You talk about US laws. But US highest laws this is constitution states that presidential candidate must be American also that issuing of legal currency can be done only by country not by private company like FED, that national currency should be backed by value and not created from thin air and that country can go on war only with congress permision.
So how can you talk about need to obey laws by common citizens while there in USA even constitution is violated on daily basis LOL There even isn't any legal president there... when law isn't obeyed on higher level than it is a joke not a law.
Is that your argument? "sigh" I'm not denying there are things that USA does that could be viewed in a negative light. What am I doing here? Im just trying to shine a light on what is happening here specifically with Ethereum There should be open discussion as to whether they are following proper procedures and regulations for an"IPO" of this size. You may feel secure now, but there have been millions of people that have been scammed and misled by companies trying to cash in with minimum transparency. There should be robust discussion on the merits of every single individual involved with this coin. At minimum you should be asking for the type of documents US law requires for a one million dollar crowdfunding. Business plan, list of all the parties with controlling interest, their role, background, how much they are getting paid and for what type of work, market competition, risk factors, etc..This is a request for 36 milion, NOT a few thousand. Any company that has the nerve to ask a bunch of strangers to invest 36 million should have theirs financials in order, provide a insurance that they are on compliance with all laws, etc..The fact that people can blindly and willingly defend the practice of requesting millions of dollars without any extensive due diligence or paperwork is mind-boggling at best. |
|
|
|
Ethereum (the company) is not offering any equity for sale, so I doubt they are afoul of any laws. They are asking for donations, and in exchange for donations they will be handing out widgets and wingdings. Those widgets and wingdings may or may not end up being worth any money. That's the risk you take.
FWIW, I'm seeing "$36 million" thrown around a lot in this thread. At today's BTC prices ($800), assuming Ethereum raises the maximum of 30,000 BTC, that would be $24 million.
The great thing about open source software is that anybody can modify it and create a "fork." Some people are suggesting that investors are fools, because as soon as the client is released, people will just fork a "free" version of the client and reap all the benefits. You're partially right...the client will undoubtedly be copied and forked by enterprising individuals. But hasn't the same thing happened to the bitcoin client? Yet the underlying value of "the real thing" hasn't diminished as a result.
On a side note, I've been lurking on this forum for months...I originally started mining LTC in December and then switched to middlecoin and began following that thread, which introduced me to bitcointalk.org. I was initially overwhelmed by the volume of information and helpfulness of the members, but then I noticed that many threads (especially the middlecoin thread) quickly devolved into flamewars. It's really sad to see a place with such potential devolve so quickly. It's like going to Wikipedia and searching for a topic, only to find that there's a 50/50 chance you'll be presented with vulgar bathroom graffiti instead of the article you wanted. With the current state of internet forums, it's a wonder that Satoshi himself wasn't flamed into oblivion before he even released the first line of code.
Donations...lol the way you are carefully choosing select choice words make it seem like they are trying the best they can to appear legal. I'm very confident they are breaking a ton of laws, I don't care how you want to phrase the investments. We all know what they are doing, what I'm asking anyone who wants to invest is where is all the transparency and why have they not filed with the SEC? There is a lot of suspicious behaviour and commenting going on in this message board. If someone came to your home and asked you to invest 200,000 and showed you a youtube video and a message board ad would you give it to him? No, fawk no you wouldn't, you want financials, business plan. background checks the whole nine yards. That's the minimum,. forget the fact that this is just another coin and there will be hundred more like this popping up every month until the crypto hype dies. What I want to know is why would anybody be against more disclosure, more information, detailed business plan, financials, background checks on these individuals. Who would argue against that for an entity that is trying to raise up to 36 million? Who would question the need for more transparency and compliance with regulations? Weird shit going on here. |
|
|
|
|
Under the proposed SEC rules, issuers who intend to conduct a crowdfunding offering are required to file certain information with the SEC and provide this information to investors, potential investors and the crowdfunding intermediary that they'll be using — there are many vying for dominance, but Kickstarter is a popular example.
In addition, an issuer — for our purposes, let's think of them as a startup company, but other groups will get involved — is required under the proposed rules to prepare and file a Form C on EDGAR (the Electronic Data-Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval system, which is used by those required by law to file forms with the SEC) before the offering commencement. Among other things, Form C requires the reporting to the SEC of the following:
information on the issuer, directors and officers, owners (if they own 20 percent or more of the issuer),
business plan,
intended use of proceeds,
targeted offering amounts,
offering price and how it was determined,
information about the intermediary being used,
and additional information set forth in the proposed rules.
