If it only were about the trust of own Investors it would probably be possible. But it's not just about that. I don't want to imply it's 100% impossible but in my opinion it's this way:

The PR-Stunt didn't have just short time impact. Savedroid often apologized for the "hard time" they gave their Investors, referring to the 24 hours they pretended to be vanished. That's nothing compared to the longterm impact especially on the own brand and therefore on the way this project is seen by the public. The study they are fighting now is just one example and interestingly they seem to see this study as overly damaging, but in my opinion there is some dishonesty in play here. The difference is not that the study is more damaging than all the articles that are out there anyway. The difference is that the study can be attacked (because it's inaccurate) while the articles are a direct result out of their own actions. But all the articles are as bad for their reputation as the study - the study is not more meaningful. At the same time, even if inaccurate - also the study is a result of their own actions and while it's right to set the record straight it's stupid to publicly threat with legal actions.

What I try to say here is: I believe the team has not learned much. There is a lack of ability to anticipate community and public reaction and they don't seem to understand how much they show with moves like that. That problem is not just about the future SVD price and not just short term. In my opinion that is a fundamental problem.

Yesterday was published an interesting article about the ETF:

SOURCE: Bitcoin ETF ‘Nearly Certain’ To Win Approval Later This Year   


(...)

Our most optimistic source, coming from the CFTC, said the following, “I would call it 90% at this point. The crypto markets have moderated and regulators have watched the lack of drama surrounding Bitcoin futures across several global exchanges. The price moderation and adoption of a ‘peer product’ is what the conversations have centered around. In January we were justifiably concerned about a bubble and the harm a quickly approved product could attract speculators and create losses that led to significant lawsuits. Now, those factors seem to be mitigated significantly.”

The second source, a former SEC employee who left the regulator two weeks ago, had this to say, “I would expect a positive outcome in September – or if it gets strung out a little further it is simply a few ‘dotted i’s and crossed t’s’ are being finalized on larger regulatory language in the crypto space. To be clear, most of the regulation will be first focused on ICO’s and the issues those pose for retail investors at the moment. US residents are sending money to all sorts of exotic locations to invest in unregulated instruments with absolutely zero recourse for losing every cent they’ve put at risk. ICO regulation will begin to solve those issues and keep client assets ‘onshore’.

(...)

https://theicojournal.com/source-bitcoin-etf-nearly-certain-to-win-approval-later-this-year/


Unsure of course if the article is reliable and if they write the truth it's still unsure if the sources are reliable and/or know enough. But a positive sign at least...

Ich glaube nach wie vor, dass Savedroid wegen des PR-Stunts eher das Problem haben könnte, dass Börsen sie sofort ablehnen.

Aber, auch falls ich mich irren sollte und das kein Problem sein sollte oder zumindest nicht mehr,  unterliegt Yassir m.A.n. einem Denkfehler. Er sagte ja eigentlich in allen AMA's seit dem PR-Stunt (vorherige kenne ich nicht und den v. gestern auch nicht) dass ihm die Preise noch zu hoch seien. Normalerweise kombiniert er das Argument der hohen Preise mit dem Argument das Geld könne besser für Marketing eingesetzt werden (glaube er benutzte oft das Wort "Usergrowth").

Und sicher, man kann das so sehen. Aber ein gutes Listing und wenn eine große Börse auf Twitter verkündet "We will list...... today!", dann ist das Marketing und Usergrowth. Die großen Börsen haben ja mittlerweile Millionen von Usern und es gibt kaum einen besseren Weg als User an ein Projekt zu binden als jenes das sie den jeweiligen Token kaufen - was sie sehr oft tun BEVOR sie sich informieren, wenn die Preis-Entwicklung gut ist.

Die allermeisten kommen nicht durch Recherche/Analyse eines Projekts und dessen Qualität zu einer Preis-Einschätzung, sondern umgekehrt: Sie glauben an Qualität wenn der Preis steigt und sie glauben ein Projekt sei Mist wenn der Preis fällt, sehr oft ohne jegliches Kontext-Wissen.

Die Savedroid-Situation ist m.A.n. deshalb schon ziemlich negativ zu bewerten. Der Token war durch das ICO sehr hoch bewertet und ich glaube nicht das der Preis halten würde, selbst auf einer wirklich guten Börse. Der PR-Stunt und alles was folgte hat nicht nur zu schlechter Stimmung und Erhöhung der Zahl derer geführt die verkaufen wollen, sondern auch zur Erhöhung der Zahl jener die Savedroid jetzt zwar kennen (wie ich z.B.), aber SVD eher nicht anfassen werden. Wenn SVD jetzt auf kleinen Börsen gelistet wird, dann könnte der Preis zuerst mal hart fallen und dann ev. auch noch illiquide sein, so dass mit wenig Volumen gehandelt werden wird. Das würde SVD unattraktiv für User und größere Börsen machen und Yassirs Argument der hohen Preise... das wird sich ja nicht ändern. Die Listing-Preise werden vermutlich sogar eher wieder anziehen sollte sich der Markt jetzt ins Positive drehen. Heißt unterm Strich: SVD kommt möglicherweise gar nicht auf eine der guten Börsen.

