|
MIL is quietly beginning to look solid. Wouldn't be surprised to see a big jump relatively soon. We'll see, but it does look much better lately.
|
|
|
|
Please not another premined coin. By design you want to own all the coins? I dont think anyone supports premine scams anymore.. well maybe some noobs will still get ripped off.
Ah, the miners are here again. By now you guys are usually gone. Please read the website or even just this announcement. It is correct that you will not be able to mine and sell and mine and sell this coin like you do all of the others. But, this is not a scam and is in no way structured like any of the coins you are referring to. This is purposefully not being mined as it is an asset-backed coin. Giving away coins to miners does not get coin holders assets, it just gives miners money. There is nothing wrong with mining, but it doesn't apply to asset-backed coins. This is not another empty blockchain coin. It has, and will have, assets. You premine all the coins and sell them to people, yes? There is no mining in Ripple, bud. Looks like an ICO (of sorts) to me. |
|
|
|
Dev, what data do you need? I want refund although I only bought a little . Why do you keep posting this? If you sent an email before the end of the ICO you already received your refund. If not, what are you even talking about? |
|
|
|
I have reasons as to why I chose to post in here with a newly registered account. To put it simply, I have a history of 'post tracking' and I'll leave it at that. It doesn't matter and quite frankly, I respect and see where your doubts are coming from. But also, I dont really care. Believe what you will.
What I posted was merely a suggestion to the dev team. They may just completely ignore it. Whatever they decide to do, I know that there will be people who will complain regardless. On a side note, I'm all for community votes which was actually my initial suggestion. But with something like this post ITO buy-wall business, the votes will of course be biased by those who obviously just want to cancel out their investments without a loss. That's just not how investing works.
I completely agree (and I am no newbie). I invested in the ICO and invested more when I heard a buy wall was being contemplated. Still, the logistics are difficult, if not impossible. If you are serious developers then don't worry about the complainers. There is just no way to tell who is real and who is just trying their best to manipulate things. There are two things that you can do. First, if you have a guy who knows what he is doing, then take some of your BTC and buy back some of your coins strategically. In other words, if there are opportunities to take the coin higher, go ahead and do it. At this moment in time it sure wouldn't take much to move it higher, but that can quickly change. If you believe in the coin then you will only be adding to your potential profits and it will satisfy the early investors who want out. But, and this is important, don't tell us when or how (or how much) you are going to be entering into some buybacks. That would just encourage short term traders. Say that you plan to buy back some coins, if and when the market dictates, and then move on to other topics. This will strengthen the coin, but would include no guarantees. Secondly, whatever your first planned announcement was going to be -- go ahead and announce it, even if it isn't ready and you have to be somewhat vague. Get a sense of movement and momentum going. After that, just go about your business plan as always. Just because things don't start off well, doesn't mean that is the end. Just take your lumps and move on. |
|
|
|
Oh, thank you. Yes, gold and silver seems to popular and as far as I know, a success for many coins. Mine isn't precious metals, but the same basic idea, in that the coin will have assets to back it up, not just another instant blockchain of nothingness. |
|
|
|
you might want to also check with FoldingCoin.. very interesting asset IMHO
which is smart to use Counterparty, instead of creating another blockchain
Oh, that is interesting. I remember Ripple did something very similar (Computing For Good) when they were in their giveaway phase. I will have to look more closely into that. I don't think that fits in with what I am trying to do, but it is interesting nonetheless. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Joel from Swarm created a document that compiled many of the answers he found in his search a few months ago. Even in that short a time, much has probably changed, but that document is probably still going to be of at least some value to you. Swarm has a thread here on BCT that may have a link to the Google document. If there is no link, just PM the OP of the Swarm thread and that will be Joel. He'll be able to send you a link. Joel may be able to provide additional insight as well, since Swarm is in the business of launching coins and such.