The implementing rules also require disclosure of certain information not required by the JOBS Act, such as the number of current employees of the issuer, risk factors relating to the offering, the issuers of debt position and related party transactions, among other information.
The SEC's implementing rules follow the original statutory framework and require an equity crowdfunding issuer to provide the following financial information:
For offerings of $100,000 or less, US GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) financial statements for the two most recently completed fiscal years or shorter period during which the issuer has been operating as well as filed income tax returns for the most recently completed fiscal year.
This is the minimum information and filing that is required for companies requiring up to one million dollars only. These guys are asking for 36 million. LOL you have to file with the SEC and register as an IPO with all the proper disclosures to even think about it. You all should be asking MINIMUM the following questions US law requires for a minute one million dollar request of crowdfunding. Where is all this information? Something something devs revolution, they deserve to get paid for hard work is not going to cut it. These rules and laws are in place to prevent fraud and exactly this type of thing they are trying to pass onto everybody with zero transparency.
For offerings between $100,000 and $500,000, CPA reviewed US GAAP financial statements along with the CPA's review report; and for offerings over $500,000, CPA audited US GAAP financial statements.
An issuer, like a tech startup, would also be required to provide a narrative discussion of its financial condition covering, among other things, historic results of operations and liquidity and capital resources. In many respects, this is similar to a MD&A (Management Discussion and Analysis, which provides a narrative explanation, through the eyes of management, of how an entity has performed in the past, its financial condition, and its future prospects), but is not intended to be as lengthy or detailed.
The proposed regulations also require each issuer to do the following:
file with the SEC and post to its website an annual report within 120 days of the end of each fiscal year that discloses information about ongoing business and capital-raising activities.
In addition, issuers are restricted in their ability to advertise their crowdfunding offering only through a print or electronic notice containing specific limited information.
The notice must direct potential investors to the crowdfunding intermediary platform being utilized, where these investors could then access additional information about the offering.
However, under the proposed rules, there would be no restriction on an issuer's ability to communicate with investors or potential investors on the intermediary's platform, or make communications that do not refer to the terms of the offering. For example, an issuer can advertise its products or services so long as it does not refer to its crowdfunding offering in the advertisement.
The SEC's proposed rules clarify issues arising from the $1 million capital raise maximum prescribed by Congress in Title III of the JOBS Act as well as the per investor maximums. Under the proposed rules, only securities sold in the crowdfunding offering would count toward an issuer's $1 million capital raise maximum. The proposed rules also permit crowdfunding issuers to rely on the efforts of crowdfunding intermediaries to determine whether an investor has reached the per investor limits prescribed by Title III of the JOBS Act.
|
|
|
|
Right, because the sec has oversight authority over US citizens investing abroad  Who is to say they are incorporated in Canada? If they are smart they went through another jurisdiction. I still havent made up my mind on this project but your shameless shilling is annoying They're also not selling equity. They're selling digital coins on the Internet that have no inherent value. It's friggin' software. We also don't know what the exact offer is. If that's illegal, we need to shut down all of Bitcointalk. This gutshot5820 user is quoting random laws that have no application here and making wild threats to scare people - God only knows why. Well I'm going to call the US attorney's office anyways and we will see if they are filing the proper paperwork with the government to ask for 36 million. There is a BIG difference between letting miners mine a coin and buy and sell in a marketplace and advertising an IPO that requests up to 36 million with ZERO transparency. I would bet every bitcoin that I have that these guys are breaking a ton of laws in US and Canada. Why am I so upset? Because, I'm pretty sure these guys are breaking a ton of laws. When you are asking the joe public for 36 million dollars, I don't care if its in equity or coins and advertising it as an IPO. There better be a ton of transparency as to where who and how and what. Every detail should not go uncovered and you are lackadaisically saying that its ok, there is nothing wrong with that, these are good devs they should be paid....something something revolution blah blah blah. Well, I think there is something entirely wrong with that. |
|
|
|
|
According to US law the maximum this company can raise is in crowdfunding is one million. Their alternative is Regulation A and allows for up to 50 million and is required to fully register with the SEC and have full and detailed disclosure.
