You cannot possibly know the total cost beforehand. You can only operate with estimates. There's always a risk it will exceed 10k and you'll run out of funds.


Sure, it's easy if you ignore all the legal requirements related to offering investment opportunity to the public, KYC/AML/Data protection, hustle of drafting agreement, whitepaper, data processing, all the technical aspects of creating new, single use tokens etc.


Assuming you got all the $10k from token sale - why would you keep half of the costs returned?

I think you're confusing court with lottery. There are no "winnings" - when you win, you get your costs back + compensation for the loss you incurred by a defendants fault. ie.
- you provide a service to the client worth $5k
- he refuses to pay
- you take him to court
- court orders him to pay that $5k back + cover legal expenses.

If you want to share half of that $5k with 'investors' - then you're $2.5k down.

So it boils down to: if your chances of winning are high: pay the costs yourself, borrow from friends/family, or even take a bank loan (way cheaper than token).
If your chances look slim - let it go. No one will back you anyway.

They don't charge you any exchange fee per se, but they do make profit on exchange rate differences. So always make sure you're happy with offered rate before proceeding.

There are also fixed miners' fee involved, which seem a bit too high. Currently for bitcoin it's set at BTC0.00025, more here: https://info.shapeshift.io/miner-fee/

All true, but that undermines CNN's narrative. Losing in trading, by trying to time the market is completely different type of animal than investment losses (it's even treated differently for tax purpose in the UK, where he's from). If panic trading indeed played a big role in his losses, then not mentioning it by CNN is dishonest, at very least.

As per rules - you're allowed to 'bump' your topic once every 24 hours. But I understand that rule was meant primarily for Marketplace board.

Re-posting the same content could (rightfully) earn you a ban for spamming. It's perfectly normal for topics to slide out of the first page to make room for new ones. You can always rehash old discussion, if you have anything new and valuable to add, just use 'edit' option to update first post + reply with info on the update you've made.

And if your old topic got polluted with idiotic, spammy replies and discussion became impossible to follow - you can open a new, self-moderated one - just add a short info explaining the reason for re-posting.

Halving exactly every 4 years is not set-in-stone, it is to take place every 210,000 blocks, which should average to 4 years, but can be much sooner or later.

Your math is off (could be due to taking 4 years as a static value), total number of bitcoins will never cross 21 millions (under current protocol rules).

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply

Wrong. If you're here for the right reasons, it's hard not to get merit. You have zero merits because the system was implemented specifically to weed out people like yourself.


Merits are not to reward activity, but quality. Your entire activity is limited to posting proofs for bounty campaigns.

Feel free to reply with links to few constructive/helpful posts of yours and I'll consider sending you one.

Oryginal:
Enhanced newbie restrictions & requirements

W skrocie, uzytkownicy 'Junior' z zerowym stanem merit zostali zdegradowani do rangi 'Newbie', ktora to od dzisiaj nie moze nosic sygnatur.

Juniorzy pokrzywdzeni przez nowa zmiane beda potrzebowali tylko 1 pkt merit aby odzyskac range.

Thanks for answering and sharing insider's experience.


That's a tough spot to be in for the startup. There's still a chance to hype it up (it's easier if the company and its product are legit), otherwise you didn't even break-even. You've already spent that 300k and now (possibly) have liability to token holders to provide service/products in exchange for worthless tokens. That's unless you use/redeem tokens according to their $ value.

Two more Qs:

How did the whole ICO thing affect the bookkeeping side of the business? I reckon it created a whole lot of extra work for the accountant(s).

Did you secure yourself by adding a clause in Terms & Conditions ie that the 'tokens program' can be discontinued and buy-back can be offered (or something in similar manner), or are you stuck with this form forever?

You're confusing purpose of merits with trust system. The former is related only to the post quality and member's ability of constructive posting and/or positive contribution to the forum - not as a judgement of his ethics.

If you think what he's doing is wrong - leave him a red trust rating.

Don't hold your breath for the mods/admin to commit themselves to go through every submitter's post history and evaluate quality. The entire system was designed in a way that community itself (not the mods) rewards quality posters.

