 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
So scam?
It seems like it  |
|
|
|
|
It doesn't look like it's going to make it as it needs over 1,700 more tokens. $140-150 per token is a lot. Will you do another ICO further down the line if this doesn't pan out?
|
|
|
|
TaaS and ICONOMI both are now $1 I do not see why would someone invest in Taas and wait for another year.Iconomi is almost half way of building their platform.What advantage does taas have over iconomi
It's not going to take Taas a year, they're only a week from launching. With Tass you actually get dividends, transparency, and they're making money various ways besides just investing in ICO's. |
|
|
|
TAAS end of the year at 10$  Possible  With this market grow and taas low supply 10$ is not hard to reach. $10 is only an 80 mil market cap it's definitely doable. |
|
|
|
It's 4 days left for ICO to finish! Has ICO's goal been met? You have spread this project very badly! Only 3 thread pages?
Nope it's still about 2,000 coins away from it's goal. The way Ether's been rising I really wouldn't be mad if they didn't make the goal and I got my Ether back. |
|
|
|
Iconomi might come back it's just really hard to tell and the benefits that their first mover advantage gave them seem to be fewer and fewer as the days go on. It kinda sucks they originally collected $10,000,000 USD and the funds value has grown $50,000,000+ just based on the rise of crypto in general and we as holders don't really benefit at all from it. When on the other hand you have coins like Taas that have collected $8,000,000 and since the end of their ICO the value of their funding has grown 25% ($2,000,000) and they've already confirmed that profits generated from overall crypto growth count as profit (as it should) and will be paid back to investors as dividends, meaning the first dividend payments already going to be 50% of that $2,000,000 and it's only been 8 days since the end of the ICO. Meanwhile Iconomi won't provide the burn address or even tell it's investors how much they've invested in their latest ICO's until the end of the quarter, how does that make any sense and how is that transparent?
Personally I'd prefer not to distribute gains from ICO assets growth. By distributing you limit the investment capabilities. More money to invest = more profit for investors. BTW your numbers are skewed plus TaaS is building portfolio using 75% of ICO funds which leaves them with just $6M to invest if they distribute ICO funds value gains. Also ICONOMI has several revenue streams ICNX, ICNP, public DAA and yet unadvertised ICNL. In addition to that ICN is going to be a utility token as well. Do your math now Actually 15% was used for operations and development not 25%. If you get 50% of profit, 25% goes back into the fund, and 25% goes to devs that's not a bad deal. It's been how many months so far and Iconomi still only has 250 beta users and they're aiming for a total of 6,000 before they deem the system usable? They can claim to have streams of income from X, Y, and Z but if you can't even verify they're burning the coins what value do their claims really have? Wouldn't it be a bit strange to use $ value of uninvested crypto as your baseline for profit calculations? Imagine you give me 1000 BTC for a crypto investment fund when BTC is worth $1000 I do nothing, and BTC goes to $2000 I refund you 250 BTC, keep 125 BTC to myself as fee, and 625 BTC remains in the fund. Are you sure that's how it works? Do you have a source? I do understand your point and that's a fair way of looking at it but this it's not going to be like Iconomi in the sense where they pretty much do nothing and then claim "oh look the values 500% since ICO" when that's really just they value of the underlying assets. Taas is going to be making various trades regularly and the BTC, ETH, etc. value will increase but yes the overall value of the fund is calculated in $. How is ICNP doing nothing when it has invested in 7(?) things, all of which that have been released have appreciated in value, and in the case of Golem some has been sold and profit has already been realized. It TaaS also developing an index fund and platform like ICNX and the DAMP that will also generate revenue? Or is that considered doing nothing as well. Hence why I said "pretty much doing nothing". You're right they have made some investments and some have paid off. I consider it nothing compared to the original idea, the idea I was sold on was this was supposed to be the "new economy", things were supposed to be transparent, we were going to be paid dividends from countless revenue streams, we had a timeline, and promises of bi-weekly AMA's; now all of that's out the window and what have we been left with? The promise that they're buying back ICN with no burn address provided and given their track record does it really make sense to trust them? A half-a**ed AMA months later where most of the questions weren't even answered. Maybe Taas is just one fund and I suppose that is just a subset of one of capabilities Iconomi was supposed to have but Taas is doing it right. Imagine trades being made and being posted to the blockchain in real time where you or anyone else can verify them, imagine dividends being paid on time quarterly and devs that care about the funds value, imagine constant communication and promises being kept. You don't get that with Iconomi. You don't get anything with either yet so let's hold off on the exaggerated claims. TaaS first payout is going to be from what investments and trades they've made exactly? Looks to me like it will be from them considering the appreciation of the