Before the sale, we have outlined four different scenarios how funds will be spend depending on the raised amount, its here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0i8cbgmyl0sw7jp/EQUI%20-%20Funding%20Distribution.pdf?dl=0

Here is current scenario, as we have raised 7.5M already, funds distribution is described in Illustration 1.

Last thing - in Russian there is a saying - you do not have to prove that you are not a camel.

So we are here to show what we want to do, which includes:

- build a platform to allow KYCed users to participate in pre-selected ventures by EQUI team
- provide due diligence (also done by EQUI team) for the projects hosted on the platform
- simplify the ability for the investors to go from fiat to crypto, which we will do by integrating PSD2 directive

Anyway, thank you for your feedback, time will tell how much we will accomplish and useful this product will be for our customers.

Personally - I do not see any other way to show the utility of Crypto as a whole, except of the trying, building, (possibly failing), building again and again products until it will be the product customers like. ICO as a concept is a absolutely new way to test ideas in relatively cheap manner, allowing more tries (and more failures as well). And I do not see how eg HODLing will bring value. Real utility will, real use case, and people who are using the product and need it.

So, I do not agree that ICO concept is dead. It might evolve/change due to regulations, but it will stay. Its just personal opinion, we are not in control of establishment who could ban everything they want. At the same time - if they will do this, then we will adapt.

right, so what is bringing VALUE to Crypto, hodling, right?

good luck with your ventures!

1) correct, we will need more devs
2) work on the platform started in October 2017.
wallet solution used during the ICO is using existing platform functionality.

target is to have a platform with the dashboard, wallet, deposits/withdrawals.
the most interesting will be the dashboard, where investor could compare/learn about different projects + due diligence results provided by the team.
wallet/payments is essentially a reduced exchange, there are plenty good practices to learn from.

after this part is done, next would be new features like integrating psd2 and implementing native mobile applications.

so much fun ahead.
 

1) Re not answering to criticism - let's fix it now then!
As an alternative channel (and our main one) you could ask anything on Telegram https://t.me/equicapital
Also, we will have AMA on Reddit on Feb 20th, more info https://medium.com/equi-capital/ama-with-equi-founder-doug-barrowman-2c292988815f

2) Re Howie test: tokenization of VC services is an uncharted territory. Sailing there under 71-old Howie test is as much as exciting as challenging. There is no clear  understanding how blockchain based tech will fit current legal system (check ie https://www.coindesk.com/every-token-snowflake-secs-ico-guidance-isnt-enough/)

3) Re using the proceeds, we consider 4 different scenarios, please check https://www.dropbox.com/s/0i8cbgmyl0sw7jp/EQUI%20-%20Funding%20Distribution.pdf?dl=0









 

Regarding the first question:

Users will decide which project to join.
And our team will decide what is the pool of projects to choose from.

Presumably more accurate answer would be that user has a bit easier to decide in which project to participate in, because we will provide all the due dilligence we could come up with. All with be shared with the community. And EQUITokens is the only way to participate.

Regarding the second question:
could you please rephrase it?

in case of Equi, we use custodial account approach, as described in ANN thread. Its simply not possible even to sell your private keys. So there is a gateway to get in, ensuring that everything is according to the law.

this is I believe the part where decentralized tech and current regulations are not fully compatible.
hence custodial account approach used in Equi.

will be grateful to hear constructive criticism towards this project.

Equi team (check official website to see who in particular if you are interested) is working together since September 2017 to launch this project.

Here are the tangible results of this work:

1) whitepaper in English, Russian, Spanish, Japanese, Korean, Mandarin, Polish (former is already published on the site, and latter will be published later this week).

2) beta version of the platform which is responsible to hold Ether and ERC20 compatible tokens (such as EQUIToken). Part of the platform will be launched on March 1st, as a part of ICO process, which is quite different from normal ICO flow (please see my post above).

3) officially we launched exactly one week ago, and were already featured in multiple places, such as Forbes, CNN, Sun and a few others.

4) Blockchain is needed for this project to track the involvement by potential investors into particular projects, calculate returns, apply rules nobody could change. For investor its useful to see that Project X has already N% shares distributed, transparency is beneficial for both parties.

5) Roadmap of the project is published in the WP and also on official website. Exact scope of work is not possible to define, as it will be dependent on the exact amounts raised. Still, next 9 months plan is described and posted already.

Will be glad to help if there is a need to clarify more aspects of this project.

free market should prevail, I believe.
we have a jungle, and the fittest will survive.

everything else is not sufficient enough, from my perspective.
for example those echo chambers you mentioned (from all the sides!), and communities sometimes stagnate because of this.

exactly.

then, we have to be able to understand how valuable this idea is and how good is the potential team, correct?

anyway, question was - how to assess negative review - for example made by the author of this topic.
which criteria were used?
how do you trust this review?
based on exactly what?
cheesy and emotionally loaded text? or meritocratic and thorough expert work?
how do you differ those?

again, let's focus on solution here.

regulators is not the best solution - crypto is probably not fully compatible with current legal system.

how do you trust negative reviews?
where is proof of work that this review is legit or not?

{quote}
Hey there,

I am a blockchain developer and most of my work consists in auditing Blockchain projects, criticising their use-case and proposing solutions and guidances.
What really kills me is the amount of scams and useless projects based on economic scarcity, fomo and proof of stupidity (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1ZYGuJXBQE)

The reasons why we have to fight scams are fairly simple:
- Scams attract regulators
- More scams attract more scammers
- People invest blindly but if given the change to understand a project based on a professional analysis I'm sure many will think twice between sending those guys money.
- You know what is worse than exit scams? Shell projects that never get finished or have no traffic because their use case is pure BS.

I propose listing all the ICO scams here that can't correctly justify their use case, presumably scams:

* EQUI https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2888110.0
The guys weren't able to justify the use of their token and don't answer to critics and questions. More importantly they provide a passive return on investment which fails the Howey test (http://consumer.findlaw.com/securities-law/what-is-the-howey-test.html). They use their public image in order to attract suckers. Based on their use of proceeds they reserve 30% in order to develop the platform. 30% of 72 million to develop a react website with a postgres database and link it to infura (i assume they didn't even think about that). Laughable at best.
{quote}

Would be grateful to hear solid opinion about adding credibility to a new project which does not have a product yet (hence doing an ICO), when we have to make compatible both communities, which are quite distinctive from each other - crypto and current vc/financial industry. who should start - one or another?

Hello, guys!

Thank you for all your feedback, it's important to us to ensure we continue to learn and improve on daily basis.
Equi team is active on telegram group: https://t.me/equicapital

Going back to development perspective, here are a number of aspects which contribute to making Equi unique:

1) clients cannot share/sell their private key, this would not fit KYC requirements. This has a few important implications such as... the inability to use client-side wallets where the user is in charge of their own private keys, hence we will use a custodial account approach. Therefore, we are responsible for all the funds, which leads us to the question - can you trust us with your Ether?

2) The Ethereum private keys we generated for our customers are stored in the safest manner possible, in a secure safety deposit box in this instance.

3) All spendable transactions will be achieved by signing a transaction on airgapped computer (one which has never be connected to Internet), and then transaction data will be copied to another machine and distributed to the Ethereum Blockchain. 

As you see from the above, its quite different approach when compared to publishing an ERC20 token and allowing anybody to exchange their hard earned Ether for EQUItokens.

If you have more question, we will provide the best answers we can to clarity your queries and hopefully mitigate your concerns.

Please, let's stick to constructive, efficient and valuable discussion, time is precious.