IMHO the big mistake here was a lack of immediate communication and transparency.
I am obviously talking from the assumption that the ICO is legit and the team in good faith... if this is the case, communication is something that needs to happen more directly in a situation like this. It's all well and good to have a massive marketing campaign, but you need the skills and internal prep to react quickly and openly to any problem, not only from a technical standpoint.

You were never going to please everybody with this, BUT you could definitely have given a better impression.

For those interested, the mail update concerning next steps for black card entitled investors has indeed arrived (a little late), in my case today around 11AM CET

Early birds had 150MCO per 1ETH invested. Latest ones were on 120MCO per 1ETH.
with minimal research you can find info that let you make a good estimating average, and from that you have the ICO offer price.

Well, you at the very least didn't understand the terms of the ICO. The multiplier wasn't something that was added last minute shocking anybody. It was well-documented from the very beginning, and nowhere did it give the impression that freeloaders would have been rewarded similarly to investors.

Sure, doing campaigns is useful and a good tradition for marketing these things, but don't overestimate its relevance and value.

So, no trick. just terms and conditions. If you think you are an investor, due diligence is the first lesson you need to learn.

EON arn't Ethereum tokens, myetherwallet has nothing to do with this.
Once released it will run on its own blockchain, i.e. it will ne a "native" coin, so to speak.

if you invested, you should have received an email update after the ICO closed. if you did not, look a few posts above where the same information was shared.

It's as safe as it gets right now, there isn't a blockchain yet, those "coins" you see on your dashboard arn't coins, they are just a number indicating your entitlement once the coins are issued. As you probably noticed, you can't transfer any balance from the dashboard, and that's because it isn't a balance at all.

well, ICO _just_ ended minutes ago, it will probably take a while for someone over at Livecoin goes in and enables trading.

Yes, tokens should have been credited to your wallet the moment your contribution was accepted even before the end of the ICO.

more than enough, considering bitcoin can never see an increase in total supply, but there is no rule preventing an increase in precision (i.e. adding more decimal figures).

in practical terms, even today, talking in "Bitcoin" units is fairly senseless. mBTC is where it's at today. It will--hopefully--be uBTC soon-ish.

Holding 21 bitcoin practically sets you up to be well placed in the top 1-million (there simply arn't that many big holders... there are a few massive holders, and a massive ammount of fraction-owners). It's a nice number and by all means if you happen to stumble upon 21btc do shove them in a cold wallet and forget for a decade or so...

but in reality what I would do today is to put 1BTC in that cold wallet, and call it one heck of a success. Even for many of us who've been "in" for more than 5-6 years 21BTC is not that easy a target to carelessly through around.

25,000 EON to forge if that's what you mean

I'm sure Gox will ship proxies to whoever lost their p9

Joking aside, it happens, it's no tragedy. It is tragic, though, that so many people seem to have kept such large amounts at risk (regardless of it being Gox). Perhaps a more fitting question is, what percentage of your fortune did you lose at gox. I left 0.5 as a conscious high risk gamble, there again it is a manageable portion of my total.

Well, by the end (after play-trading these past weeks) 1.6 btc, up from almost 0.5 that were left in the account

Well, I think you bring up valid points to both arguments. Clearly the large investment (money and effort) spent in building a solution need to be protected.

From perhaps the more ideological standpoint, FOSS and its goals match rather well with the concept of cryptocurrency and it's admirable (and perhaps a little expected) that in the long run the source ought to be fully public and OS.

I was wondering how practical an intermediate solution is. Beyond the ideological benefits of openness.
I think source availability is key to providing a modicum of trust in the technology.
A solution, I thought, could be to initially release the software under a limiting license, which allows scrutiny but disallows derivative works, clones, etc. This obviously raises the question of enforce-ability, and that is a question I don't really have an answer to.

Releasing the code in partial form, with key components missing is an interesting take on the problem. It could doubtlessly be interesting, in terms of knowledge sharing, however it would still not help provide any comfort over the security and transparency of the software released in binary form.

Judging by the Alt-Coin frenzy and ongoing existence, I would tend to think the risks posed by clone currencies to be somewhat small, but this does assume this project innovates enough and delivers enough to claim a top spot, rather than just being an alt-coin among many others. It certainly looks like it has the chance.

The project is looking very interesting indeed.

Jumping from graduate school to such an unknown and uncertain endeavor, dangerous and exciting no doubt. I wish you all the luck in the world.

While I do understand the risk associated with forking, I do believe quite strongly that source availability is paramount. While I have no doubt in the good faith of the developers and any security auditing company involved, it would add a layer of uncertainty that could lead to unpleasant situations.
The code does not necessarily have to be FOSS, meaning that the licence with which you decide to release the code could perhaps be clear on its stance regarding derivative work, but the full source code associated with the entire system should be available to the whole community.

well.. now we could debate that for hours i fear

Either way, crappy clones are crappy clones... that's quite different than a scam. They are most likely non-viable in the long term and offer, technologically speaking, no innovation whatsoever.. but that's doesn't qualify as a scam, no until they come laced with Trojans or wallet drainers.

They are toys that people who are willing to risk a few hours of mining at the very beginning may enjoy for a quick profit. that's all. They don't hurt anybody who doesn't hurt himself on the way.

definitely that, no doubt. Playing with 500k this morning and in 4 hours I've had several hundred accepted per cgminer, and a whopping TWO actually good blocks ^_^ I guess I can count myself lucky

6hWBoAcKyu6bzAjyRmgdiypEh6ok26sM79

cheers ^_^

r3YrWHNTAj6jL9GVDNKj3wMj6wD6GuiNLo

Not a problem, just wanted to make sure there wasn't a problem on my part

I can confirm that the payment has been now performed without issue. I did notice the server slowing, hope they stop.. the game is well deserving, it's fun

Also, I see you are steadily improving the mechanics