Very interesting and well written blog post by Courtney Roberts – Digital Communications Manager at Factom:



Not all Blockchains are created equal: the Factom difference


(...)

In particular, there are a few main things that makes our technology unique:

• Scalability: We are not limited by a certain number of transactions per second. Our blockchain is built to handle high transaction volumes with ease.
  
• Predictable cost: Our two token system means the transaction cost to write entries to the blockchain is fixed. In other words, Factoids do not buy entries into the blockchain as they would in typical cryptocurrency models. Rather, Factoids are burned to create Entry Credits, which purchase fixed amounts of data in Factom. The price of Entry Credits are fixed, so the cost of entry is predictable and not dependent on the fluctuating price of a coin.
  Unlike a cryptocurrency, Entry Credits are non-transferable, and can be treated as a product instead of a currency. This is great for institutions who choose not to use cryptocurrency. The cost to use the system is based on usage, independent of the Factoid exchange rate.
  
• Speed and complexity: Our blockchain is built to handle data in complex formats. Through the use of chain IDs and the ability to create highly organized public, private or hybrid blockchains, our blockchain can fit your data - your data doesn’t have to exist in a certain format to be benefitted by our blockchain solution. Another way we do this is by publishing just the hash of a particular data set (along with its corresponding metadata), proving only its complete existence at a specific time. In doing this, we don’t add extra unnecessary data to clog up the blockchain, which in turn allows the network to run faster.
  Specifically with those wishing to do large volumes of transactions, Factom also has a theme tracking capability called Chain IDs. Linking related pieces of a data together allows you to chain together data you care about and forget the rest of the data set, no matter when the distributed data was entered. Unlike the Bitcoin Blockchain that requires you to download all of the data you entered over time to prove any of the data, Factom allows you to prove your data set without needing every one of your data entries in Factom. You can simply recall the data you want with a Chain ID.
  
• Speed and complexity: Our blockchain is built to handle data in complex formats. Through the use of chain IDs and the ability to create highly organized public, private or hybrid blockchains, our blockchain can fit your data - your data doesn’t have to exist in a certain format to be benefitted by our blockchain solution. Another way we do this is by publishing just the hash of a particular data set (along with its corresponding metadata), proving only its complete existence at a specific time. In doing this, we don’t add extra unnecessary data to clog up the blockchain, which in turn allows the network to run faster.
  Specifically with those wishing to do large volumes of transactions, Factom also has a theme tracking capability called Chain IDs. Linking related pieces of a data together allows you to chain together data you care about and forget the rest of the data set, no matter when the distributed data was entered. Unlike the Bitcoin Blockchain that requires you to download all of the data you entered over time to prove any of the data, Factom allows you to prove your data set without needing every one of your data entries in Factom. You can simply recall the data you want with a Chain ID.
  
• Factom is a public blockchain, you do not need any permission to write data to the public Factom Blockchain. If you are worried about private data being private, Factom Harmony can provide a private blockchain that then anchors into the public Factom Blockchain, for true decentralization. The information anchored in public view is done so with a hash that only the key holders know how to read. Because of these unique attributes, the Factom Blockchain Solution supports the real world in that business conditions are never static.

 (...)
 


Full article: https://www.factom.com/blog/blockchains-not-equal

Just checked comments on FB and replies on their Tweet... Seems to be near to 100% negative sentiment now:

https://twitter.com/savedroidAG/status/1019267474573938688

It doesn't walk - it's locked! ;-)


Will be interesting to see if he replies on it all. Not much if any positivity left how it seems...

But, I expect that they'll announce listing today and that trading might start soon, but without Top5. Next shitshow would start if it goes down like a stone what also can be expected.

Reply of Satis Group on Twitter:


1/5 Following the release of Satis Group's recent research https://bit.ly/2zznQOf  @savedroidAG has reached out to us and Twitter make some substantial and baseless allegations.

2/5 For those unfamiliar with the @savedroidAG drama on April 18, 2018 the company was involved in an elaborate scheme in which it pretended to commit an "exit scam"- running off with $50M in investor funds and resulting in a police investigation

3/5 Our research team wrestled with the question of whether a scam-of-a-scam is a scam and given it was on the scamlists at the time we pulled the data, did ultimately include @savedroidAG in the data.

4/5 Given that @savedroidAG does seem to be an ongoing project, we will change its categorization in future releases but we would note that four months after the Savedroid ICO it is still not trading and would at this point be approaching Failed or Gone Dead status.

