there is no fast solution for this platform. developing features and putting attractive real estate to sell is the only way to go.

I don't think you understand how startups work, nor how software development works, especially in this space (blockchain & smart contracts) which changes continuously and rapidly.
And no these are not basic signs of scam, a scam is when the team disappears or when they don't deliver a product or they just raise funds and run with the money.
None of the above applies to Etherparty:

- The team is active, they are going to conferences all over the world, they have been doing so since before the token sale and they just came back from 2 conferences in China. They also have other planned conferences.
- The team is ever growing with new employees (including devs) joining the team, just check the team page.
- EP has launched their platform a couple of weeks back, it is live, they are waiting for the first customers (out of 6 confirmed customers) to launch their crowdfund on Rocket: https://rocket.etherparty.com.
- They are also very active on all their community channels, answering questions and sharing news and updates, keeping everyone up to date.

The reason why I say you are trolling is because you are just throwing baseless accusations, and I will tackle each of your points below:

1) The team delays release:
That's normal with a startup, it's normal with big companies imagine a startup, so nothing surprising there, all blockchain projects I know of have had delays none of them delivered on time.

2) The team absolutely does not follow the promised roadmap:
There was no promise, if you read the terms of sale or whitepaper, all details are subject to change as it is normal for a startup to make new plans depending on business and market conditions for the better of the company and its supporters. No company out there will ever make a promise, not sure where you get that from. The roadmap has been changed because the scope of the project has also changed, this was announced early this year in a blogpost explaining why, check out their blog (do some research) they are delivering end-to-end products first Rocket (crowdfunds), then Hero (charity), then Saturn (supply chain). They have released a new "tentative" roadmap during one of their AMAs, also available on the blog here.

3) The team does not monitor the price of its shares:
First of all there are no shares, FUEL is a utility token that gives you access to the platform, surely you must know what you purchased before you purchased it right? The team has always been clear they are not involved with secondary markets because of regulatory concerns, many projects do pump their tokens but at the end of the day most don't have any product, while EP has actually a live product. Also they announced that EP won't be selling any tokens from the ones they hold and they are put on hold until further notice. Customers will have to source their tokens from the current circulating supply on exchanges. What does that mean? That as more customers use Rocket, demand for FUEL will increase and where do these FUEL come from? From exchanges. That is a positive development in my opinion, they also announced that once customers use FUEL on Rocket the company will also lock them for a certain period of time making supply even scarcer over time.

4) The team does shitposting, bad communication with investors:
This is your opinion, don't even know what you mean by shitposting, as I mentioned above they are very active on all their channels and answer all questions as they come, they won't answer questions about token price for obvious reasons but their admins are very proactive and you can't deny that.

5) And if the price falls from ICO -70%, it indicates the inefficiency of the company! They absolutely do not care about investors and obligations:
We are in a bear market for tokens we have had a good time towards the end of 2017 beginning of 2018 but now it's over, if you don't realize that then you are not in the loop with what's happening. Ethereum was 1500 dollars back in January it is about 450 now, is Ethereum inefficient according to your logic? Bitcoin was 20,000 dollars back in January it is now 8000 is Bitcoin inefficient? BCH was 3500 dollars, it is about 800 now, is BCH inefficient? And I can go on and on and on... You don't get it that's your problem not EPs problem. However, value of a token comes from its utilization and the product, EP has a good product and more to come which will increase the value of the token over time. I have confidence in the team, they have experience and are employing new staff all the times, surely someone is going to be smiling in a few months, especially as more companies use Rocket for their crowdfunds. One thing I learned in the space is that patience is always rewarding, of course, if you chose a good team with a great idea. In my opinion EP is one of them. And on a final note, you bought a utility token, if you want responsibility toward investors go buy shares on the stock market, don't buy tokens. I personally believe the money they have raised is being managed pretty well and quite happy they have already delivered the first product. Now I don't know many other projects that have launched a product within less than a year from their crowdfund, that is something to be thrilled about.

The rest of your comments are personal opinions that show your poor understanding of the space and even Etherparty, the company you invested in, so they are not worth replying to.
Just because you say it's a scam doesn't actually means it is, you'd be better refraining from posting such comments as anyone else is well aware of who the team is, their experience and the efforts that are going into building EP.

Give us all a favour, just have a break, be patient and you'll see things will improve over time. Personally I have no rush, I've been around a while and I know a good team when I pick my tokens. Don't take my word for it do your own research, always. By posting crap like you do you are not helping anyone, not even yourself, try to be more positive, it will go a long way.

https://twitter.com/mad4ark/status/1024762337721507840

This guy says he got 0.06 eth for 2500 real investment. If anybody can give more information that'd be nice.

As I read from some messages on social media second propert is also done on the platform. It would be good blog posting about how long those first 2 took to get filled on the platform and other share statistics.
When will the third one come?

