I think it is worth pointing out here that studies have shown that close to 97% of ICOs end up failing for whatever reason. This means that if you buy into an ICO, your chances of it going anywhere are about 3 percent. The odds are better than the lottery, but not reassuring by any means. I've invested in a few ICOs (sadly, I am the 97%) and read many whitepapers. The problem is that you can't tell by reading the whitepaper how much of the claims are based on actual development vs. how much of them are based on hopes and dreams, but presented as if they were a simple matter to accomplish. So you have to read the whitepaper with a very critical eye and you have to ask lots of questions. And you shouldn't buy in until your questions have been answered in a meaningful way. Most of the projects have chat groups so accessibility is usually not an issue. If your questions are not being addressed, that is important information for you in making your decision. I could write a whole lot more about it, and have. I would like to point you to an article I wrote recently where I analyze a particular whitepaper and point out the many questions I would want answered before I invested. I do not believe the particular ICO in question to be an outright scam, as in the people are sincere. The overall question, though, is "can they deliver?" https://steemit.com/ico/@wiser/a-critical-look-at-an-ico-whitepaperEnjoy the read. It might save you some money down the road if you apply the information and continue to educate yourself on what due diligence really means. |
|
|
|
Thank you for supporting my posts. I was very active in forums, but then my account was compromised. I managed to lock the account to prevent the hacker from doing anything mischievous, but haven't been able to get it restored since. I have messaged admins, but get no response. The NEM thread which I was previously active on has since fallen behind in receiving adequate updates - which I would like to continue doing, but hate the thought of starting over with a new account. Especially since my locked one is using the username I use in all cryptocurrency circles. Now I have reached the point where I wish to make an announcement thread for a NEM project, but unless my account is unlocked, I would be doing so with 0 active account with no merit.  I don't mean to hijack your thread as a means to my ends (getting account unlocked) - I DO support the idea of you being a merit source. I have read countless posts of yours over the years, and you have continuously proven to be sensible, moderated, and not prone to irrational behavior. Thank you for the support and I'm really sorry your account got hacked. I don't mind you posting here. It bumps my thread and can only help, right? I haven't gotten any response and I even messaged theymos to point him to this thread. It's possible that they already have all the merit sources they need for now. If you want to start any threads with your new account and would like me to comment on them, feel free to PM me links. I'll be happy to check them out and comment. It helps me too. |
|
|
|
BTC hit $20K at the end of last year so it's certainly possible. I would take these predictions with a grain of salt. It is likely that more people will be getting involved in cryptocurrencies, but there's no guarantee it will be BTC. BTC is actually clunky and hard to use in comparison to other coins out there. The key for NEM or any coin is to figure out what it's going to take for the uninitiated to start using your coin, and then deliver. Whichever project manages to do that first will be sitting mighty pretty.
Thomas Lee
@fundstrat
CRYPTO: #Consensus2018, organized by @Coindesk, impact on crypto market will be much larger in 2018, given the sheer increase in expected attendance. 2017 was +1,250 additional attendees but 2018 should see +4,250 additional. 3x the impact... next week an interesting week
Thomas Lee, Managing Partner and Head of Research at Fundstrat Global Advisors, has accurately predicted the price of bitcoin for several years. His latest prediction is a year-end target price of $25,000 and a price of $91,000 by March 2020. Lee’s analysis incorporates Metcalfe's Law, which states that the value of a network is the square of the number of its users, and bitcoin’s potential to become a substitute asset for gold, among other factors. “I think this next generation of young people view bitcoin as their store of value. And if it captures 5 percent of the gold market, it's worth at least $25,000 per unit,” Lee told Business Insider in an interview in October. Ronnie Moas, founder of Standpoint Research, predicts that the price of bitcoin will hit $28,000 in 2018 and believes that its value will eventually rise to $300,000 - $400,000. Moas bases his price prediction on the limited supply of bitcoin facing potentially unlimited demand, which could push the price of bitcoin to never-before-seen highs, among other factors. "I don't know how much gold there is in the ground, but I know how much bitcoin there is, and in two years there will be 300 million people in the world trying to get their hands on a few million bitcoin. This mind-boggling supply and demand imbalance is what is going to drive the price higher," Moas said. Of course one may argue that Fundstrat Global Partners benefits from Lee’s high profile and his outspoken views on cryptocurrency valuations. However, the success or failure of his company nor his career does not depend on the future performance of cryptocurrencies like bitcoin. The same goes for Ronnie Moas and his company, Standpoint Research. source: https://bravenewcoin.com/news/when-it-comes-to-bitcoin-price-predictions-who-should-you-believe/ |
