Are you seriously comparing the responsibility of an anonymous investor to a key member of the project team? The guy you are replying to has no responsibility here, you do.

And I agree with him that the lack of transparency is seriously worrying. You do not mention this "Amanda L". Who is she? I also have not heard anything about her, and I did a fair bit of due diligence before investing. She was not listed on the Team page or in the whitepaper, and now you are saying she is acting general manager?


You can probably justify the inclusion of every individual in the original marketing campaign. However, I agree with the general message - at ICO time, you guys showed a huge team of people, all smiling wearing OAX t-shirts. Now all of that has disappeared, and it's just 4 guys making 1 or 2 minor commits to Gitlab each day. Not knocking those guys at all - I've inspected the code and I have no problem with their work. But what about the (literally) dozens of other people? Why do we not get any kind of basic update of what they're working on?

Some rough numbers. You can get a decent dev for $100k p/a. A good dev for for $150k p/a. Let's be generous with overheads and take that to $250k p/a. I only see activity from 4 devs, that puts you at $1m per year development, inc overheads. Let's say you go behind schedule and it takes 3 years, and you ramp your development up 50% in the final year. That still only puts your total dev costs at $4m.

What did you raise? $18m? And that's not including your significant token reserves (partially earmarked for development in the whitepaper).

Development is obviously not the only expense, but $4m out of $18m is a very small proportion, and that's being overly generous in my calculations. Where am I going wrong with this estimate?

Let's be realistic - this is not VC funding, I do not expect the same level of reporting you would give for that. But I expect maybe 10% of that level of reporting to the investors (the general public essentially), and at the moment we actually get more like 0.5%.

It is not looking good. Down to an all-time low market cap of $8m right now. I know the team would not comment on price, but they must be aware of it and it is a bad situation because it shows that people have no faith in the project.

I think the OAX team have not done nearly enough publicly. So far all that is visible is a couple of low-key conferences they have attended. Sorry but when you have a budget of tens of millions of dollars, you can afford to do a lot more than this - there is no reason why they shouldn't be holding webinars, Q&As, posting guides, running questionnaires, surveys, etc every single week. They have the budget to do it but they do not seem to understand the importance of maintaining a community.

There is no OAX community right now. If the proof-of-concept was launched tomorrow, it would be pointless because it wouldn't gather any interest. Unless they have a huge list of partners that have signed contracts already (unlikely without a proof-of-concept), then they need public interest to be able to implement their solution in useful scenarios.

I hope they realise where they have gone wrong and use their funds to employ the necessary people to manage the community side of things. But it's not looking promising.

I don't think think so - there is not enough liquidity in the OAX market to day trade.

When you consider that only ~25% of tokens are in circulation, then $13m is not such a bad valuation. Puts total market cap at $52m.

OAX is one of the most serious and mature projects around. Too many projects are about the technical side and not about what is needed to deliver a successful real-world solution.

A large amount of OAX actually goes into the legal and the logistic side of things, which is just as, if not more, important than the technical side.

I think people are fed of ICOs that do not have a serious project in place. That, in my opinion, is why we're seeing OAX pick up on the markets recently, and I think it will go from strength to strength from here.

Cheers to everyone else who has been patient and backed this great project 

In that example, yes the price of 0.0012929 is higher but than 0.0012925, but only very slightly. When the lowest sell order is at ~0.0014 price, then there is quite a big margin between buy and sell orders. So it does not make sense that someone would wait for the buy order to increase such a small amount, and then within 10 seconds of the buy order appearing to match it.

Of course, if it happens a few times, it is not suspicious but it is happening on almost every trade. Take a look at the last trades:



Every single one below 200 OAX, and an immediate sell as soon as a small buy order appears just above the buy price.

BTW, I am not blaming OAX here. It could be price manipulation from bagholders, or something suspicious on Binance. But either way, this is the biggest exchange for OAX, and it doesn't inspire much trust. (Which in itself is the very reason a DEX project OAX exists of course  )

Has anyone else noticed very suspicious trading of OAX on the exchanges?

For example, take a look at trades on Binance over the last few hours. Every trade is below 200 OAX. Almost all trades are under 60 OAX, or between 150 and 190 OAX. Every trade is a sell.

Watch the market for a few minutes and you will see that a new buy order comes in just slightly higher than the current higher buy order. Then immediately a sell order matches it exactly.

Makes no sense - why are the orders so similar, and why is someone waiting to sell 150 OAX at 0.0012929 when they could sell for 0.0012925 immediately? Seems like market manipulation.