Ah, yes. I must confess, I had forgotten about Swarm (I don't know who Joel is, however). I had a busy summer and just couldn't follow everything (there are so many coins now!) I will look into that. As I seem to recall and just taking a quick glance at them again on that BTC thread, it is mostly a crowdfunding enterprise. The coin I have in mind is more of an asset-backed coin. That is why I thought of Ripple and NXT Assets and then was pointed in your (XCP) direction. Thank you very much for the suggestion and as I say, I will take a look. |
|
|
|
Thank you for all of the replies. Yes, I came away with the same general consensus as you all seem to present. I wanted to ask the questions straight though so as not to influence the outcome. Yes, FinCen could be a problem for the coin space depending on a million factors. It would probably be best to just wait for November 4th to see what kind of gems are announced. I am still confused on "6 companies in BTC to be handed enforcement actions" and what that means precisely, but I suppose we will all know soon enough. Anyway, thank you again. And if anyone has any other insights on using the XCP system to bring out a coin (token), it would be much appreciated. It does seem to be a great option and more attractive than say, Ripple or NEXT (or at least it appears that way thus far). Let's hope FinCen is kind!  |
|
|
|
Hello, I am about to bring out a coin (or I guess token is the proper word under your system). Anyway, it was recommended to me to utilize counterparty. I had only previously been somewhat familiar with it (hey, you can't follow them all!). Anyway, the preface is a way of asking your forgiveness if the following questions are stupid. I have read a lot about XCP, but some of it is pretty deep in the weeds and of course some of it is useless. Anyway, it seems like an excellent system, but I am somewhat nonplussed in a few areas. Speed seems to be a topic that comes up a lot as an area of concern. I have read the "18 Myths" article and they seem to brush it off, but I was wondering if that is true. Is it slower than BTC and if so, how much slower? Also, would my coin be offered on the XCP system only and is that community large enough for a successful coin? I understand that it can be on an exchange (Poloniex) if, I assume, some sort of criteria is met. Are there other exchanges possible as well? Finally, as hard as I have tried, I cannot seem to find a straightforward (and believable) answer regarding that Reddit post of a couple of days ago. This one: http://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/2iu5xc/caution_counterparty_team_warns_of_fincen/Could someone either tell me the story on this in an easy to understand manner or point me to somewhere where it is addressed in such a way. 500 pages on this forum is quite a milestone, but it is also tough to pin down specific answers. Thank you |
|
|
|
|
Yes, please extend the deadline (I thought you were going to do that anyway as soon as you decided to jump back in). I obviously misunderstood. Anyway, I will be investing in your coin, but it would be far easier for me to do it in a couple of days. I doubt that affects your decision much, but I just wanted to let you know. I think an ending on Thursday or Friday would be good. That gives people some time and is about a week after you said you were back in (if my memory is correct). Also, BTC being down is just horrible timing for a coin like yours, so more time is just prudent.
Just wanted to add my thoughts -- thanks and good luck!
|
|
|
|
Why are they asking for a name and address? I thought these were "shares" of the cloud mining operation.
This is a left over from their previous operation when they used to make and deliver non-cloud physical miners. So do not bother with that, you can fill in whatever you like. Once you purchase and you order gets confirmed (processing sign) your miner ll start immediately hashing. Oh, ok. Thank you (and the others) for answering the question. I almost just skipped the whole thing. In the crypto world my trust level is near zero and giving personal information to some website was not something I was anxious to do! |
|
|
|
|
Why are they asking for a name and address? I thought these were "shares" of the cloud mining operation.
|
|
|
|
Thank you for the feedback. GAW was debating pulling their support for it(we still can buy the hashlets) because the people on Hashtalk were threatening to sell their accounts. And said Envy was to big of risk for GAW.
