This is a 1 time fee to get verified. Simple as that.
We haven't charged more then 50% of the developers the fee, yet we've spent over 10 hours trying to verify them in the past few days. Not the mention the efforts that are even going into this from the entire Coins Source Team.
I have no comment against the remark of our site being a scam. I spent the past 6 months day and night working on this Company, and several other Coins Source members have spent equally as much time.
We are the most honest, sincere and trustworthy site that could ever exist. There is not 1 thread not 1 complaint before we started this trust verification against us.
But when we charge a fee for something totally new to the crypto, to progress it forward, to help users, to help you, the end of the world has come..
We are not changing our model, and we will be enforcing our fee due to the amount of reputation we've built and the reputation we are putting forth behind Developers.
We know how to handle this Verification, we've been discussing this amongst ourselves since almost the beginning of Coins Source.
First off, I made a point in my post to say that this didn't mean your site was a scam ... I have your site in my signature, for starters... if I thought it was a scam it wouldn't be there. I simply said that by charging developers for the verification, that to some it may appear scammy. Sort of like if any coin or project here said, 'Send us money and get our seal of approval. Without it, nobody will trust you or buy your coins.' A person's natural reaction would be, who are these guys and why can we trust them... and if they are charging devs for this seal, are they being completely unbiased and honest? Again, I think you may do better with a free model, but of course that is up to you. If enough devs signed up and used the trust seal, you'd probably get back whatever time you spent on verifying people anyway, via advertising/links. |
|
|
|
|
I posted a couple of questions and concerns in the other thread about this, but at the time assumed this service was free. If you plan to charge devs $30 a pop for each application, I see some problems.
Less devs will agree to it for starters. For free, I expect honest devs to at least consider it. But when any group starts charging for verification of some type, it starts to look a bit scammy. Note I am not say this is a scam, just that it may appear less than honest or fair.
The wording on your site is very misleading.
Becoming a Trusted Developer
As a promotional effort to celebrate the launch of our new Premium Membership section, we are offering one free ranking for each new membership. As an additional ‘perk’ for developers, you will be able to open your own dedicated thread on the Coins Source forums.
So after this promo period, do you plan to charge devs plus charge then for a prem. membership too? Or charge them a flat rate outside of being a prem. member?
Why not go with a free model? Simply ask that each trust logo include a link back to CoinsSource and consider it a form of advertising, and you'd make money that way instead, indirectly.
|
|
|
|
Yea I think it's a good idea to use Bittrex as escrow. Bittrex is a very popular exchange these days and if they were to host the IPO you would be able to tap directly into their massive user base. Also using an exchange would make it easier for people to participate in the IPO.
Bittrex is currently where ICO/IPOs go to die. I think the last 3-4 didn't even get off the ground. And the couple before that all tanked, and in some cases the devs abandoned their projects completely (hence why they tanked). Poloniex would be a better idea in my opinion, due to stricter rules. Question for the devs ... did you get this idea from a fellow a ways back who was thinking of making a Landmarks coin, mentioned here -- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=593714.0It was a decent idea, so am wondering if you just copied it or are working with the original dev for that project? Again, I like the idea, just not so fond of the IPO, especially without escrow. And having newbie/jr. members go around talking about how much they put into the IPO doesn't exactly fill me with confidence either. If the IPO is run on a proper exchange with some real rules, I might consider putting a little into it. But more likely I'd wait until it hits an exchange and the devs show a working system. I'll also add that Landmarks is a way cooler name than Checkcoin (in my opinion, anyway). |
|
|
|
I have a strong opinion about "DEV" driven coins.. In my opinion they never work. All that happens is the community is fed bullshit promises that are only used to pump the price short term for the gain of a few, while the majority get exploited. I will of course be a leader in our community and look for opportunities to grow our project, however, I strongly feel the majority of GROUPCoin's development comes from the community!
I feel a GROUPCoin foundation comprised of participants like yourself will be key to GROUPCoin's success moving forward. We have one key value proposition, and that is our distribution. Lets capitalize on that! Anything is possible,as long as we have a solid foundation. One that we pour today!
Personally I don't have a problem with dev driven coins, assuming the dev remains active and adds unique features to a coin. Of course that isn't always the case here, where many claims are simply promises or whitepapers of some far off plans that never see the light of day. In those cases, yeah, such promises do more harm than good. But some features, lets say a mobile wallet and such is never a bad idea. And if a coin isn't going with unique code (anon, nxt flavor, decentralized marketplace, crypti/ethereum/maidsafe, qora, etc) then it may be best to focus on marketplaces/commerce or a specialized niche. The distribution is a plus, but I guess I just look at it like every coin ideally should have a purpose (outside of trading on an exchange). It's just a matter of figuring out what niche the coin fits into. |
|
|
|
Please contribute by continuing the conversation! If you have ideas on how to drive GROUPCoin further let everyone know!
