In my view we have have two global aspects: technical ones and 'market related' ones. Of course they are interdependent, but I think is good to rationalize them separatedly.

Usually 'markets' are paranoid and neurotic entities, overeacting both good and bad news. That been sad, is always good to remember all players with 'skins in the game' in this situation, like everybody involved in this project, including Tokenpay. It makes no sense to think about 'exit scam', or 'manipulation' (as this fork was a 'excuse' to future bad news (no deal) (if that was the case, thing would have been treatead diferently). Verge team looks like they are doing their best, and there is no project (especially software project) that happens without some major upgrades/fixes.

Regarding the techinical issues I can not evaluate, but as I user I didn't had any problems. Despite this I aprecciate all community devs efforts to improve the project code and also comunications process with responsible dev, with contributive effort and positive atitude. Unfortunly, some posts I read look like predators rounding a possible failure, I don't understand why?

So my view is not look at neurotic and paranoid talks (=lose money), and wait for the project grow. All blockchain are in they infacy, many projetcs did not have even a working product, and Verge has a huge valuation potential at this price, as it is more mature than some blockchains.

Verge has its characteristc regarding privacy, maybe not total obfuscation (if that is the case) is more prone to comercial use.

Focus on the fix and on 17th!

(sorry for bad english)

Thank you for your ansewr... Iam really disapointed with CS...glad I still didnt l have a lost.

As a investor, fear, uncertainty and doubt is exactly what I feel about Credits. Given the high targets of the projects, I had high expectation about the code review. I didnt expected comments like these:

"Ok guys, I’m done for now, I really loved that the guys from Credits gave me the client early, and I really wanted to like the code more, but it’s still basic and unfortunately junior code. They did improve from last time, but it’s still so far away from being something real, we aren’t at PoC level yet, we can’t be talking about beta already.

Conclusion: They did update MD5 to Blake, but the rest is unfortunately still no where near the level it needs to be able to compete in this field or against the caliber of developers out there. Credits team, let’s talk, I want to help"

So I did not got what you mean by "twisted the truth". What is the true? Did they prove what they claim?

Iam in for the product, not for the marketing....hope we have better reviews on the short term. Thank you for your wellcome! 

Hi all, this is my first message here.

At first I was very positive about Credits (I got some...), but then I begin to follow this dev third party analysis:

https://medium.com/@suchi.blackwing/cryptocurrency-code-review-credits-cs-beta-29-03-2019-5ffce7313a38

Iam lost out here...how is possible this so critical analysis  about the code, and the Credits team claiming that the will deliver state of art tech? Am I missing something here?

I look to guarantee qualifed teams (ADA, QTUM, ETH, EOS, etc) and look like they are keeping pushing hard to get to their targets, that don't looking so ambitious as Credits. So why should I expect Credits will suceed? Iam thinking about selling everything...

Thanks in advance and sorry for the no so good english. :-)