Several questions have arisen. You are also welcome to contact us in our telegram group to get a quicker answer. We have also answered many questions in our FAQ, please have a look there.
 
Which advantages does SavAct have compared to other decentralized voting systems:
SavAct “forces” the host of a voting to stick with the result, otherwise most voters might invalidate their transactions. Content creators can use these votings to fund themselves with the help of their supporters. The votings can be shared independent of the platform, for example as texts, images, or masks in video streams. You can find more information in chapter 2.2 of the White Paper.
 
Regarding the Proof of Concept:
It uses a prescriptive analogy model. This means that similar mechanisms of interaction are compared. The relationship between invalidation and negative evaluation was explained in the section "Relative frequency 𝑷 in comparison". Both actions have absolutely no advantages for the buyer and only serve to punish the seller. Thus, they are both performed for the same motivations. In addition, a couple of worst-case assumptions were introduced in the study, making it very unlikely that the resulting costs would be underestimated. We have linked the almost 2000 analyzed sellers, how they were selected and their data here. So everyone can check for themselves that the analysis is valid.

Regarding the wallets:
If there are any problems, please check if you meet the system requirements. If something still doesn't work, please let us know and describe your problem in detail.
When the token or coin is online, the wallet will be updated to be able to handle them. We also want to cover as many systems as possible and there will certainly be a browser-plugin, but currently we are working on the programming on the blockchain.
 
Regarding to getting the token and coin:
We want to build up some reach, partnerships and push the programming before we announce the sale. Furthermore, we are planning different projects which will grant access to the coin SavAct, but currently other tasks have priority.
 
Regarding to our team:
We don't know why some people make up such a groundless accusation. Well, our team consists exclusively out of real people. This can be easily seen by a short google research, in LinkedIn and Facebook are also some registered. On some listing pages our team members are even verified by KYC. If there are further possibilities to verify our team members, please let us know.

Furthermore, we are searching for more team members, for that we want to publish some job offer in the near future.
 
There were some questions about Kevin Tuncer, his social media channels and his previous Kickstarter project.
Kevin Tuncer is CEO of SavAct and has submitted the trademark application and patents through a patent attorney Rüdiger Spies. Kevin was already a lecturer in Rapid Prototyping and sometimes publishes some articles on his private social media channels, but mostly in German.
At the time during his master studies he had worked on some open source projects and started a Kickstarter campaign. He had developed a computer- and app-controlled camera track, but the founding was not sufficient in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the Kickstarter campaign was stopped before the deadline, so no founder lost money. The project was then made available open source and now everyone can enrich themselves free of charge. See here on Kickstarter and here on GitHub.
 
Regarding to Fabian Kahlert:
Fabian as computer science master worked on a blockchain at the FIT (Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology) in cooperation with the RWTH (Technical University in Germany). Until the end of this year we are planning to upload more programming code.

How we came to the problem of buyer protection with crypto currencies:
Many fake vendors on the Internet accept crypto currencies because of the identity veiling, you can find many reports about it online. Some of the members of our team have also been scammed when paying with crypto currencies. Therefore, we recognized the need for a mechanism to prevent fraud while maintaining the benefits of crypto currencies. This means that the whole transaction process must be completely decentralized and without the influence of third parties. SavAct offers these features.
 
Regarding the payment process with SavAct:
The seller should not ship the goods until the buyer has sent the coins, of course with a deadline. Within this deadline, the seller should ensure that the buyer receives the goods. If the buyer does not receive the goods, the seller can extend the deadline or return the coins. How exactly this can look like with an offered product was described in chapter 2.1 of the white paper section "Example 1: The use of the Coin SavAct in online trading". Ultimately, the risk of fraud is significantly reduced as fraud does not pay off for any party.

SavAct is a cryptocurrency that enables bought services, goods, voting results etc. to be delivered within an optional time limit. A transaction, recorded in the blockchain, may also contain, besides from the recipient’s address, details like product names or a time limit for delivery. If the product does not arrive within the time limit, the payment may be withdrawn before the time limit runs out. Therefore, the vendor is forced to satisfy the customer. Withdrawn payments are not returned to the buyer but instead they are distributed among token owners and miners and additionally support the development of the system. This ensures that customers do not abuse this function for their own benefits, but only make use of it if they feel betrayed by the vendor. Chapter 2 of the White Paper offers a more detailed explanation and gives a few examples.
For independent and decentralized systems, it is natural that one party, either seller or buyer, has to bear a higher risk. The buyer bears it when using current cryptocurrencies as he must hope for the paid product or service to be delivered. SavAct balances this risk among both parties and the Proof of Concept describes that it saves real vendors more money that the established trustee systems.
So if you see an online shop that only accepts cryptocurrencies but refuses to offer SavAct as a payment method, then you can immediately tell that the chance of a scam is much higher.

