What do you concider to be your biggest competitor (once launched)?
NEX looks good...

Thanks for the update. I've been keeping up with you guys since the price dipped since the ICO. I've glad to see great process on the platform.

It got pumped by a pump group.

So... I stumbled accross OAX graph, wich look like it could finally break the downtrend but then Ive read what devs ''accomplished'' during the year and damn... I'm going to pass my turn.

Quick summary :

- They went to 2 conference/summit
- There is one new team member

................

How hella disapointing is that. Do they even have devs and what hell are they doing? The qualification and function of the team is : leadership and some advisor? Not gonna lie I feel bad for whoever holding bags of this and it sounds like a bunch of bankers (like ive read) with 0 knowledge in blockchain and used the momentum to build up one of the worst project on the crypto market with zero intention of really developing it. If OAX starts to fly, this market is definitely irrational. Not trying to FUD, just pointing facts.

Now with the etherdelta hack it's OAX turn and gain Huge support not only with development but with trading price.  

Regarding price, Now is the Buy zone; people forget what happened weeks ago, what I mean by this is OAX was 65k satoshis at one point.  The current price is 3,700Satoshis-btc; thats 15x off the highest price reached back in Aug.

You would have to be insane to sell any OAX as sellers are just taking loss and opportunity loss.  In the short term this can easily go 2-3x and 5-10x in the not so long term.

Hello, if you see OAX and are thinking of buying it because its green DO NOT BUY IT! The devs are only here to scam you, they took the 25 million and ran and then went to another project with Hugh. There has been no progress on this project and it has been on a disgusting downward spiral since the ICO (still below ICO price). The team refuses to answer tough questions like

"Why don't you care about the price of your token?"
"Why don't you care about getting this token on a real exchange?"
"Why are you still trying to have another ICO when the first one was a failure?"
"Where are the updates or code? It has been 6 months since ico and and all you've done is update the site!"

Additionally, the devs were colluding to pump the price up before the Binance listing (as you can see in the comments earlier in this thread) and they coordinated a dump right before it hit the exchange (they sold millions of dollars of their own tokens). This is illegal but what can you expect from greedy ex-bankers.

OAX Team, if you want people to get faith in your token start pumping up the price and get it on a real exchange like Bittrex or Poloniex. Otherwise people will still distrust you and not buy your tokens or use them (even if the exchange turns out to be a good working product).

Hi everyone. I am coordinating a lawsuit against Hugh and the OAX team for the binance pump and dump. I have proof and screenshots that they coordinated the price to pump and then simultaneously dumped their holdings before it hit the exchange. I am serious in getting a lawyer and getting action here. Please PM me if you want to be represented in this class action lawsuit.

hOAX

Bear with me, this is going to be a long post. Hopefully it will give you and the rest of the community some insight into my thinking and my expectations based off the career I have had and the people I have worked with.

Yes, that was a slam. And yes it was aggressive - I'm not happy with OAX so far. They are my observations as a business guy who has been around capital markets, hedge funds and VC funding for over 14 years plus another 11 years in strategy gigs in banking. So all up 25 years if you're counting, most of it in entrepreneurship and business building. To put some context behind this, I have personally been involved in launching and growing 8 ventures in the past 10 years. 1 was a spectacular success, 3 were a good successes, 4 failed. With our VC business, I would guesstimate 70% of our investments fail, 20% return as expected, the rest will outperform with a few outliers being huge hits. So there's a lot of learning here on what works and what doesn't and the qualities displayed by exceptional business leaders vs the rest.

I'm not sure what "facts" you feel I am not referencing - they are my perceptions of OAX, it's what I see in the public domain and how I interpret  it.

Before I dissect your post, let me first address your post from a branding perspective. I am afraid your response reads incredibly unprofessionally. It lacks structure, lacks poise, lacks command and control, displays defensive desperation, is combative and is rambling -  at times I don't even know who you are addressing and who you are quoting.  It simply lacks the maturity and professionalism that is expected of an A grade player looking to make a mark in this space. I couldn't imagine your blue chip partners responding like this. It's this lack of professionalism that has me doubting your capabilities as seasoned business guys and serves to confirm my opinion of the leadership team. Like I said to Hullo above, signals.

While you have been good at responding to feedback and criticism throughout this thread, to date this has only been "soft" pressure. With the first sign of being pushed with hard pressure this is the response we get. It's a very telling indicator of how you guys handle pressure and crisis and a good indicator of your future behaviour. This is already manifesting itself in the way the OAX project is panning out and serves to confirm prior suspicions about your execution capabilities.