5/5 This is an important reminder that the digital asset space is still in its infancy and trust and responsible behavior are crucial to its continued growth. It also plays to the old professional adage, which Mr. Hankir still hasn't learned: Don't be an idiot.
https://twitter.com/thesatisgroup/status/1019304810518990848

 

Oh boy... they are so bad in communication. The Tweet.... nothing wrong to say "we are no scam". But damn, it's so unbelievable stupid to come up with "We consider legal action against such libel causing FUD in and reputation loss of the savedroid ecosystem.".

Hey Savedroid-Masterminds. Some questions for you:


- Who put the "and it's gone pic" on your website?  
- Who pushed the "Thanks guys! Over and out ... #savedroidICO" - Tweet?
- Who wanted to "get users angry"?  
- Who rejected all questions of Investors for refund after your smart PR-Action?
- Who said the Top5 is securedin March to push the ICO?
- Who says "whereas the TOP5 exchange until now cannot yet be confirmed to be ready for listing at this specific listing date." now?  
- Who still holds own Investors in depression while already pumping another ICO?



And now you want threaten those with "legal action" who believed your shitshow? Google Savedroid - wouldn't it make sense also to sue Google because they still deliver the Scam-headlines that you wanted?

Damn, sue yourself first and instead of considering legal action against others, consider to refund those who ask for that since months and feel depressed already...

No, they are no scammers. But they've made several bad decisions, especially the PR-Stunt was terrible and the above is a result.

Problem really is that they've damaged trust how I've never seen it before in a project that is no scam. Will be very hard to heal...

I'm not totally sure what you mean. Antshares is some time ago. Is it about your ICO-address?

What you need is your private key. You can import it into the NEON-Wallet: https://github.com/CityOfZion/neon-wallet

Or other wallets: https://neo.org/client (I and many others prefer NEON)

Yes. A decision on August 10 is unlikely. On Reddit I've read today that it even could be extended into 2019.

Thing is: The market reacts on "hope". As long as ppl believe in the possibility of approval, a good price development is more likely than the opposite. Bad would be an early disapproval.

Prediction: That post will get a lot of upvotes. There must be thousands who feel the same.

Question is if they are able to get this on a good exchange or if not. It doesn't look good for sure and I don't believe all the reasons they've given in the past. If I would be invested: Short-term I would only look at sentiment. That's really bad for now and I don't expect that to change any time soon, but a high-volume/liqudity-exchange would help of course. At the same time: Even if the mood of the community would change it would need so much to change how Savedroid is seen by the general public. Whoever googles it finds the Scam-Headlines. The team underestimated how dangerous it was to play with that and I believe they still underestimate how hard it will be to regain trust and to be considered as reputable service and team.

A more interesting question is if this project could have longterm-potential and if the team has the competence to deliver. I personally don't believe in the use-case because I don't believe that there are many who would want to use Crypto to "safe money". Crypto attracts another kind of people and there are so many competitors out there, and even more will come, who make it easy and convenient to buy into Crypto. I don't see anything special in Savedroid, besides the "gamificiation-approach" with the smooves. But that also makes it expensive (15% fees for each action is a lot) while it doesn't provide much real use.

But, the use case and if ppl could find it attractive is something I don't know enough about. If I should be wrong it will need a lot of time to get traction - that is true for nearly all services (good exchanges may be an exception, like Binance). Considered that this team has near to zero experience in this space (Crypto), I believe that they are not able to anticipate technical problems as well and run into other kinds of trouble in the future.  

The problem out of Investor-perspective may be:

1) Short-term it's about sentiment and that is not good
2) Longterm it's about real/fundamental potential. Even in best case that would need some time
3) At the same time there are a lot of other opportunities, especially if the market should turn bullish

There is a shortage of excuses now. I wouldn't expect much until they have something new to say. Old "reasons" won't work anymore. Even with a top5 exchange I don't believe the price will keep it's ICO-price. In my opinion only one scenario could play out:

1) A new bull-market
2) Good exchange

If the CBOE-Bitcoin-ETF should get approval in August we could see another Bull-run, but I wouldn't bet on approval at the moment. In best case chances are 50/50 and even if, it's not that clear if it would help SVD. Plus: It's not totally clear that the SEC will decide in August, could also be September.

It's a quote from a study:

Although ~1/10th of all ICO fundraising went to Identified Scams, the vast majority of the $1.3B was from just
three projects, which were all relatively old school frauds by no means unique to ICOs (Pincoin ($660M),
Arisebank ($600M), and Savedroid (~$50M). These projects each did raise those amounts we believe but are
subject to extensive regulatory action. In particular, Arisebank was brought to a halt on January 25, 2018 by an the
SEC obtaining an emergency temporary restraining order, asset freeze, and other expedited relief to halt the ICO3 and is subject to extensive ongoing proceedings with the SEC. Savedroid, a Frankfurt, Germany based ICO, as of April was said to be subject to a preliminary investigation by the public prosecutor in Frankfurt4.
https://research.bloomberg.com/pub/res/d28giW28tf6G7T_Wr77aU0gDgFQ


In April it made headlines that German prosecutors would look into it. That is what the study refers to - it's another aftereffect on their PR-Stunt.