|
|
|
I appreciated the read. I actually find comparisons with other coins helpful. The part that may be more difficult to sort out in judging other projects, though, is how much claimed development has actually taken place vs. how much is still basically an unfulfilled dream (aka hype). Alan Yong and DNotes tend to err on the side of understating, so hype is very low here. But when you start digging into all the various building blocks of what will soon be a thriving DNotes ecosystem, you start to feel like you won the lottery every time you are able to buy these coins at a few cents each. I'm going to be moving some BTC over to Cryptopia to get in on the action on Saturday. Hopefully the price stays organic and doesn't get overpumped by all the enthusiasm! I asked this question a couple of months back and I wanted to share with you the answer that got me hooked on DNotes. They are professional and business oriented and will be leading the way in this industry real soon. Enjoy! If someone was to ask you what is the difference between you and Nano what would the answer be? Their slogan is: Digital currency for the real world – the fast and free way to pay for everything in life. Instant transactions Zero fees Infinitely scalable I can see the obvious differences with the EDU, Vault, CRISP, etc. what I'm asking is deeper. You got Nano, Dash, Zcash, etc. all claiming to be internet money of the future. What makes DNotes unique? and how does DNotes strive to gain the trust of the world when others are out there succeeding and thriving already? These questions were brought to me at work by someone when I was talking about DNotes? My excitement with all that is coming up in the next couple of months was too much for him to bare. So he asked this question and said ask your people that. He said what there needs to be is a crpytocurrency that will have a debit card available to the user that can be used anywhere and for anything, with the Crypto company that considers themselves money for the world to be able to instantly do the transaction and conversion to Fiat and deduct from your wallet or account so it can really be considered money for the world. He looked at DNotes website and said WOW a bank for cryptocurrency, at least that is what it looks like they are trying to do (saving, Investment, etc.). If DNotes doesn't get excepted around the world in the future then maybe he is on to something so the future on DNotes never dies it adapts to what the world will let it do within the regulations and the capabilities of modern technology. I know you don't like to compare yourself with other coins, but it is unfortunately the situation we are all in. People want to know but are afraid to ask. Trying to find the right coin to invest in. Research in done but sometimes it's the words of the Dev and the founders that complete the deal. This guy has no coins at all but has a lot of questions like this. Very reluctant to invest. I have one coin, DNotes!!! So therefore I am reluctantly asking for him and will give him your answer. He is a good friend and I told him I would ask and am trying to help him with investing in his future. He looked up some coins and then hit me with this. Thank you for assisting me with this. I think their might be a new customer soon after I provide your answer.  Thank you. Hey Chezzz, thanks for the great question! To me, there are several key differences, mostly relating to project mission scope, business model, and business approach -- all factors that influence the success probability of bringing digital money into an everyday reality. I'll use the three coins that you provided as examples: Nano is a cryptocurrency that differentiates itself by claiming "infinite scalability" (by removing the blocksize, and organising the chain into a lattice structure). It's an interesting project (not dissimilar to IOTA), but it does not solve any computer science problem at this time. The Nano whitepaper acknowledges that the network could be hammered with spam transactions, and forced into centralization. Just like IOTA, Nano offers fast and free transactions, in exchange for risking security and decentralization (at least in the short-term). Nano is standalone software, and has no growth model based on reinvested profits. Dash is also aiming to be a digital cash of the future, and it differentiates itself with a bunch of interesting features: (relatively) anonymous sending, instant sending (with fewer confirmations on the network), mobile wallet features, community voting for new upgrades, and even a few merchants etc. Some of these features will be implemented by DNotes. Dash is supported by a foundation that is funded by payments from the network itself (10% taxes on the network block reward), and the foundation distributes these funds to freelancers (and others) to assist with development. You can research yourself about the drama surrounding Dash's beginnings, and make a decision for yourself whether you would purchase a used car from them, regardless of how well their coin is doing now. This issue led to PIVX being created -- a clone of Dash, but without