My first question would be what do you plan to do after distribution is over? I expect contact exchanges, but as far as the coin goes, what plans do you have? The fair distribution stuff is nice, but a use or something else unique about the coin would be of some benefit. Plan to use it for mostly commerce and marketplaces? Do you plan to update the code to anon eventually, or add some other features? Find a niche for the coin and it'd definitely improve the value. But I'm not sure what niche you have in mind. |
|
|
|
What happens to the remaining 3 M coins if they aren't sold? Given away? Destroyed?
You'll need to do something with any spares.
They are being distributed according to the number of shares issued. The more shares that are issued, the fewer coins issued per stairs. There will be no left over coins. The OP has been updated and if you add up all the shares issued (multiplied by coins per share on the op) it'll add up to 10m Makes sense... basically if they aren't sold, all existing stakeholders simply get more coins then. If sold, we get less. For some odd reason I thought the coin counts were locked in after last night's change to the ICO prices -- think you were using that 750 sats model earlier, which is what confused me. |
|
|
|
|
What happens to the remaining 3 M coins if they aren't sold? Given away? Destroyed?
You'll need to do something with any spares.
|
|
|
|
 Eh? Reminds me a bit too much of a captcha, like I'm trying to decipher what the letters are. |
|
|
|
hype and volume now fading away, glad I cashed some out at 300k and above and probably won't get a new ath anytime soon. Though I'll still be watching this coin waiting for the despair stage.  Thanks for the profits anyway.  Unless they release more news, info on whatever that secret project thingy is, more PoSA updates, or release One Market for testing. Then there may be a despair stage, but probably not the type you are thinking of. |
|
|
|
So if I have credit in the Crypti Pre-sale (CRSALE) and not in Crypti (XCR) does that mean that I didn't get in on time?
Check the ledger. If you were too late, it should all be listed as over the cap. |
|
|
|
My opinion is if somebody dumps early then they will probably weaken their chance of getting a top up, and if somebody buys ORA with 'valuable' NXT, then the ORA collective is swapping a less committed person, for a potentially more committed one, and I want to encourage committed people to join ORA and contribute wherever I can.
It would be nice to be able to vote asap, but we don't have any control over when the NXT voting system goes live.
Thanks for the reply. And yep, if coin holders are the ones voting, they will all vote for people holding the coin to receive more stakes, not the original stakeholders. Basically expect whomever votes, to vote themselves more coins... just human nature. I'd just go with giving out extra stakes to original stakeholders right now... but of course I'm an original stakeholder, so obviously I would say that. I don't have plans to sell cheap, but if in the following weeks if I happen to check the exchange and for some reason the price is insane, I'd certainly be tempted to sell, like most people would be. It'll just be confusing if nobody knows how future stakes may or may not be given out, and to whom. Actually one way to keep the price stable and for people to dump less is to give out 2nd stakes based on how many coins people hold ... sort of like how comm did it. Although of course it did then dump after the 2nd round of stakes, but recovered decently. Then it just died of natural causes later on. |
|
|
|
i think the market is waiting for news from dev.
The current price is very reasonable but it will easily 10x if any good news released from dev team.
I'm primarily interested in what is going to go on with the additional stakes, how voting will work, and if people sell their coin at all, will they get any future stakes or not. I still have mine (actually assume I do, didn't check if it arrived yet), but if the coin does hit a decent price, it'd be nice to know if I should hold or wait for a vote on the rest of the coins. |
|
|
|
Not a disaster for all, Any smart early investor who got in at 10K and sold at 30-40 made serious profit. There was over 1000 btc volume in one day alone. A ton of people made a ton of money on dcm, I for one was one of them! And let's not forget that all this happened in a matter of hours.