I believe there are some pretty big Investors. But I agree with abonarea regarding that they use "big Investors" as a term for excuses since it's very unlikely that big Investors 1) liked their PR-show, 2) agree with the way the team treats the community, 3) likes the way they handle the exchange-topic etc.

Thing is: Also big Investors usually are able to write and express their opinion and they could do it here or on Reddit or use Medium or whatever platform they prefer to explain their view on this. I've seen nobody. Again, that doesn't mean that there are no big Investors. It means that the constantly given story about "Big Investors liked the Scam-Stunt", "Big Investors want to wait a) for top5, b) for beta, c) until market recovers" is probably not true.

Five Female Rock Stars Leading the Crypto Scene in 2018

(...)

Rosemary O’Neill, Chief Marketing Officer, Narrative

O’Neill is the Chief Marketing Officer of Narrative, which is now launching its blockchain-based social network, where content creators and readers can monitor their own communities and receive revenues from the platform.

Before joining Narrative, she co-founded Social Strata, the company behind Hoop.la, a powerful online community platform used by brands such as Bose, Pinterest, and Pepsi.

O’Neill has more than 20 years of leadership in the online community space as an entrepreneur, writer, and speaker.

The Narrative platform gives users control of the communities they help create; they elect their own moderators, elect a ‘tribunal’ that functions like a Supreme Court and even decide which ads run on the platform.

Content management on Narrative is performed by moderators who are elected by the users themselves and all actions on the network are completely transparent.

(...)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/montymunford/2018/02/27/five-female-rock-stars-leading-the-crypto-scene-in-2018/#468214e75d13

The list of excuses becomes pretty long now. This is the Top5-story until now:


1. Top5-Announcement in March and during the ICO as "secured"

2. Problems with KYC

3. PR-Stunt and a lot of trouble as result - maybe/probably such a damage of reputation that exchanges reject them

4. Still problems with KYC and distribution

5. Savedroid claims, the Top5 is about to readjust the listing-requirements, therefore it will need a bit more time. But: The Top5 exchange still wants to list Savedroid and even for free!

6. Community-voting if to wait for the Top5 (4-6 weeks) or not. Result: A majority wants to wait. Another result is: Zero transparency and they admit that they've contacted Pre-Sale-Investors to vote after the voting was officially closed.

7. Additional argument: Bigger Investors want to wait for the Beta-Release

8. Beta is released but obviously the Top5 still didn't get their listing-requirements finished

9. Now, said during the last AMA: Actually they wouldn't want to wait for the Top5 anymore, so the voting result is also not important anymore. But especially big Investors (again) are concerned about the bear market. Funny is: The bear market is going on since January... but now it replaces all other "reasons" and made it on #1 on the excuse-list.


What is a known pattern: They often refer to big ticket buyers whenever they come up with excuses.

- Big Investors liked the PR-Stunt
- Big Investors want to wait for the top5
- Big Investors want to wait for the Beta
- Big Investors want to wait because of the market conditions



And what's kind of funny: They like to put it that way as if the big guys would be the smart ones. Small buyers "scream" and are loud... the bigger ones are the thinkers, calm and nice and strategic masterpieces. The big issue here is: How smart can it be to put much money into a hype-project like this?


What I said/asked shortly after the PR-Stunt was this:



In my opinion there are mainly two options with some probability:

1) There never was an agreement with a top5 exchange but they've just used the announcement to hype their ICO.
2) There was an agreement but the top5 rejected them after the PR-Stunt


What I find interesting is that they didn't just say they would have such an agreement but that they wouldn't have to pay anything for it - while later they constantly complained about high listing prices.

And what I didn't believe for a moment is the given argument that the top 5 exchange delayed the listing because of readjustments of their listing requirements.

I've invested a significant amount in this during their ICO - especially because it's a bit under the radar until now, therefore it was cheap. What I hope is, and I believe that could play out regarding timing: It could very well be that they start their platform into the start of next bull run.

But either way, exchanges that make things easier and reliable for the average guy will make an impact and Coinlion is one of a few players I consider to have a lot of potential.

tobson2 said on April 26:

1) Top5 is safe, didn't reject Savedroid after the PR-Stunt
2) Savedroid didn't/doesn't need to pay for it

Source (german): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2611692.msg35614895#msg35614895

But yes, hard to believe anything they've said about that topic.