the 'contentious' beginnings. Zcash is a third example of a digital cash, and they differentiate themselves by researching and implementing a privacy feature on their coin that is a dramatic improvement on that of Dash, and a huge contribution to the engineering / scientific community. Zcash is supported by a foundation, but 10% of the coins that are produced are to be taxed and given to their investors that funded the research on ZK-Snarks (privacy tech), carried out by Zcash. Essentially, users trade and build value into Zcash (which is also a private company that released a cryptocurrency), and the founders take 10% of all coins produced in the first 4 years. This has led other spinoff projects to copy Zcash's code, but release without the 10% founder reward. All of the above coins want to be the cryptocurrency of the future, and all three of them are thriving in price much more than DNotes is right now -- they're also further along their 'core currency development' than we are. That said, they have a very different outlook than DNotes does in terms of how to actually achieve mass adoption. Because despite whatever the price of what each of those currencies may be, none of them are any further along in preparing for mainstream adoption than DNotes is. DNotes is a digital cash that is supported by a wider integrated business ecosystem that helps to drive DNotes' value through shared equity between it and the currency, and usefulness where each business property in the ecosystem works in some way to integrate with the real world of commerce to gain mainstream adoption. These business properties may be news websites, secure online storage facilities, business books, business consulting services, crowdfunding, blockchain application that run on the DNotes blockchain, exchanges, fiat gateways, merchant banks, debit cards, insurance companies, internet companies, mobile products -- whatever makes sense for DNotes to integrate into its system to make work seamlessly with DNotes. DNotes is not JUST a digital currency, but a blockchain solution platform, and wide array of business entities that support the currency. The success of the ecosystem around DNotes, helps to build DNotes further by reinvesting profits earned through business activities. This is all carried out with a particular business philosophy that ensures the maximum chance of success of reaching our goal of mass acceptance. To do the right things, the right way, at the right time -- because if anybody else had followed exactly this thus far, you'd already be able to easily use cryptocurrency at your nearest coffee shop; to build our ecosystem block-by-block in a structured manner (because there is no rush when being the best is what will ultimately make you the winner, and there is only so far you can go until you must deal with factors outside of your control); and to operate with trust and integrity -- which is truly unique in our industry. We do not pump and dump, we do not overpromise, nor make false claims. We make claims once our projects are "near completion", or "when we have it" -- which can be contrasted with just about any modern projects or ICO that you see where a ridiculous number of claims are posted all over the website regarding what differentiates the projects, but in reality all they are, are 'claims' that haven't even entered development stage, and won't be ready for 1-3 years. This is true of most major currencies. The true test is what is 'available' for use right at this minute, and not the claims posted all over their website. Hype is a major thing in the cryptocurrency industry. For example, there is a coin in the top 10 that is worth billions, which DNotes is building all the same stuff (and more), and will likely release most of it sooner, but alas, this is cryptocurrency - ICO hype can drive a lot of attention, but trading values are set by speculators, and are currently not at all indicative of thriving success at becoming a mainstream currency (otherwise that coin with no working product couldn't be worth billions). Excellent, Tim. Very well said. |
|
|
|
To give people more incentive to do stuff, I want to give authority to CTYA, develCuy, and Markm to hand out up to 12 shares each. They would each have the authority to hand out shares for people who helped their fields, without having to specifically ask for permission on the thread. This means people who do something could get paid faster, without the extra time and thread clutter of asking for each bounty or payment on the thread.
CTYA could hand out up to 12 shares per round to people who help get an exchange; develCuy could hand out up to 12 shares per round to people who help with either Steemit or coding devcoin. Markm could hand out up to 12 shares per round to people who help with either his exchange or Open Transactions.
Also CTYA would get 20 shares per round into an account, which he would convert to popular cryptocoins by some means like Markm's exchange, to offer to exchanges in return for listing devcoin. Basically, once he had crypto saved up from that account, he'd send another message to exchanges who didn't outright reject devcoin telling them there's now an extra payment for listing devcoin.
They've all agreed to do this. If anyone becomes corrupt and starts giving away shares for no reason, which I do not expect at all, then that person would lose their share authority. Any objections?