I know, I squeaked out with the teensiest of profit still. But let's just say a disaster for many. I think the coin is even de-listed now completely. |
|
|
|
Yeah, exactly... the team stole 110 BTC and you stole 20 BTC  ) that was my point...you are a scammer, and you were part of a scamcoin... Stop lying to yourself dude... I'm not butthurt because I lost...but I can't believe how senile can you be... Just have the balls to say... "yes, I'm smarter than you sheeps, and I made some easy money..." I can respect you more at that point... Although I can't believe I am defending Bob, I was active in that DCM thread ... I wouldn't say it's theft if we weren't privy to the details of their original agreement. He was paid for 'marketing', if I recall right. Or in other words, to bring in investors early on during the ICO -- you can read into that and figure out what that means. The rest of the team ran off, stole the money and locked the threads. Basically a disaster for all. I put some money into Cloak because of Bob's tip. I cashed out some at a double up, and put a little back in when it dipped (looking at the price now, wish it was more). And not because I trust him, nor because I think he's a nice guy just handing out freebie advice. Because as his signature used to say, he's an asshole. And if anyone knew where the whales were feeding, it's an asshole. It's a red flag as far as a long term investment goes, but short-midterm, it seemed like a good bet. |
|
|
|
Since there is still an opportunity for refund until Aug 10, it is possible for a holder of these "pre-coins" to sell them and then get a refund of the original BTC invested in CRShares. This will be profitable for the original investor IF THE PRICE OF XCR falls below the IPO price.
Please note that refunds are disabled since the early-trading announcement on Monday, and now that XRC tokens have been distributed, the CRSALE will be removed by Bter. That makes much more sense. Otherwise, it'd be crazy. |
|
|
|
If it has fixed the bloat issue + GUI, I now wonder why the coin isn't more popular than it is.
these things take time to get around the name is silly which probably is why there aren't any 250 btc walls hanging around, but zoidberg is working hard at improving the important parts. I wonder if they have given any thought to a name change (yet again)? It's weird to think that they chose a name that really works against them. It is hard to take a coin seriously when it sounds like a brand of odd cereal. Keep BBR if they want... just come up with something a bit more professional sounding? |
|
|
|
They refunded "overcap" BTC. The cap was 750 BTC
Yep. But I believe he is saying people can still request a refund of their original IPO purchase up until the 10th, even though trading has started on the 'pre-coins'? I assumed all returns/refunds would be over as soon as any form of trading started? |
|
|
|
The "pre-coins" have been distributed two days ago. The actual coins wont be in your account until Aug 10 or 11. Bter is trading "pre-coins" in actuality. Since there is still an opportunity for refund until Aug 10, it is possible for a holder of these "pre-coins" to sell them and then get a refund of the original BTC invested in CRShares. This will be profitable for the original investor IF THE PRICE OF XCR falls below the IPO price. Or IF THE PRICE CLIMBS DRAMATICALLY, the original investor could then demand more BTC or he will refund his CRShares and the second buyer will lose the pre-coins. Refunds will negate the sale of the pre-coins, and any subsequent sales. So watch out Notice that you have a balance still in CRShares and XCR?  You can trade the pre-coins, but you run the risk of a purchase being reversed if the price drops or blackmailed into additional BTC if the price rises too much. This can't be right, can it? How can they put up pre-coins for sale, auction style, then still allow refunds? That doesn't make any sense. |
|
|
|
My general idea for a new logo (I am no graphics designer & I suck at photoshop) but the idea is a more pro looking logo... anyone wants to give it a try, maybe the devs will approve?  It's better than what they are using now. |
|
|
|
If I was evil and a dev, I'd just go for the 5/7 rating and use a fake identity... over and over. They could always state they don't have a driver's license. All they would need is a throw away mobile phone and an address of 'someone' to get a postcard at.
To verify by postcard, we use the address on the drivers license. So in order to obtain the last 3 points, a Photo id or license is required. Okay, that's not too bad then. Basically means any dev with 4/7 or less is meaningless (might as well not even sign up for the program), while everyone else should be 7/7. Although of course fake IDs aren't exactly super impossible to come by either. Personally I think a code review would be more useful, but I guess that is also much more time intensive on your part. In order to fake an email name, orginial btt (3 months or older, we go through and confirm) and text-message would require a lot of work. We've actually called the number of the text that they became verified with and have had a conversation with the developer. The Trust Index is not 100% scam proof, its an extra layer of security. A Code review system will be in place shortly, stay tuned while we work out the logistics. We have an excellent plan that will work. The BTT account check is better than nothing, but I am sure plenty of devs have puppet accounts. And calling a number on a mobile honestly is sort of meaningless, when anyone can go buy a cheap phone for $20 or get a throwaway phone number app. If it was me, I'd only put some value in 7/7 people, as they would have to go to a bit of work to really fake everything. And the code review thing sounds good. My only suggestion is to not charge devs for this service, as besides it being less likely they'd oblige, it then comes across a little scammy. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