Finally, can you clarify who "shadowlpb" exactly is? Is it an OAX employee, is it Liam, is it Hugh, is it a major investor, an advisor....?
I accept you guys are trying to communicate but there's a lack of transparency with a lot of your posts. I don't spend much time on here so can't go looking through all your posting pseudonyms from OAX representatives to work out who is actually posting. Yes it's the internet but you should either personally stand behind your business or don't bother at all. This is even more pertinent given that you have taken funding from the public. Be clear in real names who is actually posting from OAX. As it stands I am just confused as to who's who and what's what with OAX.

Now to the specifics of your post.

What is the #1 reason that crypto is not mainstream right now?

I don't need convincing of the importance of banking relationships. It's a pretty obvious observation for anyone who has spent any time in capital markets. Heck you don't even need capital markets experience to grasp this, anyone with a business mind will quickly see the fiat and banking bottleneck in cryptos.
 
I am by no means a crypto expert but I do know the key difference between centralised and decentralised exchanges and the need for fiat currencies. I do, however, find amusing your hypothesis that Kraken, Bitfinex et al don't have (or can't maintain) banking relationships because they haven't tied up with an industry expert (a Big 4 or law firm as you assert). I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt (i.e. that you know that having a big 4 relationship is only but a small factor in your ability to build banking partnerships), but I am afraid the way you expressed this as a singular root cause problem is just plain amateurish and comical.

Even more worrying is your quote:

"...... having real problems maintaining banking relationships. Why is that? Because when they initially launched they did not consulting industry experts. Because when they initially launched they did not consulting industry experts (Like PwC, EY and lawyers)....".

Excuse me, but aren't you guys supposed to be the experts in crypto? Banks are turning to Fintech startups to learn this space and they are actively seeking partnerships with crypto/DLT and Fintech startups to learn about this new world and to co-develop solutions. Of course, they are incredibly selective as to who they work with but it's the banks who are actively encouraging Fintech/Crypto/DLT startup engagement and opening up invitations for partnerships. You guys are supposed to be the experts in cryptos, not the banks and most certainly not the Big 4s.

With regard to PwC and EY being the industry experts, can you point to any individual person from PwC or EY in your working group, or the firm itself, that brings in more than 1 year of experience in crypto, blockchain, DLT? I know they have deep experience in KYC/AML, governance, compliance etc advisory across BFS. This will be useful for working out how the compliance regime impacts in this new crypto trading world. But how much real world, and tangible, work have they done in the crypto space? How much real fee paying work have they done with regulators, how much real fee paying work have they done with other crypto players (compliance and/or general advisory across the crypto world)? If cryptos is too much of a stretch, then at the very least how much real world fee paying work have they done in the Fintech space? This will help to validate your assertions that you are working with crypotcurrency industry experts.

Oh, and a few PDFs, online event videos, retrospective talk about the year that was in crypto, presenting Fintech surveys, interviews with Fintech/crypto leaders etc doesn't count as real world fee paying work by PwC, EY et al. Being a commentator in an area you had no involvement in just a year or two ago doesn't all of a sudden make you an industry expert.

As to my "useless stuff about PwC, EY and KWM".

Having said the above, I do agree that it's a good strategy to get Big 4s and other brands on board to give validity to the project. However, my concern is your over reliance, and spruiking, of these brand names as your USP.  As it stands now you are leaning on the Big 4s for your credibility. This speaks volumes for your mentality about business growth, brand building and execution. The clear message from OAX is that you choose to buy credibility rather than invest in building your own foundational, and long lasting, credibility.

This brings me to what exactly this Big 4/KWM relationship is? Correct me if I am wrong, but as you have described it the Big 4s have merely joined your working group? I assume it's just a couple of their mid level employees, maybe a partner or a director, turning up for a monthly chit chat about regulatory issues!?!? I also assume that this is gratis, they are not formally doing any advisory work for you (re governance, risk mgt, compliance, business/ops strategy etc), they are not regulatory lobbying on your behalf, they are not introducing you to regulators, they are not opening up banking relationships en mass and they are not endorsing you to their banking clients or the market??

From all I have read, no where do I see endorsement by the Big 4s, or any other Blue Chip firm, of the OAX business or OAX leadership team. Please correct me if I am wrong on this!? And also please confirm that if I were to ask my FS partner contacts at EY and PwC in Hong Kong they will confirm that they are backing, supporting and promoting OAX?

From my experience with working groups, it's a lot of talking with very little action and follow up. No different to the many internal meetings company people bemoan on a  daily basis. For these big consultancies it just serves as a marketing avenue for them to post straight to linkedin or twitter immediately after attending with headlines like "proud to working with the team at ....". The big consultancies are notorious for this - every Fintech event, they're there. The simple reality is 2 years ago these Big 4s wouldn't have acknowledged you unless you wanted to pay them a fee. In 2017 though, the year of the crypto, they're all over it with no meaningful experience in this space. Who knows what latest trend they'll be chasing next year and whether they'll still be with you.