On top of all this, Ethereum is trying to pass this off as an offical IPO. They are probably breaking multitudes of laws with the SEC, that directly has restrictions placed on these types of offerings in order to prevent fraud. Anyone that asks for 36 million from the public without filing the proper paperwork with USA and Canada law is operating illegally. This is a free market, but rules are in place to protect the average joe from fraudsters that try to avoid transparency at all costs.
|
|
|
|
According to US Law, you can't just offer a crowdfunding of this type without filing the proper legal paperwork. This is a free market, but there are rules in place to prevent companies from defrauding their investors. Where is all the paperwork that is required? This technically could be construed as an entirely illegal enterprise and all the funds seized.
(1) They're in Canada. (2) They're not selling equity. Canada, but asking for US investors. Also, I'm sure there are rules that apply for this level of funding that is on a whole different level. I'm pretty sure they have to file with the SEC and provide ten times more documentation for the dollar amounts they are requesting. Also, Canada has very restrictive crowdfunding laws to prevent this type of investment where transparency is almost non-existent, |
|
|
|
|
The Senate's Amendments:
Crowdfund investing may occur only through SEC approved crowdfunding platforms.
Business would be able to raise no more than $1 million per year through approved crowdfunding platforms. Additionally, crowdfund investors will be limited in their investments based on their income, leaving some investors unable to invest more than $2,000 via crowdfunding.
|
|
|
|
|
According to US Law, you can't just offer a crowdfunding of this type without filing the proper legal paperwork. This is a free market, but there are rules in place to prevent companies from defrauding their investors. Where is all the paperwork that is required? This technically could be construed as an entirely illegal enterprise and all the funds seized.
|
|
|
|
|
Under the proposed SEC rules, issuers who intend to conduct a crowdfunding offering are required to file certain information with the SEC and provide this information to investors, potential investors and the crowdfunding intermediary that they'll be using — there are many vying for dominance, but Kickstarter is a popular example.
In addition, an issuer — for our purposes, let's think of them as a startup company, but other groups will get involved — is required under the proposed rules to prepare and file a Form C on EDGAR (the Electronic Data-Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval system, which is used by those required by law to file forms with the SEC) before the offering commencement. Among other things, Form C requires the reporting to the SEC of the following:
information on the issuer, directors and officers, owners (if they own 20 percent or more of the issuer),
business plan,
intended use of proceeds,
targeted offering amounts,
offering price and how it was determined,
information about the intermediary being used,
and additional information set forth in the proposed rules.
The implementing rules also require disclosure of certain information not required by the JOBS Act, such as the number of current employees of the issuer, risk factors relating to the offering, the issuers of debt position and related party transactions, among other information.
The SEC's implementing rules follow the original statutory framework and require an equity crowdfunding issuer to provide the following financial information:
For offerings of $100,000 or less, US GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) financial statements for the two most recently completed fiscal years or shorter period during which the issuer has been operating as well as filed income tax returns for the most recently completed fiscal year.
For offerings between $100,000 and $500,000, CPA reviewed US GAAP financial statements along with the CPA's review report; and for offerings over $500,000, CPA audited US GAAP financial statements.
An issuer, like a tech startup, would also be required to provide a narrative discussion of its financial condition covering, among other things, historic results of operations and liquidity and capital resources. In many respects, this is similar to a MD&A (Management Discussion and Analysis, which provides a narrative explanation, through the eyes of management, of how an entity has performed in the past, its financial condition, and its future prospects), but is not intended to be as lengthy or detailed.
The proposed regulations also require each issuer to do the following:
file with the SEC and post to its website an annual report within 120 days of the end of each fiscal year that discloses information about ongoing business and capital-raising activities.
In addition, issuers are restricted in their ability to advertise their crowdfunding offering only through a print or electronic notice containing specific limited information.
The notice must direct potential investors to the crowdfunding intermediary platform being utilized, where these investors could then access additional information about the offering.
However, under the proposed rules, there would be no restriction on an issuer's ability to communicate with investors or potential investors on the intermediary's platform, or make communications that do not refer to the terms of the offering. For example, an issuer can advertise its products or services so long as it does not refer to its crowdfunding offering in the advertisement.
