And that's just a proof of concept burn with a measly 1000 ETH, they will only get bigger and bigger in the future

Plus the legal and tax issues that have been circumvented may make ICN more appealing and accessible to a wider audience.

You sold yesterday didn't you? Sorry for your loss (not actually sorry, actually quite happy when rude traders like you who try to use FUD and hype to manipulate the market get burned). If you think you can drive the price back down now with your comments, you are mistaken and also a huge gaping asshole


      Gee I wonder why you are in here talking shit.

It would seem that the market does not agree with your sentiment about this development, you can't argue against the market and guess what quite frankly nobody gives a shit about your singular opinion. From your posts it is obvious you are just a simple trader with no real interest in the underlying growth and value of Iconomi, Iconomi is not and should not be catering to your wants and desires but the wants and desires of actual investors that are interested and invested in the long term viability of this project.

Saying a specific altcoin is a scam because it has a hidden 82% premine is not the same thing as saying all altcoins are a scam lol you aren't too clever, are you?

Ah okay thanks. And I'm not going to defend Gleb's remarks aside from pointing out that if you are relying on ad hominems to discredit the rest of what he has said/is saying that does not bode well for you.

Everybody knows you are a shill, it's obvious beyond any reasonable doubt. Go along and keep reposting in blind admiration every single thing the qtum team shares in an attempt to cover up the plethora of scrutiny and criticism here. But be sure not to ask for proof of the ICO funds, as an investor you wouldn't want to ensure your investment is secure or anything like that  

Why are you NOT interested in the proof? If you want people to believe you invested in this project (and are not just a paid shill or secretly a team member) maybe you should act like any sane investor would act and demand a little (the bare minimum, really) transparency from the team?

Stackoverflow himself said that  "the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies"

They declare to have had a successful ICO but refuse to show proof of that. We are simply denying that claim, so the burden of proof does not fall on us.

Lol @ stackoverflow playing the race card. Is that really all you have left now? Please show one instance of me being racist, I guarantee you will find none in all of my post history.

Disgusting community indeed. But why would this be a surprise? Why would you ever expect a wholesome community to form around a scam  

Let's take a closer look at the qtum "community" here. It consists entirely of the qtum team, stackoverflow, BTCspace, their sockpuppet/shill accounts, and you (who I'm giving the benefit of the doubt and going to believe you might actually be just an innocent investor). The rest of us here are just here to try and warn unsuspecting people about this project and call the team out for their excessive shadiness and lack of basic transparency. So don't be surprised if things are a bit unruly in here. There is no real motivation or incentive for me to behave in a cordial manner when dealing with a scam and its purveyors. Qtum and its supporters ought to have more incentive to behave better, why they choose not to IDK it's almost like they don't actually care about the community here

Yeah except we were all here long before the WeTrust sig campaign ever started... Unlike you, with your 4 day old troll account.

And if ICN is a success the team would be foolish to sell their holdings off anyways, they could just retire one day off of the dividends.

Plus fewer and fewer people are willing to risk selling because news could break any day now.

I don't think you understand what proof means. This is crypto we are talking about, there is objective evidence on the blockchain and that is the only thing that can be trusted. Why should we trust exchanges controlled by the team themselves when we could rely on a trustless system to obtain our proof? It's so simple to do, and the fact you and the team are still fighting this is a gigantic red flag. This struggle you guys are putting up is equivalent to admittance. There is no reason for it except that you need to hide something.

My theory: The ICO did not raise anywhere near 15 mil, but you are going to pretend it did until release, because although you didn't raise 15 mil you have control of the vast majority of the coins because you "purchased" them from the exchanges under your own control. All you need to do is maintain some confidence in the coin until release, and then you can dump to make up for all the money you didn't raise in the ICO.

You could prove that wrong in an instant, but you don't because apparently you can't. And let me make one thing clear, until objective evidence of the ICO funds (the addresses) are shared with the community I will be in here alllllllll the way up until and past the launch making sure nobody who comes here forgets or is unaware that the team has failed to bear their burden of proof and provide this simple and standard degree of transparency that they themselves alluded to before the ICO.

Remember, your own words: "the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies"
Qtum declared a successful ICO, I am just denying it

And remember everybody this is a quote from stackoverflow: ""the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies"

And as we all know qtum is the one who declared a successful ICO, and I am only denying that
So according to stackoverflow himself I don't have to provide any proof to deny it, they are the ones that need to provide proof to confirm it.

I don't have to prove anything, because that's not how things are done around here. I can just say it is so and it is so. Pretty awesome!

Here's the address for qtum's ICO funds: https://blockchain.info/address/1DBiehhnU9xjq14spVxALsTjAEgH9BGmB (I can say whatever I want and post it as truth without providing any proof just like the qtum team has done, because that is how reality works in their world)

Even less than I thought!     

I don't need to wish, it is evident based on the logic you outlined yourself. Not my words, yours. Sorry the ICO was such a failure.

Is that all I got, or are you just retarded? Because if you knew how to read you would notice there is more there than just name calling in my post. On the other-hand, all you have are these pathetic attempts to deflect.

Whatever, as you already said youself: the burden of proof lies on qtum. They haven't provided it. Therefore, the ICO must have been a complete failure. SAD!

LOL show me the "data" you speak of. There is only one type of data that can serve as evidence and that is the data on the blockchain. That is exactly what I am asking for, the data- the addresses which show proof of the funds. It's so simple. Just how dumb are you? How dumb do you think observers to this thread are?

Pick what proof I want? There is only one proof you imbecile and it hasn't been provided. LMAO.

Thanks for admitting you are a lying hypocrite. You can't apply your logic of "the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies" only when it suits you but not when it doesn't. No matter how hard you try you can't deny it, those are your own words.  And they are the ones declaring a successful ICO, I am only denying that. So according to your own statement they are the ones that bear the burden of proof. If you try to deny that, you are demonstrating that you are incapable of adhering to your very own statements and logic. Meaning you are a lying hypocrite that can't be trusted.