Having said that, and as mentioned above, I do think that the Big 4s, and your law firm partner, are valuable for wading through the regulatory points, setting up your governance practices, helping with KYC/AML etc . Hopefully you are using this opportunity to build your own capabilities here.

By all means if you don't have credibility yourself then feeding off their brand name is a good strategy. It's a good strategy that the masses will buy into but critical minds will see through. I would imagine your crypto audience would be made up of more of the latter personality types.
 
from "Day#1"

Your comment from Day#1 doesn't fly. Day 1 was 8/9/10 months ago when you were drafting your white paper, not today. My problem is that you went out to the public, got investment in your ICO and only now are trying to work it out. Now admittedly the ICO and Crowd Funding world is different, but in my VC world businesses don't get funded off business plans or seeds of an idea for the reasons you are displaying - an unfounded team with no meaningful exits who haven't shown execution capabilities who are now meandering in the hope of hitting quick surface level wins. Not much has happened for the first few months after the ICO. All we saw was your global travelling on the ICO's dime. You are fortunate the ICO world allows fund raising without even a proof of concept. But in the VC and IPO world, only the best management teams, who have built validated business will get funding. You could have used the correct Day 1  (have all the bits and pieces in place at the time of white paper publication) to really differentiate yourself from the other ICOs out there but squandered it with a lack of a foresight into how the market will react, lack of focus, lack of speed and now a lack of transparency.

"Why are some tokens sales/ICO's now having huge problems in terms of are they a security or not? Because they did not consult with a legal team or understand regulation."

100% agree and this where your law firm (and also the Big 4s) can help. While I didn't out KWM specifically in my original post I did say "the law firm you keep trotting out" which is inferring KWM. Lumping them in with the likes of the Big 4s was wrong on my part and I apologise for that. KWM's legal expertise in unpacking new products and their applicability to existing laws (and how laws need to change) can, and will, add significant value for you and the industry as a whole. I hope this is successful partnership for you.

Who is blockbonds?

No I didn't look them up. Why? There are far too many of these cyrpto startups coming and going on an almost a daily basis. A lot of fakes, a lot of frauds, a lot of incompetence and a lot of companies with simply nothing to add. I didn't criticise them but asked who they are. As your credibility is already low in my eyes, I am not going to assume that the startups you are working with are all A grade game changers.

I notice that you did not reference NetKi or Trusted Key, our other Working Group members. The reason for that is they are both legitimate, well respected industry leaders?

As with Blackbonds.

And once again, a comical, amateurish and just plain immature response. I ignored them because I realised they were legit and well respected!!! Really - I'm really not sure of your logic behind that conclusion!

We don't use Steemit

I don't know about this but some of the posts on Steemit read like they could be coming from OAX, or someone associated with OAX. They certainly do read incredibly positive and glowing of OAX. As mentioned, with all the posting pseudonyms you guys use I really don't know who's who and what's what. If they genuinely aren't your posts then that's fine but it is your job to be on top of and monitor your social media mentions. Steemit (along with Medium) is probably the site that has the largest collection of articles about OAX. It just reads strange when you flat out say that you don't use Steemit yet don't acknowledge, or maybe realise, that a lot of OAX info for your investors most likely came from Steemit articles.

On the prototype. I think that we communicated clearly from Day#1 the timeline for delivery. Apple puts out a phone every year, so a year seems a reasonable timeframe .....

Not arguing with you on this. My concern is here is your use of ICO funds to build a prototype. Yes I do realise the way of the ICO and Crowd Funding world vs the traditional funding world i.e. fund to produce vs funding off production. My point here is two fold. Firstly, this was an opportunity to differentiate yourself from the rest of the ICOs )(i.e. actually show something tangible at white paper time, at 2 weeks, at 4 weeks etc). Secondly, it's very naive of you, and shows lack of business experience, to think that you can say Q2 2018 and expect the market to keep quiet until then.

Oh and don't compare yourself to Apple. You just sound like amateurs. Apple is a hardware manufacturer that embeds software capabilities into a vast API and App ecosystem. They have an incredibly complex global supply chain, operations, logistics and vendor ecosystem made up of independent contractors and vendors that need to tie into a global hardware and software ecosystem. Their business model and  ecosystem is in orders of magnitude more complex than anything OAX is building.

The ventures I have been involved in and the startups we fund through our VC business are all software and tech companies. None of them take anywhere near the time you think is necessary to build a prototype. Admittedly, I don't spend my days looking at just crypto exchanges, but from what I have gathered, it looks like your crypto exchange competitors also don't require the time to build working models that you think you need, let alone do they need to go through an ICO to do it.

Agreed, this is an interesting feature. But the white paper wording on this is far too vague. Note - the white paper doesn't specifically say that this process will legally binding in all jurisdictions, it just says internationally accepted whatever that means. A good feature nonetheless.