I think this is a great idea. No objections from me. Here is another exchange to apply to. https://www.nlexch.com/coinlisting |
|
|
|
not holding out a lot of hope for coinscontrol - based in India and they just had a crackdown. Also think the dev(s?) may be in over his head
It's an all too common tale with these random exchanges. Looks like we need to go shopping for another exchange. |
|
|
|
That was a very straightforward wallet update. Thanks for making it easy  Glad to hear! It is a simple process. After the update block it can get slightly more complicated, but still an easy process. Anyone who updates prior to Monday 8PM CST, doesn't have to worry about it though. So I could have waited to do it today. I missed an exact time for the update block so I did it last night just to be sure. So I stayed up an extra three minutes past my bedtime for nothing LOL. Banter aside, my point is that it's very easy to update the wallet because you download it in its already installed and ready to run form. That is a really nice feature, actually. |
|
|
|
When do you expect DMD to reach $16 again?
If you ask me, my forecast is before June. It is the time to see all crypto market take off. That would be seriously awesome if you're right! |
|
|
|
Recently I am watching a growth graph from last year's spring, to be honest it is very impressive. This graph I have not seen. This coin has grown almost constantly, even after the new year to January. It is a good coin. I see what you meant after spending a couple of seconds to look at Diamond historical price chart: Personally, the next transitional station of Diamond will be $16. https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/diamond/When do you expect DMD to reach $16 again? |
|
|
|
That was a very straightforward wallet update. Thanks for making it easy |
|
|
|
Wow, the price of DevCoin is very low. Well, we can first store some. I believe that when the market improves, it will skyrocket.
I don't believe there are any open markets for DVC right now. The price is most likely an artifact from the last time you could trade it. |
|
|
|
Wow! What an article. A lot of white papers are simply an extended description of a "great idea". The price of a cup of coffee - may be, But $47 million is a little too rich for my taste, even if they accept US investors. Thanks! That is a really good point, actually. And a great idea is a good start, but then it needs a lot more to make it reality. It reminds me of how I was as a parishioner at my church about twelve to fifteen years ago. At that time I was full of great ideas that I felt strongly about--things I thought the leaders at the church should do, philosophies to hold, etc., and I wasn't shy about sharing them. Then I got a paid position at my church and about three years into it I saw a way to completely overhaul the program I was directing to make it way better. I pitched the idea to my boss, who said great, pitch it to the parish council, who said give us your budget. So I came up with a budget (I had to learn fast) and pitched it to them again. They gave me the funding and said make it happen. Then I was like, uh oh, what did I just get myself into? I realized that having actual power (and funds!) to carry out an idea is a lot tougher than being a fountain of ideas that you hope someone else will implement. My program overhauling plan is going well, but it has proven to be a lot of work and with many challenges along the way. But it's been more rewarding than just throwing out ideas too. Back to DNotes and ICOs, I have actually learned a lot from reading about the Reg A+ mini IPO process. I read Laura Anthony's explanation earlier today and that was very eye opening, especially the list of documentation that needs to be provided just to be able to raise $50 million. It seems like a lot to go through (hence the complaints about "oppressive US regulations") but 50 million dollars is a lot of money! It really makes sense to have to demonstrate competence and responsibility in managing it before just going off and raising it from unsuspecting investors. What a helpful, informative analysis, wiser!
Honestly, the article shows me lots of interesting things, which I have not thought about before reading this one.
Please keep up your good works for Dnotes community, wiser.