Why would they care -- wouldn't it be a good thing that the firm they were using was getting more customers? Anyway, regarding your other comment about support, it is always tough to tell nowadays. There are so many coins and not everybody bothers to make a comment. (I almost didn't). I do think the concept is solid, but must admit I am not an expert on cloud mining. I mean the income goes to zero relatively quickly as the difficulties increase, correct? Or are you mining other things besides BTC? But, my point is that despite those details it is a solid idea in that it has a floor to any losses. So, even if you never come up with another idea for the coin and the coin goes to zero, investors would still get their money back due to the mining within about 3 months. I still think that is a good idea! |
|
|
|
I am just curious. It seems like there is a descent amount of support for this coin now. I can tell Bittrex to reopen since refunds have not started. But we would have to get to 100 BTC
Yes, I think you threw in the towel too early. I don't know what they were saying at hashtalk.org (actually, I have never even heard of hashtalk.org), but you should really give it a shot. I was one of those questioning the structure of the deal (and was hoping you would change it), but I was still going to invest at least a little. I think the idea is solid. Also, you quit just after quiwoman2 (who runs the QBK coin) reached out to you (on this forum). She sounded interested in the concept. That's worth a conversation right there. QBK had its ICO on Poloniex at .0002 and in about a month it is trading at around .00062 (as I write this), plus it has already paid a dividend. People wait until the last minute. I hated the Craigscoin idea (and definitely did not invest -- thankfully as it was a dud), but nearly all of the BTC came in during the last 48 hours. (That was on Bittrex too) I say, as best as you can, tweak the details of the ICO to answer your critics and still make you happy. Now, I have no idea what your critics were so upset about at hashtalk.org, so that may not be possible. All I am saying is now that you have some feedback, maybe you would like to make a minor change or two to the ICO terms, and continue on. Maybe extend the ICO deadline a bit also. |
|
|
|
The reason we are destroying them is because they are all mined and we have limited options. If we were to allow trading to begin and not destroy the market would fear we would dump all remaining coins as a money grab. But if a destroy them they will be out of circulation creating a rarer coin. Obviously this is not what we want but it is the better of two evils. And on the comment about the price. We will roughly $400k market cap after the ICO of we sell. The price was chosen because we needed enough financing to buy an amount of Hashlets that would make a difference. We went 50 million coins because it brought the price per coin in a range small investors could grab a descent amount of coins. If we sell out there will only be 3.67 million new coins over the next year and then roughly 2.5 million the remaining years. This means that the people that paid for their coins will far outweigh those who mined it. 14,400 coins will be mined per day. Which at current ICO rate is .28 BTC per day. This is a pretty small amount for a coin that would have a $400k market cap. And we run the risk that it will not be attractive to miners thus the network will not be secure. I just ran the new numbers since BTC has tanked and it does hurt the time to make back your coins by just holding it now has moved from 70 days when the price was 430 and it now is 114. But what other coin can say even if the price of the coin tanks you can hold it and you will make your money back? We can say this. Something that will greatly effect it is the price of BTC when we buy the hashlets and how many people buy the ICO.
Miners will "secure the network" for very little money (they will just whine about it). But more importantly, they will gladly secure the network if the coin is a big success. My suggestions are toward making it a success, not to FUD. Miners are basically parasites to coins anywhere near the beginning of their life. And especially with a coin like this, the higher the rate of return the better it is. It is an interesting idea for a coin though. I wish you the best of luck. |
|
|
|
This would be /very/ hard to coordinate with Bittrex. However, how would you feel about the total coin supply and mining reward being changed to match the amount of coins sold?
For instance, the 10 coin block rewards are currently assuming we sell all Envycoin's in ICO. If we only sold half, we could halve this reward so that really, you'd own that large of a stake in the supply. So, if you buy 1% of the ICO coins, you'd own 0.5% of the total supply (after it's mined out, in 10 years) regardless of how many coins are sold
Yes, that would be an improvement. But, I didn't bring this up initially as I am not here to FUD your coin (in fact, I am very interested in it), but why is there mining at all? Why aren't we using 100% of the BTC invested toward the plan. Aren't the miners just diluting everyone's share of the income? As far as it being "hard to coordinate with Bittrex", I doubt that, only because I know for a fact that Poloniex has run ICO's using that method. All that has to be done is that you (or they) calculate the proper pro rata share at the end of the ICO and they add that to the wallet. They have all of the wallets (and coins!), so it can't be that hard. Like I said, I am not here to disparage the coin, and I may get some anyway, but I am confused on the details. Isn't at least part of the appeal that if we all chip in to the coin, we will get a better hashrate deal than if one did it on their own? And on top of that we will have a nice coin to boot that might rise in value, get added features, etc.? |
|
|
|
|
I really like this concept, but I do have one bone of contention. Why are you destroying any unsold ICO coins? This is a tactic that favors miners over early investors (and crypto ICO's reputations are already in tough shape). The price is already pretty darned high with ENVY valued at around $750,000. Now, I realize that market cap is less relevant than most coins in that your plan involves an NAV. Still, market psychology wise, it matters.