Hi Hullo. It's all about signals. Everyday there are signals that influences the price and the perception of the project. And it's not just signals from OAX but also from competitors, from community  views, from the market etc. All these impact the project, not all will be favorable, kind or even rational. But they are still signals as are OAX's responses in this thread.  I agree the whitepaper says the project will be delivered in Q2 2018 but to think they have no accountability until then is not prudent.

I'll address their comments later.

Is everything on track with regard to the roadmap goals?

Don't let my forum rank confuse you. I don't spend much time on this forum so haven't built credibility here but have spent the last 14 years working in capital markets and hedge funds, including working with a team on the launch of two FX trading businesses, both of which were globally scaled with one being bought out to the tune of U$225m. I'd like to think I know a thing or two about growing businesses.

Similarly, don't let OAX's postings fool you. To be clear I am not saying these guys are scamming (I actually think these guys are trying) but what they have done so far doesn't add any value in the context of the greater picture and what they have delivered is nothing short of a joke. Their messages haven't really given any great insight. Marketing and PR is just too easy nowadays, it's too easy to build smoke and mirrors - heck I know nobodies  who have built a career off social media and networking site postings but who have nothing to show for it except for their own proselytising of who they want to be.


This is the thing that gets me. Hugh seems to be well versed in this type of business and it looks like the initial thinking behind this is his ideas. And they are great ideas. I'm not sure what involvement the other ANX team members have (Ken, Dave, Jehan, ) but it appears they are just figureheads trotted out on the webpage - I haven't heard any comments from them about OAX. The other David just seems like a complete mystery - very opaque for such a fancy background. They have some good advisors on board but a very young, very untested and dare I say probably very cheap tech team. Since the white paper, I am seeing lack of business judgement and business sense in rolling out and managing the OAX business. If this was a regular IPO, the investors wouldn't be happy. like I said, actually think these guys are trying but their lack of competence as seasoned business guys is jeopardising this project. Honestly, I would be happy if they got rid of the existing leadership team and brought on some industry and business heavy hitters to salvage this dog with fleas.

This is really turning into one big joke of smoke and mirrors marketing BS. I'm really wondering whether this is a legit ICO:

- Rehashing your same small talk at conferences - maybe the ICO was to fund your holidays in exotic locales. Hugh seems to be doing nothing more than pimping himself globally whenever he gets a chance but never seems to add anything new let alone talk about OAX developments (harsh comment I know but your conference appearances aren't adding value to OAX);
- enlisting the likes of EY and PWC and the law firm you keep trotting out - those that don't have their own product or execution capabilities partner with these guys, at best they're marketing firms - they'll be whatever you want them to be (Strategy& anyone!!), whatever the latest trend is they'll be there pretending to be "experts";
- Who is this Blockbonds mob - just another of the thousands of crypto startups with a pipe dream but have yet to deliver anything??
- This thread is your only community - made up a few people playing nice in a hope to get some of their money back from ICO. Your Reddit is a ghost town, any other mentions of OAX gets no response. You are, for all intents and purposes, forgotten outside of this thread unless you have info that can shed a different light???
- 5 months after the ICO and all you have got is your Slack AMA and more marketing drivel on steemit about what you have done but can't show for. Oh yeah we got a UI screenshot last week, some random pictures of your spartan team and some 280p videos. Lol - reminds of the guy who posts a wedding speech picture on his linkedin profile to give the impression he's an intl speaker.
- 1 year from ICO and white paper to build a prototype?? Really, what half serious tech company takes that long to build a prototype. Speed is the USP of any tech company yet somehow you guys think 1 year cuts the mustard. Speed is the basis of digital disruption, your competitors seem to get it but you guys don't.  Even if you do get a prototype out, you have no one left interested in you to test it.
- "No need to overspend" - WTF!!! R&D spend is the biggest spend for any half decent tech company. Pay peanuts, get monkeys, don't spend on your team and leaders to build the product and you will deliver some half baked solution, if at all.

I would love to hear your anecdotes of all the great tech disruptors who took their jolly time on product development and partnered with the likes of PwC and EY to change the world.

Really I have been watching this thread and just had to respond to the sheer ridiculousness of your responses, this one takes the cake. I really don't know what you guys are playing at. I look at ANX and think well ok these guys seem to have built a decent business. But I look at OAX and can't help but think of the sheer lack of business sense. You seem to have a great idea with OAX but so far have failed miserably at delivering on it. The idea deosn't make the business. You guys really need to rethink your leadership team, your business case and your ability to deliver because as it stands right now it's looking pretty damn miserable. And no, standing behind your hopelessly inadequate white paper and product road map doesn't cut it, you need to start delivering a product and delivering on the business model.

i m belive in oax, i think this project will be be successful. i realy belive that. i m not talking jaw, this is my real thought.

Peloso, this is the Big M at OAX. (M for Marketing). I have warned you before, please refrain from any negative contact or comment on our threads anywhere.