The SEC's proposed rules clarify issues arising from the $1 million capital raise maximum prescribed by Congress in Title III of the JOBS Act as well as the per investor maximums. Under the proposed rules, only securities sold in the crowdfunding offering would count toward an issuer's $1 million capital raise maximum. The proposed rules also permit crowdfunding issuers to rely on the efforts of crowdfunding intermediaries to determine whether an investor has reached the per investor limits prescribed by Title III of the JOBS Act.
|
|
|
|
|
Federal Legislation
Thanks in part to the Crowdfunding exemption movement, the JOBS Act was signed into law by President Obama on April 5, 2012. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has been given approximately 270 days to set forth specific rules and guidelines that enact this legislation, while also ensuring the protection of investors.[65] Some rules have already been proposed by the SEC.[66][67]
The bill went through a number of amendments and on April 5, 2012 President Barack Obama signed the JOBS Act into law.[68] The legislation mandates that funding portals must register with the SEC as well as an applicable self-regulatory organization to operate.[69]
The JOBS Act places limits on the value of securities issuer may offer and individuals can invest through crowdfunding intermediaries. An issuer may sell up to $1,000,000 of its securities per 12 months, and, depending upon their net worth and income, investors will be permitted to invest up to $100,000 in crowdfunding issues per 12 months.[70] An independent financial statement review by a CPA firm is required for raises $100,000–500,000 and an independent financial statement audit by a CPA firm is required for raises over $500,000.[71]
The SEC is now drafting regulations to implement the equity and debt crowdfunding provisions of the bill. The original deadline for regulations is in January 2013.[67][72][dated info] In parallel to the SEC regulations, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) is creating additional rules related to member firms engaged in crowdfunding.[69]
On October 23, 2013, the SEC unanimously approved the progress of the crowdfunding bill and SEC commissioners explained that the commission's goals are to ease online fundraising for small companies and fraud protection for investors. As of the date of approval, the proposal is open for public comment for a 90-day period that is followed by another SEC vote to enable the enactment of the proposal.[73]
|
|
|
|
You are crazy off in your calculations, 36 million to support how many guys for how many years and that is not excessive? We are living in two different worlds because I'm sure any venture capitalist would tell these guys to blow off if they presented them with the investment numbers they are asking from the public. You are acting as if this coin will actually survive in the long run. Every coin forum I have been to has a group of devs that think they have the best and innovative tech. You know what? There will be more coins and even better tech next month from the next group and so on and so on. If ANY coin survived in the long run it would make a 100M investment look cheap, that is a very lame apologist explanation. The chances of any coin to surviving besides bitcoin after the crypto hype is over is slim to none. This coin and every coin before and after it is a long long long shot to survive when the crypto hype dies. You can take all the technology you want and nobody cares except for tech nerds. The only thing people care about in coins is the ability to transfer money anonymously and liquidity liquidity liquidity. What good is a coin if you cant cash it out, I dont care what tech is behind it.
You're right. We should never think of anything ever again. This is the furthest humanity will ever go, and we've reached it. Let's shut down everything. Ideas are scary, and they're risky, and that's why we do them. I think it's cool that these guys are at least trying to do something interesting. That's all there is to it. It's novel, they're delivering code, and they're open about things. That's cool to me. Bitcoin was revolution that changed the world, these guys are just hopping on the train and taking advantage of the Bitcoin community while crypto coins are still hot. It's obvious you are a tech nerd and like the work these guys are doing, but if they can't get money from a bank or venture capitalist, and need to beg to Bitcoin community to fund their project, while having no initial investment of their own, that sends warnings bells through my head. You have a right to your opinion, if you like then so much, go ahead and invest 100k and be an early adopter. If they were were asking for a few million to fund for expenses and a %percentage of pre-mine to reward them if things work out, then I would be behind this. But the mere fact that they are asking for up to 36 million is just ridiculous on an entirely different greedy level. |
|
|
|
...I will definitely be calling the US Attorneys office...
Welcome to my Ignore List! So you think a bunch of guys that nobody verified their credentials or business plan can come out and just say hello invest 36 million dollars in our company through a self sponsored IPO and you think it's perfectly legal in the USA? Yup don't worry we are responsible, we've got a youtube video and a message board on [Suspicious link removed]ounds pretty fishy to me. |
|
|
|
I was really hoping the Ethereum team was going to start answering some of the serious questions in this thread, but I'll give them a break for a few days since I know they are at the Miami conference. I just hope they are not discouraged by pages and pages of posts by people who don't seem to have spent any significant amount of time researching this project.
If you are seriously concerned then please frame your posts in the form respectful intelligent questions rather than accusatory bashing rants. You'll find you have more support when you post coherently and factually. Have you actually read the white paper (at least twice), read the previous 28 page thread by tacotime, or bothered to research the core team behind Ethereum and some of their recent work? (rhetorical question). Is 30,000 BTC + 50% premine of the initial batch of coins too much? Maybe. From a 'how much $$ do they really need to operate full time for ~3 years to develop this into a solid platform without having to worry about rent, consultants and lawyer fees' - It definitely strikes me on the high side but not crazy excessive. From a 'this thing *may* really be the best bitcoin 2.0 platform we'll see for a while'... $36 million is going to seem like a very cheap valuation in hindsight.