Early investors are who should matter in the case of an ICO (or one shouldn't have one).Let's put aside the fact that most miners are nothing but vultures picking at the coin until the "meat" is consumed and quickly moving on to the next coin. Let's even pretend they are mostly angels, just looking to provide a nice service so that everyone can succeed. They still are being favored here as they will know if the coin is good to go, how much enthusiasm has been generated by the ICO, and even the market price for it on Bittrex.
They have nearly zero risk and yet are being put on the same footing (or better) as people risking their BTC upfront. Any unsold coins should go to early investors for two reasons. First, it gives one an incentive to buy the ICO as it may result in getting more coins for the same investment. Secondly, it gets the ball rolling as far as enthusiasm is concerned. So, even if the early investors did not get "extra" shares, they are still happy in that the ICO sold out and demonstrated some initial excitement (and demand) for the coin.
Yes, yes, I know -- less outstanding coins mean "we all win". The trouble with that argument is that it is a miner's argument. No early investor would prefer less coins -- not one! And there is a good reason for that in that it would be stupid to argue for less coins for less float. Now, if ICO investors were buying 100% of the float, that is a different matter entirely, but that is not the case with your ICO.
I like ICOs and am a regular investor, and as I say, your coin idea seems terrific to me. But, there is a fairness gap and I wanted to point it out.
Still, best of luck to you!
|
|
|
|
Look, I don't know how else to explain it. Once Henry Ford named his car company "Ford", and trademarked it, no one else is allowed to sell cars called "Ford" even if that happens to be the name of the guy wanting to do it. However, anyone named Ford (or not named Ford) can call his furniture store "Ford" or his T-shirt company "Ford" or any other product one can think of.
Anyone with even a vague awareness of the law knows this. I am not going to dig up copyright laws and cases to spoon feed you. Don't they have search engines in Russia?
But, like I said it doesn't matter, because it is so effing obvious. If I started selling cell phones and called them "Apple" products, it would be illegal. If it wasn't then every time a company was successful, others would just use their name to sell their products. Again, how is this so confounding to you?!!!
Finally, why are you relying on your investors to talk with an attorney (or to search Google). You're raising all of this BTC and you can't pick up the phone and ask an attorney yourself?
Ahm we just not on the same ground here. I'm not actually selling anything at the first place. Again using your own words my prodict do not called Ford - to called ForCoin. Can Ford sue me for using few letters off his trademark? Finally, why are you relying on your investors to talk with an attorney (or to search Google). You're raising all of this BTC and you can't pick up the phone and ask an attorney yourself? Actually I did my research - and found nothing that proves your point. However I may be wrong, and therefore asking you to correct me if I am. But up to this point you only sound like someone whos fear based on ignorant assumptions. Please don't take it too personal - there is alot of people who live their life taking things that does not exist for a fact. However since you say: I am not going to dig up copyright laws and cases I have to just dismiss your point since obviously I done better research of foreign legal framework that you ever bothered to do. Thank you for your interest in CraigsCoin and good luck. For god sake when people will learn that developer of decentralized currency does not actually own the coin? [/quote] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Really? Who is getting all of that BTC you are raising? What do you mean you are not selling anything? I thought that there was a cost per advertisement. Who is getting that? And, you may not be "selling" anything, but Bittrex is accepting money in exchange for coins. You better tell them to cease and desist if that is against your wishes. Buddy, "For" coin is not "Ford" coin, but it has nothing to to do with anything. If you think that you can do an ICO called "Amazon" coin and sell books on the blockchain with no objection, you are truly delusional. But, let's say you are right, and Craigslist should have no objection (by your logic) and would lose any lawsuits in court. It doesn't matter for your investors. In the real world, as soon as Craigslist gets wind of this, they will try to shut it down, if for no other reason than to protect their reputation. They have deep pockets and can keep going forever and ever. How is this good for investors? And that's if you're right! -- Which you aren't. |
|
|
|
One can't trademark "mart". If you wanted to call your coin "mart" coin or "socks" coin or "television" coin, you are free as a bird to do so. But, if you call your coin "Sony" coin to sell televisions on the blockchain, then you are in trouble.
