Thanks for the link. It does seem like the original Whitepaper. I remember reading it before the ICO, but never saved a copy. Good to have a local copy just in case.

For reference on how much the team has gone back on their original promises, here's a quote. Note that dividends vs. buybacks is the least of people's concerns:




I don't see the above being true one bit.

The biggest problem is, all these 'changes' were done AFTER the team raised millions of dollars from the ICO participants. This is material misrepresentation to investors.

With respect to the actual product being developed, I am quite happy with that to be honest, and you're right that they seem better than most ICOs that never deliver anything. With that being said, all the value is going to the team instead of the ICN holders as they promised during the ICO. This is a problem. It is as if they took the money from one group, and built something to benefit another group, violating all the promises made to the first group during the process of raising money. That's what is concerning - not the product itself, but the use of the funds to benefit the investors who put the money to build the product in the first place. That's why everyone is so keen on the ICN utility, so that the ICO investors can see some of the benefits from the platform as well.

The dividends aspect is just one of dozens of issues.

Well, fortunately or unfortunately, the market doesn't care about whether you have some cash or not. The best thing to do is stick with a list of actions in different market conditions. e.g. you might say invest below 30c, and then if the price falls below that, just invest into it. Trying to time the markets based on personal financial situation is futile - it is only a worthy endeavor to manage risk, but hopefully you'd have already taken that into consideration.

Still nothing on the ICN utility Seems the team has given up on the people who funded them in the first place.

Does anyone have a copy of the original ICONOMI whitepaper that they used to raise money from investors? (Post here or PM me please)

That's very true, but those who've seen these cycles before know what to look out for. There were ICOs being done since 2014-15 era. That's when it was undervalued. If every project with half a person technical team starts doing an ICO, you know the market is not sustainable no matter what, although the timing to predict its demise is harder. The market then over-reacts and allocates less money to interesting projects as well since everything is in a bear market and such is the sentiment. Rinse and repeat.

The point is, market cycles are caused by human psychology and that's more important to know than mere technical knowledge.

This is a good start: https://github.com/Sateetje/awesome-nem-projects

Conferences only do so much, unless they are accompanied by product releases. It would be really interesting if there was a product release announced, otherwise it doesn't do much.

What's to FOMO there? It's just a one-page discussion.

I think the team has gone back on their word one too many times, so no one trusts them anymore with helping the ICN token. I guess they have completely retracted the whitepaper on which they raised money from investors as well, and have been changing things without consulting with ICN holders who gave them the capital to invest.

That sounds arbitrary. Why this price point? Are you anchoring to its previous highs relative to BTC?

One can hope. I liked their original technical vision - Tumblebit for BTC and STRAT, smart contracts in C#, masternode.

Yep, but that's only if you're a trader. If you're a longer term holder, the market structure isn't that important. Think of the people that bought into BTC in 2011 say. The market structure was highly immature to say the least, but if you believed in the tech and potential and wanted to hold for the long term, that was ok.

Exactly. It is unfortunate that more people are interested in Bitcoin and crypto during a bull market, and they buy in not because they have researched and want to be a part of this, but because of FOMO. And then the bear market arrives, which is the perfect time to load up on education and research, and people are simply not interested. The few that stick around and really do their research in the bear market would do well for themselves.

Stratis has been pretty flat relative to BTC the last week or so, so there isn't any strong bullish run that you're talking about. The price in USD terms is higher because BTC is higher. Stratis still needs to stand on its own merits through the production release of its Breeze wallet with tumblebit and masternodes. ICOs come later.

Not immediately! We still need to get through the trough of despair Crypto bear markets usually last 18-24 months, so I'd expect the next leg up somewhere in 2020 or so. Obviously, this is just a guess based on past data and patterns.

Yeah exactly. It's better for the price to consolidate in this bear market relative to BTC and wait for a next leg up. There are several developments on the horizon by then, such as Catapult, so we'll see how the market reacts to that.

That's way too small a change to attribute to conferences.

It should go without saying that longer term trend would depend on product delivery and its acceptance in the marketplace. Really hope they can release the Breeze production with Tumblebit so it can see some real use.

Not sure if we're looking at the same charts, but Stratis hasn't seen any noticeable price increase in the last few days. There is a bump today that's due to Bitcoin price rise - nothing to do with Stratis per se. You can remove this effect when you look at the price charts in BTC terms, not USD.

That's a fair point, but don't think Stratis has kept up with the percentile range either, at least from its best performance. I guess the absolute performance is something to track, and then the hypothetical "If you didn't invest in Stratis, where would you have invested?" and go from there.

You can do all that, but you cannot automate real-world information, for example, whether you're spamming or whether you're producing extremely low quality stuff. That's usually why these things are still centralized. Otherwise, the system becomes easy to game.

Depends on when you got in. If you've gotten in when Stratis was in the Top-15, then it hasn't regained its relative position yet. If you got in when it was top-50, then you think it's doing ok. This isn't the best relative rank Stratis had, if that's what you're hinting at.