Legitimate online shops that allow payments with SavAct offer the buyer a high degree of trust and security. After all, if they do not deliver their product the buyer could invalidate their payment.
Fake online shops that allow payments with SavAct can be denied their payment by simply invalidating the transaction due to scam.
If you see an online shop that only accepts cryptocurrencies but refuses to offer SavAct as a payment method, then you can immediately tell that the chance of a scam is much higher.

We wished back then to start our presale very early. But at the time we had not done a lot of marketing yet and thus had no large audience. Because of that we decided to move the presale to another date.
And now we wish to build an audience and spread the word before we announce an exact date for the presale.
For this reason we updated our documents and added more easy to understand details, submitted another patent, published a study that acts as the proof of concept and are now continuing our publishing of SavAct.

Please argue reasonably. The logical derivation in the PoC has been described in detail, see pages 5 to 6. Please read this passage carefully and check out what you didn't understand about it instead of simply dismissing something as being “worthless”.
There are many logical reasons why the rate of punishments should be even lower, see for example page 10. We always considered the worst assumptions for SavAct in the calculations. Even then, SavAct saves the sellers a lot of money.
Regarding your concerns, please have a look at this chart from the PoC:
Table 3 - Fraud possibilities in comparison if no agreement can be found. Successful fraud is marked using red underlined font.
When using direct payments with cryptocurrencies there is a high risk that the seller does not deliver the goods. After all, the seller already got his payment. When using SavAct however, neither party benefits from scam. The risk of the seller won’t be exactly 0% anymore, but still very close to it and because of the increased trust, the seller would be able to increase his sales figures over his competition.
If you ever paid with cryptocurrencies before, and did not receive your purchase, you would definitely appreciate having SavAct as an option.

We submitted our first patent way before the distribution of the SavAct app. Thus, our plans with the “ecosystem” were made from the very start.

Please take a look at our SavAct announcement, too: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5172990.
All important data is linked there.

After the ICO

It is allowed to upload the same video on several platforms but this bounty campaign only counts the views and likes on Youtube. Of course you can just link your Youtube video on other platforms to get more views.

Minimum video length is 1 minute.

Thanks for your kind feedback. You can find our announcement with all linkings here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5172990.0
Please let us know if you have any open questions.

Welcome to the BitcoinTalk forum WikLock.
That's pretty simplified, a detailed description of the mechanism can be found in the White Paper on page 6 chapter 2.1 "Warranty by time limitation". Of course, it is difficult to prove the concept of a system which doesn't exist already and your concerns of this special case are reasonable but when you read the full Proof of Concept (PoC) your doubts will be dispelled.
You can find the derivation of the calculations of the rate of punishments on page 4 to 6 of the PoC. The results are based on analyzing about 21 million real buyer ratings, including unjustified ratings, while the trustee systems (AmazonPay and PayPal) are included for a comparison of the resulting costs. Pages 1 to 4 explain in detail how these trustee systems can be compared to SavAct.
There are many logical reasons why the rate of punishments should be even lower, see for example page 10.  We always considered the worst assumptions for SavAct in the calculations. Even then, SavAct saves a lot of money for the sellers.

We want to explain even the most complex cases and leave no questions unanswered. As such, it may be a bit extensive.

Thank you for your feedback and for pointing out the typos, we corrected them. For further hints or feedback please do not hesitate to contact us.

Then our system works even better than those trustee solutions. Since with our system the buyer will not get his funds back if he attempts to scam the seller.


There are no buyer focused payment methods in the current anonymous cryptomarket, they are all seller focused. You can increase trust with SavAct as much as you can increase it with other anonymous cryptocurrencies. It is also not a freebie for buyers, because the buyers are unable to keep their funds. I want to mention here that the current anonymous cryptomarkets are freebies for sellers, as they get to keep funds and goods in case of a scam.

About Scenario 1: Please read our FAQ: 8. "What if the buyer invalidates a transaction without any reason?" https://savact.com/menu/faq/

About Scenario 2: A serious seller should, of course, always check if he is about to sell all his goods to a single house address.
So Scenario 2 cannot happen using that argument. If the competitor would try to do it anyway, he would run into a huge risk that all his funds will be lost and neither receive any goods, because the seller caught up to his scheme.
You could compare it to PayPal. Using PayPal, the buyer is almost always in the right if you buy something in Asia from Western countries. Even so, sellers have no problem offering PayPal as a payment method.

The sellers would increase their sales by minimizing the buyers' risk.
Please remember, this is a system for anonymous payments. Trustees target another market.

We would appreciate if you could also have a look at our applications for binding votings.