How is this so difficult to understand?
If what you say above is true can you please tell me if name "Craig" can be trademarked, because if it can I feel sorry for all the Craigs out there. My English probably need much more work, but I fail to see logic. Since when names can be trademerked? And how Name+common work combination suddenly violates law? I'm a man of science - I like direct laws and rules - please help me here - provide the pattern - what is wrong with CraigsCoin name except it reminds you of other similar service? I will ask you once again - please please provide something from actual law. Can you do that? It is that simple - as soon as you find anything that stand legally against CraigsCoin name - I will run like a madman to change the coin name before ICO ended! Why would you fill thread with your assumptions instead of contributing to make things better? I certainly do not want to violate law, but if CraigsCoin name does not violate copyrights I'm fine using it. Look, I don't know how else to explain it. Once Henry Ford named his car company "Ford", and trademarked it, no one else is allowed to sell cars called "Ford" even if that happens to be the name of the guy wanting to do it. However, anyone named Ford (or not named Ford) can call his furniture store "Ford" or his T-shirt company "Ford" or any other product one can think of. Anyone with even a vague awareness of the law knows this. I am not going to dig up copyright laws and cases to spoon feed you. Don't they have search engines in Russia? But, like I said it doesn't matter, because it is so effing obvious. If I started selling cell phones and called them "Apple" products, it would be illegal. If it wasn't then every time a company was successful, others would just use their name to sell their products. Again, how is this so confounding to you?!!! Finally, why are you relying on your investors to talk with an attorney (or to search Google). You're raising all of this BTC and you can't pick up the phone and ask an attorney yourself? |
|
|
|
Oh, c'mon. One doesn't need a law degree to see how this is going to tick off Craigslist! You are obviously trying to rip them off as this coin is for classified ads, for god's sake. What is wrong with you?
Even if, as you say, nothing can be done to stop the blockchain once launched, it will be irrelevant for investors in the short to medium term at least. Craigslist can sue you for every last BTC raised and more. And even if you ultimately "win" and are allowed to profit off classified ads, using their exact name (highly doubtful), the bad publicity for the coin will have investors bailed out long before. And that's not even discussing the press reaction once it gets a hold of the fact that this is another drug coin.
Do you seriously think that one can just call a coin say, "Amazon" coin and sell books on the blockchain? "Budweiser" coin and for a beer coin?
Seriously, what are you people thinking? The idea is decent (although ads lasting forever seems stupid), if not fully fleshed out. But to name it CraigsCoin and then sound indignant that people might think that a very strange choice, clearly means that not a lot of thought has gone into this venture.
I like IPO/ICOs and am a regular investor, but no thanks on this one.
Explain me then how come wal-mart never sued shopmart drugmart and whole bunch of other -marts (google for more examples)? They obviously have exactly same similarities as CraigsCoin have with CraigsList. That renders all your arguments irrelevant. And sorry, but yes, you need law degree if you want other people to take your law threats serious. On the other note - I wonder how hard it it for you to google through actual laws? Why do you stand up and state thigs that is clearly false like you just did instead of doing actual research?! I'm Russian - I'm supposed to be bad at US laws, but what is your excuse? Regardless - your idea with selling books in blockchain is brilliant. That would be a blast! Ummm....well, your English needs a bit of work. The reason for all of those "marts" and why they are all allowed is the "mart" is just a way of saying market. One can't trademark "mart". If you wanted to call your coin "mart" coin or "socks" coin or "television" coin, you are free as a bird to do so. But, if you call your coin "Sony" coin to sell televisions on the blockchain, then you are in trouble. How is this so difficult to understand? Your insouciance on this issue may appear to you as coming across as a smart and witty guy. But, it is making you sound ignorant, and worse it is giving potential investor's some insight into the level of care you have for this coin. And just to give you another free tip on the law, one can call a coin "Craigs" coin and if it has absolutely nothing to do with classified ads, then you are free and clear. Again, why are these concepts so hard for you to grasp? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