Thanks. I think we don't tend to think about these things that start to seem obvious once you become aware, because deep down we feel like we already know. I thought I knew how to do due diligence. I figured it meant reading over the promotional literature and if I didn't see any glaring holes it was OK. But you have to kind of think about the system that would have to be set up to actually make what they propose happen, and that's when you start to see how broad some of the assumptions are and how vast the ambition really is. In the case of the Worbli ICO, I mean, is it realistic to think you can build a full service financial system in 18 months with a blockchain (that you still have to run a testnet on), customers, and everything? It's not like you just go down to Wal-Mart and buy a bank. Then you're like, wait a minute! |
|
|
|
With all the talk about the issues with ICOs, here's one that might be interesting to analyze for educational purposes. At first glance it looks like a competitor of DNotes Coin and DNotes Global. I'd be genuinely curious to know what you guys think. I'm not asking about whether it would be a good investment (I have my own concerns). I'm thinking of it as a real world example. It's an ICO. There's a website, a whitepaper (that seems thorough), and a team that consists of people with some real world experience. What would be the things you would tell people to probe more deeply? Do you see any immediate red flags (I mean, besides that it's an ICO and we don't like ICOs around here)? Here's the whitepaper: https://worbli.io/whitepaper/index.htmlEdit: After reading this article about mini IPOs, I'm starting to realize that it's a lot less productive than I thought to analyze individual ICOs. Just one quick example. One of the documents you have to produce if you want to go the mini IPO route is two years of financial statements to show that your company already knows how to spend money wisely and use it to make more money. So this ICO wants to raise $47,000,000 all at once with no prior history as a company (hence no previous financial statements). Maybe it might be better for them to raise a small amount (like $100,000) through crowdfunding and then use those funds to build out the first pieces and kind of prove themselves that way. Funny how easy that is to miss. I'm sure there are other examples and maybe I'll write a Steemit piece about that, but honestly, just taking a few minutes to carefully read through the legal process, and suddenly all those questions you forget to ask of an ICO become glaringly obvious. I just took a very superficial look at it. You mentioned a couple of the necessities of any project but here are a couple of other things I look for - they have no social media presence at all. No followers, no Tweets. In my opinion, it's never too soon to start building your follower base, even just one person at a time, even just beginning conversations with people. What are they waiting for? They need some advisors, some people with global connections and big picture perspectives if they want to compete on a global scale. If they don't have any I wonder why not. And they want to build on EOS? It's not even ready yet. So, they want to raise $47 million with no proof that they can handle any amount of money at all, to build an ERC20 token that they will eventually turn into an EOS token (because EOS is currently an ERC20 token itself), assuming that EOS will work swimmingly when it comes out this summer. And then they can begin to build and market their product. That's a lot to ask for. But that's the environment we've been in. I would think there would be a different standard this year, but I'm afraid that a lot of new people are going to come into crypto this year and they're going to bring in last year's standards. It won't end well for many of them. Sorry, I'm a little pessimistic. I look at coins, assets, and ICO's everyday and most don't meet basic business standards. And way too many are actual scams. I looked at one yesterday that wants to raise $200 million and they don't even have a website. Well, technically they did, it was a single blank white page with their logo on it. I guess they need some funds first to build it. As a real world example, I usually ask if there are already other projects that are already doing any of the things they talk about and are maybe much farther ahead of them. In this case, we can surely think of one! Honestly, I did not know that EOS is itself an ERC20 token. I never bought EOS though I heard people saying good things about it. When the whitepaper said build on the EOS block chain I assumed there already is an EOS block chain and it just needs some tweaking to be available for other projects to build their own EOS block chains. I wanted to know why issue an ERC20 token now rather than wait until they could just start right off with an EOS token. It turns out that at this point there is no such thing, so they're building a technology on top of a technology that doesn't yet exist. Interesting. As for asking if there are existing solutions, I can tell you that if you want to build your own block chain and its own token you can pretty much do that right out of the box with NEM (though it's not like I personally have tried). So, I guess I would have to question why pin so much on a yet nonexistent block chain. Maybe this kind of discussion *is* productive. People like me who aren't as well versed in the tech often miss those details... |
|
|
|
ICOs will continue to have serious issues with much confusion for some time. Meanwhile, there will always be people who are ready to exploit the situation. I did a quick read of the white paper. Another interesting idea, but few good ideas are worth more than the cost of a cup of coffee.
I probably have 3 or 4 good ideas every day. That should at least keep me stocked up on coffee, right? |
|
|
|
Without attempting to speak for everyone, we aren't exactly against ICO's, the proposition and value they can add to the world is quite amazing. With the right guidance in place, and if it can be done properly, we intend to incorporate ICO's into our model. With that said, many of the ICO's are just not doing things properly and with consumer protection in mind.