ico funds as "profit", which allows them to take 25% for doing nothing but hold your money. If you had just held it your self you would get 100% of that appreciation. Actually Taas already provides communication and 4 of the members have already been apart of a previous fund that pays it's investors, so it's a little different then making an ICO and throwing in random keywords like Iconomi did and then scrambling and finding out you can't do this and that afterward. Taas is going to make money via 1. Long-term cyclical investment 2. Cross-exchange arbritrage 3. Algorthmic swing trading 4. Derivatives. The appreciation of the funds as all this happens is just the icing on the cake. So again TaaS itself hasnt done anything yet. Except they communicated, wow. Amazing. Did they provide quarterly reports, AMAs, blog posts, email updates? Or is that just the standard of communication required of iconomi but not anybody else? You do realize iconomi already has developed the platform beta, right? A platform which has potential to make TaaS completely obsolete. Or is that also "doing nothing" along with their succesful investments. Do you know what actually IS doing nothing? Simply holding onto ICO funds and claiming their passive appreciation is profit (thay TaaS can then siphon 25% off of for themselves). Go take your TaaS support to the TaaS thread where it belongs. It looks like it is desperately needed there. Actually they did provide monthly operational and trading reports on their previous project. But you're right all hail Iconomi!!!  "On their previous project". I could have sworn we were talking about TaaS? And yeah this is the Iconomi thread not the TaaS one what are you expecting coming here shilling TaaS and badmouthing Iconomi? Iconomi does have community going for it. When you have the likes of Mal Reynolds, Daparksi, and Move_Crypto actively supporting it it really does seem filled with potential. That's what attracted me to the project in the first place. |
|
|
|
Iconomi might come back it's just really hard to tell and the benefits that their first mover advantage gave them seem to be fewer and fewer as the days go on. It kinda sucks they originally collected $10,000,000 USD and the funds value has grown $50,000,000+ just based on the rise of crypto in general and we as holders don't really benefit at all from it. When on the other hand you have coins like Taas that have collected $8,000,000 and since the end of their ICO the value of their funding has grown 25% ($2,000,000) and they've already confirmed that profits generated from overall crypto growth count as profit (as it should) and will be paid back to investors as dividends, meaning the first dividend payments already going to be 50% of that $2,000,000 and it's only been 8 days since the end of the ICO. Meanwhile Iconomi won't provide the burn address or even tell it's investors how much they've invested in their latest ICO's until the end of the quarter, how does that make any sense and how is that transparent?
Personally I'd prefer not to distribute gains from ICO assets growth. By distributing you limit the investment capabilities. More money to invest = more profit for investors. BTW your numbers are skewed plus TaaS is building portfolio using 75% of ICO funds which leaves them with just $6M to invest if they distribute ICO funds value gains. Also ICONOMI has several revenue streams ICNX, ICNP, public DAA and yet unadvertised ICNL. In addition to that ICN is going to be a utility token as well. Do your math now Actually 15% was used for operations and development not 25%. If you get 50% of profit, 25% goes back into the fund, and 25% goes to devs that's not a bad deal. It's been how many months so far and Iconomi still only has 250 beta users and they're aiming for a total of 6,000 before they deem the system usable? They can claim to have streams of income from X, Y, and Z but if you can't even verify they're burning the coins what value do their claims really have? Wouldn't it be a bit strange to use $ value of uninvested crypto as your baseline for profit calculations? Imagine you give me 1000 BTC for a crypto investment fund when BTC is worth $1000 I do nothing, and BTC goes to $2000 I refund you 250 BTC, keep 125 BTC to myself as fee, and 625 BTC remains in the fund. Are you sure that's how it works? Do you have a source? I do understand your point and that's a fair way of looking at it but this it's not going to be like Iconomi in the sense where they pretty much do nothing and then claim "oh look the values 500% since ICO" when that's really just they value of the underlying assets. Taas is going to be making various trades regularly and the BTC, ETH, etc. value will increase but yes the overall value of the fund is calculated in $. How is ICNP doing nothing when it has invested in 7(?) things, all of which that have been released have appreciated in value, and in the case of Golem some has been sold and profit has already been realized. It TaaS also developing an index fund and platform like ICNX and the DAMP that will also generate revenue? Or is that considered doing nothing as well. Hence why I said "pretty much doing nothing". You're right they have made some investments and some have paid off. I consider it nothing compared to the original idea, the idea I was sold on was this was supposed to be the "new economy", things were supposed to be transparent, we were going to be paid dividends from countless revenue streams, we had a timeline, and promises of bi-weekly AMA's; now all of that's out the window and what have we been left with? The promise that they're buying back ICN with no