You are crazy off in your calculations, 36 million to support how many guys for how many years and that is not excessive? We are living in two different worlds because I'm sure any venture capitalist would tell these guys to blow off if they presented them with the investment numbers they are asking from the public. You are acting as if this coin will actually survive in the long run. Every coin forum I have been to has a group of devs that think they have the best and innovative tech. You know what? There will be more coins and even better tech next month from the next group and so on and so on. If ANY coin survived in the long run it would make a 100M investment look cheap, that is a very lame apologist explanation. The chances of any coin to surviving besides bitcoin after the crypto hype is over is slim to none. This coin and every coin before and after it is a long long long shot to survive when the crypto hype dies. You can take all the technology you want and nobody cares except for tech nerds. The only thing people care about in coins is the ability to transfer money anonymously and liquidity liquidity liquidity. What good is a coin if you cant cash it out, I dont care what tech is behind it. |
|
|
|
LOL you are working overtime to shill today. Are you going to go around to everyone's posts and start bashing posters. You have the right in a free market to ask/beg people for 36 million and you are chastising people's right to complain or ask questions? What kind of jerk are you and how much do you get paid to be a board monitor in your attempts to stifle any negative comments towards this huge money grab by your friends?
Last I'm responding to you cause it'll just loop. I'm not involved in this project. In fact, if you look at my posts, you'll see I'm involved in a totally different cryptocurrency proposal. I'm expressing my opinion because I've seen you spread FUD over and over in this thread and it's drowning others out. I'm not bashing your posts either (you told me to kill myself in one of yours btw). What I'm trying to tell you is that nobody is asking for "36 million". I don't know where you got that, or what you misread, but it's just plain wrong, and if you just leave it like that, people will get confused because you keep posting it over and over. There is a hard cap of 30k BTC. They're not asking for that, they're saying if it reaches that, it would be ridiculous to allow it to keep going. They've got spending plans that will be made public that go up to a certain point, and I imagine it does not exceed that level, so that's where it's hard capped. So you think putting a hard cap of 30K btc is different then asking for 36 million? You are seriously mind warped. Asking is not the same as getting, duh but the mere gall to assume even put the cap that high is total greed and money grab and I will definitely be calling the US Attorneys office to vet your friend's proposal because the more I think of it, the more I think it is illegal in US in the way they are trying to take 36 million from joe public. |
|
|
|
Sorry I had to post. I just watched the video and its true at 8.10 they mention some involved are from Goldman Sachs. I'm telling you do NOT trust this coin. I'm not saying you wont make money, in fact its got enough backing I bet that it may well be successful. But I can tell you now whether the founders know it or not they are being played by bigger powers than themselves. I was wondering when a bigg central bank connection would try to get its foot in door of digital currencies and here it is. You can guarantee that it was Goldman Sachs money that brought together an unsuspecting talented team to create this. Goldman is more than a bank they are the powers that be....The IPO even sounds like a shit IPO that Goldman has been involved in like Facebook etc. Buy it if you want, make some money and then never use this shit ever again...... I'm not shrill I have no reason other than knowing enough about Goldman Sachs and the banking elite that this has powerful elite written all over it. This is not against the founders I expect they were just rounded up and head hunted... http://euro-med.dk/bil/goldman-sachs-20conquers-20europe.jpgThe greatest conspiracy theory since Satoshi Nakamoto. Can we get this to the press?  Wow talk about embarrassing yourself. Now you are just getting aggressive with the posters to the point of harassment. I'm actually considering making a call to the US Attorney's office about you and your friend's involvement in raising this amount of money. I'm not sure raising the amount of capital you are thinking about with these procedures is entirely legal. |
|
|
|
If you want to invest wait until it hits the market. The devs are going to unload a ton of ethereums to pay for the shortfall in pre-investment money. I can guarantee you that. If they can get people to buy aftermarket fine, let the market dictate how much they want to pay for the coins.