Technically speaking, an ICO simply means that your fundraising token happens to be on a block chain, and of course there is nothing wrong with that. I think the fact that many of them are not being issued rightly speaks to the problems they are causing. People/entities love ICOs because they are easier to do than going through the rigmarole of registering and issuing a security, and apparently easier than crowdfunding as well. But therein lies the problem. Some of the "rigmarole" is actually very important for consumer protection. And if not required, people issuing ICOs may not take the time to figure out and voluntarily do all those consumer protection things. I'm not talking about the outright scams which intentionally defraud people, but more, those sincere ones which simply do not know what they're doing, quite frankly. With that said, I'm not any more a fan of regulatory bureaucracy than anyone else. Ideally, the industry can self-regulate where it is considered right to check certain boxes when running your ICO, but we don't need the government necessarily to make sure that happens. I think the part in the DNotes Global plan where other companies can issue tokens on the DNotes block chain but only after being carefully vetted and selected by DNotes Global and then being mentored along in the process is one interesting way to make that happen. |
|
|
|
I don't think the Russian authorities have a very good grasp on what to look for in a legitimate ICO or how to identify the bad actors. Their advice really isn't any different than that given by self-serving promoters of shady projects. I agree that team member credibility is extremely important. It's too bad the definition of credibility has become so distorted in this industry. "A startup conducting a coin offering will be judged by several criteria, including the credibility of its team members, Izvestia reported. RACIB will verify if the company has a website with information about previous projects. The association will check for a white paper and a roadmap for the ICO. Startups will be expected to announce a minimum rate of return of the investments."Half of the ICO Money in Russia Went to Pyramids - https://news.bitcoin.com/half-of-the-ico-money-in-russia-went-to-pyramids/Chase, thanks for sharing. Unfortunately, the state of confusion surrounding ICOs is a serious global problem, not limited to the Russian. I am coming across those challenges everyday - including professionals who should know better. When the dust finally settled, many will understand why DNotes has been travelling down a uniquely different path than the rest of the industry. ICOs will remain to be very damaging to our industry. Unfortunately, as long there is a high demand it will continue. Reading through this article gives me an idea, because honestly I really don't like being barred from making some investments because I'm a non-accredited investor. At the same time, I recognize those limitations are meant to protect and having a certain income level or net worth is one way to prove that you have some financial know-how. My idea is that you have a system where accredited investor income or net worth levels can be waived by the applicant opting instead to complete and show proficiency in some financial literacy and investment courses. If you have very little income or net worth, then you might be required to complete more training before you can be considered "accredited." I know there isn't really a formal process by which one becomes an accredited investor, but I do know that companies seeking to raise funds have some responsibility in making sure their investors do have sufficient income and net worth before they sign the sale of stock contracts. It would be cool if they could also check for education levels and have some confidence that this lower middle class guy who wants to put in only $5,000 actually does know what he's doing and so it's really OK to give him a chance at the risk and the profits of being an early shareholder. |
|
|
|
With all the talk about the issues with ICOs, here's one that might be interesting to analyze for educational purposes. At first glance it looks like a competitor of DNotes Coin and DNotes Global. I'd be genuinely curious to know what you guys think. I'm not asking about whether it would be a good investment (I have my own concerns). I'm thinking of it as a real world example. It's an ICO. There's a website, a whitepaper (that seems thorough), and a team that consists of people with some real world experience. What would be the things you would tell people to probe more deeply? Do you see any immediate red flags (I mean, besides that it's an ICO and we don't like ICOs around here)? Here's the whitepaper: https://worbli.io/whitepaper/index.htmlEdit: After reading this article about mini IPOs, I'm starting to realize that it's a lot less productive than I thought to analyze individual ICOs. Just one quick example. One of the documents you have to produce if you want to go the mini IPO route is two years of financial statements to show that your company already knows how to spend money wisely and use it to make more money. So this ICO wants to raise $47,000,000 all at once with no prior history as a company (hence no previous financial statements). Maybe it might be better for them to raise a small amount (like $100,000) through crowdfunding and then use those funds to build out the first pieces and kind of prove themselves that way. Funny how easy that is to miss. I'm sure there are other examples and maybe I'll write a Steemit piece about that, but honestly, just taking a few minutes to carefully read through the legal process, and suddenly all those questions you forget to ask of an ICO become glaringly obvious. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