We've already had many non-staff-member-started threads where you could submit links to your worthy posts and ask for merit. See this for reference: List of Threads Giving Away Merits - Updated 12 march 2018

Funny enough, many (if not most) of such initiatives closed or got temporarily locked due to lack of interest. That says a lot.

I understood your idea was for crowdfunding lawsuits in general and not only to fund yours. In such scenario you'd be creating crowdfunding website and deciding on your cut.
Creating token just to fund one lawsuit makes no sense - the time/energy/cost spent organising such project (properly) would likely be greater than for the lawsuit itself.


So if all goes well investor only gets half of his investment back? I'll pass.

The new restrictions hit really hard. Meet huydai, up until today he was living a dream life of 'bounty man', but Theymos' announcement forced him to make his 1st non-bounty claim post in his career (current post count 1160):

As one man once said - Ask and you shall receive

Enhanced newbie restrictions & requirements

Theymos: "Due to excessive garbage-posting, you now need 1 merit to be a Jr Member. All existing Jr Members who didn't meet the requirement were demoted. Also, newbies can no longer set any signature or personal text."

Also, there are 36 new merit sources.

Are we talking by utility tokens or security tokens here? Was ICO opened for US residents? Did you have to comply with KYC/AML regulations?

You say that you only managed to break even - have you not issued any tokens to yourselves, so you could dump later with potentially bigger gain? Have you not assigned small portion for 'bounties' (essentially free marketing)?

Have you verified any previous projects of that 'advisor'? Was he legit? I have my doubts.

If I had to choose, I would prefer if my sensitive data was entirely handled by specialised, established 3rd party entity (with good record) than by newly formed ICO project 'team'. The latter almost always have no relevant experience and, even with no malicious intentions, the risk of mishandling data is too high.

1 - When you need to make 50x more posts with multiple junior account to earn the same money as you would with 1 Hero account - that should motivate any reasonable person to focus on quality, earn merits, rank up and make it easier for yourself. Unless you're intellectually incapable of quality posting.

2 - If someone's here only to maximise his profits, he would spam more if there was no Merit system, knowing that all his multiple accounts will rank-up eventually, disregard of post quality.

3 - Assuming there's a limited number of spots in signature campaigns for junior members, market soon will get saturated and most junior accounts would end up idle.

ps. I've noticed increased number of "smart post" - low rank members spamming with copy/paste of smart sounding content (usually from press articles/blogs) in attempt to get some merit points (unsuccessfully). You could say Merit system is responsible for this particular kind of spam, but it also suggests the system works.

ps2 - Move to "Meta"

Nice fake quote. There's no "electronic banking" mentioned anywhere in the article. There's "online banking" though. The difference is you don't need to be registered for online banking to use credit/debit card or use payment apps, making your conclusion that 15% must be un-banked baseless.

That's not to mention we don't know who's included in that 15% of un-online-banked. This number could include young people who are yet to open their first account, or newly arrived 30-something-year-old "Syrian refugee" children from Afghanistan.

I must've missed the hype, as it's the first time I hear that term and had to look it up.

In theory, STO should be much safer than ICO, as business must complete the traditional registration process of an IPO, but:

- "safer" in this context doesn't mean profitable. It's the kind of safety that protects you from outright theft, not from investment loss
- you could still have fraudulent projects pretending to be STO, while they're not

No. I would hesitate to call Bitcoin 'mainstream', not to mention the lesser known alts and tokens.



We've seen thousands of ICOs so far and sure, there are few projects related to medical care or research. Not sure about legitimacy of them, could be just a money grab schemes, but here are some examples:

Docademic, ARNA Panacea, RIK Coin, Foldingcoin, Curecoin

Even before the ICO era, there was GridCoin, which you could mine while providing computing power for scientific research.

This. For some reason most people imagine corrupted politician as some evil-laughing thief who just fills his pockets with taxpayers money. In practice, such guy would just make action that benefits certain influential group, so at the end of his political career he can land a cosy spot in some board of directors of affiliated company (or get his children on the payroll). We even have legalised bribery in form of lobby groups donating to political campaigns. Blockchain's transparency won't help much with that.