And another thing you're wrong about. More FUD. It's time-locked. They can't unload until way after those who contribute. Yea sure buddy, what about if they only raise 1 million? They will have pre-mined 50% and part of that amount that was designated for investors will be used to unload. I highly doubt those will be time-locked because if they raise only one million pre-sale they would not have the funding to pay all those wonderful salaries. And you are getting decidedly annoying, you are like a walking billboard. It would be wonderful if you would just come out and state exactly what your relationship with this group is and how much you are getting paid to shill on here. You are like some campaign manager. |
|
|
|
Ughh the devs do seem more and more greedy the more I look into this.
I wanted to invest, I just...ugh, Idk.
If you want to invest wait until it hits the market. The devs are going to unload a ton of ethereums to pay for the shortfall in pre-investment money. I can guarantee you that. If they can get people to buy aftermarket fine, let the market dictate how much they want to pay for the coins. |
|
|
|
GOLDMAN SACHS INVOLVED IN YOUR PORJECT ARE YOU F... KIDDING ME
And you have the boldness to ask 30000 btc to fund it...
Only one thing to do : GO TO HELL!
Charles said "people who WORKED for Goldman Sachs" at 8:10 in the video. Didn't you hear him say there are giant wasps living under the UN building who are also involved? LOL you are working overtime to shill today. Are you going to go around to everyone's posts and start bashing posters. You have the right in a free market to ask/beg people for 36 million and you are chastising people's right to complain or ask questions? What kind of jerk are you and how much do you get paid to be a board monitor in your attempts to stifle any negative comments towards this huge money grab by your friends? |
|
|
|
You know what? You are just a shill and yes these guys are frackin greedy bordering on thieving. Do devs deserve to get paid, yes. Do they deserve to rip people off, hell no. The reason there is a decidedly negative stance on this is because people have a general sense of fairness and this is not it.
You want people to respect their hard work? Show me what you are talking about. Go to an investment banker, hire some attorneys and procure a prospectus and make it publicly available. When you are asking people to fund 36 million dollars, there should be an adequate amount of due diligence available for prospective investors. A youtube video and an advertisement on Bitcointalk forum is frackin not only hilarious its downright appalling. You try going into a bank or venture capitalist's office and asking them for 36 million and 50% premine with absolutely no risk LMAO. They would throw you out of the room and yet you have the gall to come on here and evangelize on why they deserve to get PAID and deserve our respect and money? Go kill yourself. Your sense of fairness is seriously warped.
If no bank or venture capitalist in their right mind would fund this deal, why are they crowdsourcing? Because they think coin investors are idiots. You want respect for your work? Go spend a few hundred thousand and hire an investment banker and attorneys to draw up a prospectus like any DECENT hardworking entrepreneurs would do that asks for 36 million plus from joe public.
I'm a shill but you're screaming bloody murder? (1) A prospectus is coming prior to contributions (if you bothered to read half as much as you talk). Community funding is not investment banking. This is about people who care about what's proposed. (2) Where does it say anyone is demanding "36 million plus"? They could raise 2 Bitcoins and it'll go ahead. Read something, you're just embarrassing yourself. Embarrassing myself, hardly. Coming from a shill I take that with a grain of salt. Yes, I'm screaming bloody murder, that's what I usually do when I seeing people tying to rob others in plain sight. And yeah, they may well have to go with 2btc because I have a hard time believing many people will fall for your plan and you know what your friends are going to do to make up for the shortfall in pre-sell cash? They are going to mine the crap out of the coin and unload on everyone because they want to get PAID in advance. Youtube video and advertisement Bitcointalk for a two for 1 sale of ethereums on day one, please give us 36 million. Sounds like a joke. |
|
|
|
@gutshot Calm...  the coins far from killed, its doing extremly eell considering the unestablished exchange it is on and holding its value. If people want to sell its fine, it wouldnt have held where it was yesterday, if people dump now it will rebound and theyl be the ones who lose out. Its called patience, im happy with the slow and steady climb, our market cap is high considering the exchange we are on and we are going to steadily grow and not run up faster than we should like most coins that then implode. The coins been out less than 3 weeks and on a new exchange less than 1.... Its all about patience Yup you are right, just frustrating when people come on here and bragging about how much they made dumping. It's pretty logical for me, if nobody is selling the bidders eventually have to come up to the ask price. When you see there is only 2btc worth of buy orders and 10btc worth try to sell, it destroys a nice momentum. I know it's a free market and we have to let it run its course, but we also have to realize with Coinmarket.io it is much easier to sell than to buy at the the moment because people have to transfer btc in to buy and it takes time. The early adopters should learn to sell on the way up instead of down and let the late comers take it off our hands when we reach a larger exchange. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
