes sense. They will give updates about the important things but not more. And everybody is always free to check their github. Daily updates. As far as you say Ethereum is damn manipulated, i think Factom is even more manipulated by aswell traders as the Factom team.
Cause its a steady supply people with money can easly use factom to gain much more and more with the 10 million market cap and no inflation. Why I say ETH is damn manipulated is because of it's volume and because of the bot-army. Most of all days there are about 5000-6000 users active on Poloniex. That's not enough for the huge volume of Ethereum. Factom is a much more normal market. Of course it's manipulated as well. Nearly all markets are. But I absolutely doubt that it's the team. Why? Because there was a time between launch and Dec 21 with very low volume and a very low price. That would have been a time for manipulations but there was no manipulation. It was just quiet and the people were complaining like they are now. I don't believe that the Factom team does much more than follow the price without too much interest for now. And if they really would want to manipulate the market they also would use communication for that. If they would want it, they could pump and dump it however they would like to. It doesn't make much sense to believe in manipulation and to complain about too less communication at the same time. Communication would be part of a smart manipulation. And Paul Snow or Brian Deery could manipulate the price just with little hints if they would want that. No lies would be needed, just a manipulative use of language. The most intense manipulation was the march-pump. The price jump had zero reason - besides the news: V. Buterin is invested in Factom. And for some days we had the same bot-army in Factom like we see in Ethereum and the margin-trading exploded. Right after it was shorted and the loan-interest was at 2%. I can't prove it, but I believe: Ethereum-ppl. Not saying the ETH-team. They also work hard on Ethereum. But I believe that those who manipulate Ethereum played with Factom. And if you subtract that pump and dump, the price is very stable since early January. And the volume is somewhere in the middle. Usually not extremely high but good and pretty stable. The thing is: What we see now is the same pattern like it was between launch and Dec 21. It's just on a higher level. More volume and a higher price. It fits to the development and the news since that time. Also Factom sells Entry coins 4 to 5 times more expensive as market value, ofcourse they are not in a hurry. They love this price !!
Even if all entries per month for now would be from customers who buy EC's on their site, and that's not the case, it would not be more than maybe $2000. And it's not totally true what you say, because:
"For larger volumes of entry credits and enterprise level service, contact us directly about pricing."And your "they are not in a hurry" with focus on EC's doesn't make any sense. If they would want to make money fast they would be in a hurry to get a higher EC-demand. And "They love this price" also doesn't make sense. The FCT-price doesn't matter because it doesn't change the EC-price. And the EC-price is a question of the price they set. It's always about the demand for them! If you really try it with logic the conclusion must be: They do what they do to build a stable system. That will be the requirement for everything. High EC-demand = high FCT-price. Stupid enough they are still proud if you listen to Paul snow hes interviews, but they serieus in need of more people that know how to handle things. 1. Stupid - your super smart opinion 2. still proud - interpretation 3. in need for more ppl - your super professional opinion Substantiation? Not too many. For example Twitter, news release, weekly updates. Simple things but will add a value behind your community. How hard is it to reply on simple questions on Bitcointalk. Obcious really hard. What do you miss on Twitter? They are very active with tweeting everything. And how hard it is to reply on simple questions? I also believed that. But even I (and I have time) was annoyed because people ask things they could find themselves in 1 minute. I wrote explanations about the relation between Entry Credit - demand and FCT price and hours later another guy with the same question. It's hilarious! And it would be crazy to waste time with that.
Dont get me wrong i like some parts what they do, but keeping the community updates is really poor give it a 2/10.
I'm really not sure what exactly you miss. Go on twitter and on reddit. It's true that they are not very active in this thread. But even that is not totally true because Brian Deery posts often: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=134381;sa=showPosts Last post is from yesterday. What they don't do is to give deadlines. And I know a Developer personally (not from Factom). He said that it's not possible to give exactly dates. And if it's done, it's near to impossible to not delay. It's normal. Yes they indeed looked for testers, but many dont have the expertice to be a tester, also you say look at github, Yes i can see a lot happen there but i have no idea about a status cause Github is way to technical for normal people that cant read any line of code. And about the price you do agree that atm they sell it like 5 times the value ? Unless maybe your a enterprice then they still will make profit. But anyway i was not aiming for the EC/FCT conversion cause indeed the entry coins stay the same dollar price. And on Twitter please visit their twitter and say they are active, cause they really are not at all. Long time ago i see a truely self writter own tweet, And then i dont talk about retweeting same news 5 times. I don't criticize that you are not a tester. I'm not a tester as well and the reasons are the same. But it's not right in my opinion to say Maid would have a testnet as if Factom would not invite community-members to test. Github: I also agree, at least regarding the direction. I often look into github without being a coder. But what is always visible is when there was an update and how many. It's like an activity-barometer. And that's impressive in Factom if I compare it to other projects I follow/ed. Price: They sell EC's for 0.005 cent while the internal price is 0.001 cent. But, 1. It's still possible for everybody to buy FCT's and to do the conversion oneself. 2. Theoretically you could open an EC-Store and sell it cheaper. 3. They sell it cheaper if somebody contacts them and asks for it and has reasons. One obvious reason would be a huge demand of course. But I also would make any bet, that they would sell it cheaper to everyone if they see reason to support the idea behind it. And before all: Factom is not finished yet and selling EC's is not a business yet. There wouldn't be much difference if they sell it or if they give it away for free and most likely a lot of the EC's from launch until now was for free for external Factom-usecases. I believe it's all testing. Also for use-cases. Twitter: They tweet all articles about Factom, but they also tweet all marketing-activities (let's say Tiana Laurence speaks at a conference), they even respond to questions on Twitter etc. They use Twitter much more than any other platform. And most likely it's because they reach much more ppl about twitter. It's about effectivity. This thread is interesting for maybe 5-10 guys who are active here and let's say another 50 who read it. This thread doesn't make much difference and they are already to big to focus on that. They need to be effective with their time and they are. Plus: There are other platforms as well. And if you look where Factom is discussed you'll see: They react on it. Sometimes even in the comment-section of an article about Factom or another Forum etc. If somebody writes bullshit wherever possible - they set the record straight and they are pretty fast with that and it's often Paul Snow himself. It's hard to find FUD or misconceptions about Factom anywhere without correction. What I want to say with that: It's obvious that they know what's going on and it would be wrong to believe they don't care. That's one reason for me to believe that they are perfectionists because they have a sense for details, even if it's "just" about things like that. They also know what's going on here and especially Brian Deery is active here as well. Paul Snow is more on reddit but also "everywhere" on the Internet. It's something I really focus on (communication in general) and they are not just good in that. That's the main-reason why I support them actively. I believe to see real honesty (which is a reason why I'm longterm-invested). It's impossible to see the bigger picture and to believe they would manipulate anything or delay with intention or don't care. It's "self-contradicting". What I believe is: If they come to the opinion that criticism is based on a lack of knowledge in combination with impatient price-intentions they ignore that intentionally. And I would understand that, because if somebody is invested he should do at least his homework as an investor. And the Investor-side in Crypto is mainly not even investing. It's a mess. It's like Las Vegas. They don't want to play those games. I like it but I would hate it if I would be a Developer who works hard to build something that is really useful. I mean: We don't work. If we make profit we benefit of the work of others. And while we can get in or out in seconds, those who really do the work will be attached to their projects for years or even decades. For them it would be stupid to play our games. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