Are you joking? almost a year since ico, price fell almost 2 times, the team makes shitposting on Twitter. 3 times delay run of the project. never trust vanbex and all what they are connected. Dump shitcoin. There is a lot of good crypto projects, not a scam like Etherparty, you can go there.

You have chosen the rigth time to take a look at it, platform release is coming in a few days. I'm very courius, like anyone else over here, on how it will work and if it's going to be 100% functional

There are legal issues? Price is not healthy due to its volume. Perhaps they need to talk on other exchanges to enlist their token? No pressure on looking for bigger exchanges like Binance but the likes of Coinexchange, Livecoin, Nova and others are good start.

you dont read everything
minexbank algo still in test mode. they are not only track minexcoin price but also track all parking.
minexbank is still trying to control minexcoin price, so it is not for your own profit.
parking feature design as a retribution for minexcoin holder when the price is going down
better you read everything about how minexbank work on the whitepaper.

example like this

minexcoin price tied with all top 10 cryptocurrency not USD. when they all fall against USD, we also feel the same.

Whatever I say will not make sense to you. Even institutional users come in various range of size; small, medium, and large. Instead of targeting large institutional users (like stock market operators), he may want to target small institutional users (businesses having the need to tokenize assets) to establish a convincing user base first.

Or to put it differently, instead of going for institutional users with business operations in the multi billions of USD, try targeting institutional users with business operations in the multi millions of USD. This may come as a surprise to some with no business strategy skillset, but it actually makes things smoother and more promising. One small steps at a time instead of eyeing for a huge big leap.

And stay on course (don't divert to elsewhere) on the platform being used for asset tokenization as well, beside providing P2P exchange. Asset tokenization will be one of the major economic wealth generation in the future.

So far, using 1 VERI to get 100 ETH of exposure for trading purposes is a petty venture. Good short-term prospect, but lousy long-term prospect. Where is the feature for asset tokenization, which is a great long-term prospect? Asset tokenization opens up a huge market for commercial financing and ownership, and Veritaseum being very early to have a close to fully-functional commercial platform, should also start establishing itself as the first to do asset tokenization for real.

Update:
And since VERI is very divisible, it should not be negative if used token can be burned to reduce the supply, just like many other ICOs are doing. Then value gain from holding VERI would be more positive. Market value goes up along with declining supply = bullish. Otherwise, we will see market value going up to multiple figure (just imagine) and yet the supply remain the same, putting a big brake on token price bullishness. As the token is very divisible, burning used token does not cause harm to Veritaseum's bottom line.

If my suggestion to burn token is feasible, viable, practical, and reasonable/logical, then it should be seriously considered. That's how progress takes place. Not by stubbornness, but by flexibility.

Update #2:
In fact, if 50% of the total token supply is burned, leaving only 50 million instead of the original 100 mil with 98% waiting to be sold, then the token price would be super bullish. Economic value to Veritaseum isn't in selling the same supply of VERI over and over again repeatedly, but in selling a dwindling supply of VERI that continue to increase in value higher and higher. And whether the value will increase or decrease does not depend on how much supply Reggie is holding in reserve, but in the economic use case of Veritaseum. There is no point not to burn used token if adoption/participation is weak. But if adoption/participation is strong, then burning used token will give further boost to the wealth generation effect of holding VERI. And the adoption/participation of Veritaseum depends on its economic use case, not on recycling sold token back to Veritaseum to be sold again and again. Because this recycling does not add any economic value to everyone, then by reasonable and logical right, burning used token should be seriously considered. Or better still, burning the 50 mil in reserve that will very likely never ever going to be sold would be even better. And if Reggie stubbornly insist on recycling sold VERI back to Veritaseum to be sold over and over again, then what difference does it make having 50 mil in total supply vs having 100 mil in total supply? The supply will not dwindle to zero anyway. And if the turnover will be high, then it makes no difference having 50 mil vs 100 mil in total supply. But in term of wealth generation to VERI holders, having just 50 mil in total supply means a very big difference.

Update #3:
Nowadays there are many ICOs that burn all unsold token. Even with very limited circulating and total supply, the business operation remain as sustainable as ever because the token is very divisible. If token is not divisible, then 100 mil means exactly 100 mil. But since it is very divisible up to 18 decimal, then 100 mil can mean 100 mil x 10^18 in total supply in the absolute sense, which is insanely far more than necessary for everyone's use. Since Reggie is flexible in regulatory compliance, then why not be flexible in burning unnecessary supply of token too?

A person's family wealth is not dictated by how much greed he has in his heart and mind, but by how much economic value he can contribute to the society.

Update #4:
In fact, the more token is burned (from that 98 mil supply in reserve), the better. A poor guy can have 1 VERI to get 100 ETH exposure. If supply is burned by 10x less, then price will adjust to 0.1 VERI for 100 ETH exposure. Will this impact institutions trying to buy in bulk from Veritaseum to use the platform? Not at all. The value proposition will remain just the same as before. Institutions and government agencies are very hard and slow to change. Will Reggie be just the same?