burn address provided and given their track record does it really make sense to trust them? A half-a**ed AMA months later where most of the questions weren't even answered. Maybe Taas is just one fund and I suppose that is just a subset of one of capabilities Iconomi was supposed to have but Taas is doing it right. Imagine trades being made and being posted to the blockchain in real time where you or anyone else can verify them, imagine dividends being paid on time quarterly and devs that care about the funds value, imagine constant communication and promises being kept. You don't get that with Iconomi. You don't get anything with either yet so let's hold off on the exaggerated claims. TaaS first payout is going to be from what investments and trades they've made exactly? Looks to me like it will be from them considering the appreciation of the ico funds as "profit", which allows them to take 25% for doing nothing but hold your money. If you had just held it your self you would get 100% of that appreciation. Actually Taas already provides communication and 4 of the members have already been apart of a previous fund that pays it's investors, so it's a little different then making an ICO and throwing in random keywords like Iconomi did and then scrambling and finding out you can't do this and that afterward. Taas is going to make money via 1. Long-term cyclical investment 2. Cross-exchange arbritrage 3. Algorthmic swing trading 4. Derivatives. The appreciation of the funds as all this happens is just the icing on the cake. So again TaaS itself hasnt done anything yet. Except they communicated, wow. Amazing. Did they provide quarterly reports, AMAs, blog posts, email updates? Or is that just the standard of communication required of iconomi but not anybody else? You do realize iconomi already has developed the platform beta, right? A platform which has potential to make TaaS completely obsolete. Or is that also "doing nothing" along with their succesful investments. Do you know what actually IS doing nothing? Simply holding onto ICO funds and claiming their passive appreciation is profit (thay TaaS can then siphon 25% off of for themselves). Go take your TaaS support to the TaaS thread where it belongs. It looks like it is desperately needed there. Actually they did provide monthly operational and trading reports on their previous project. But you're right all hail Iconomi!!! |
|
|
|
Iconomi might come back it's just really hard to tell and the benefits that their first mover advantage gave them seem to be fewer and fewer as the days go on. It kinda sucks they originally collected $10,000,000 USD and the funds value has grown $50,000,000+ just based on the rise of crypto in general and we as holders don't really benefit at all from it. When on the other hand you have coins like Taas that have collected $8,000,000 and since the end of their ICO the value of their funding has grown 25% ($2,000,000) and they've already confirmed that profits generated from overall crypto growth count as profit (as it should) and will be paid back to investors as dividends, meaning the first dividend payments already going to be 50% of that $2,000,000 and it's only been 8 days since the end of the ICO. Meanwhile Iconomi won't provide the burn address or even tell it's investors how much they've invested in their latest ICO's until the end of the quarter, how does that make any sense and how is that transparent?
Personally I'd prefer not to distribute gains from ICO assets growth. By distributing you limit the investment capabilities. More money to invest = more profit for investors. BTW your numbers are skewed plus TaaS is building portfolio using 75% of ICO funds which leaves them with just $6M to invest if they distribute ICO funds value gains. Also ICONOMI has several revenue streams ICNX, ICNP, public DAA and yet unadvertised ICNL. In addition to that ICN is going to be a utility token as well. Do your math now Actually 15% was used for operations and development not 25%. If you get 50% of profit, 25% goes back into the fund, and 25% goes to devs that's not a bad deal. It's been how many months so far and Iconomi still only has 250 beta users and they're aiming for a total of 6,000 before they deem the system usable? They can claim to have streams of income from X, Y, and Z but if you can't even verify they're burning the coins what value do their claims really have? Wouldn't it be a bit strange to use $ value of uninvested crypto as your baseline for profit calculations? Imagine you give me 1000 BTC for a crypto investment fund when BTC is worth $1000 I do nothing, and BTC goes to $2000 I refund you 250 BTC, keep 125 BTC to myself as fee, and 625 BTC remains in the fund. Are you sure that's how it works? Do you have a source? I do understand your point and that's a fair way of looking at it but this it's not going to be like Iconomi in the sense where they pretty much do nothing and then claim "oh look the values 500% since ICO" when that's really just they value of the underlying assets. Taas is going to be making various trades regularly and the BTC, ETH, etc. value will increase but yes the overall value of the fund is calculated in $. How is ICNP doing nothing when it has invested in 7(?) things, all of which that have been released have appreciated in value, and in the case of Golem some has been sold and profit has already been realized. It TaaS also developing an index fund and platform like ICNX and the DAMP that will also generate revenue? Or is that considered doing nothing as well. Hence why I said "pretty much doing nothing". You're right they have made some investments and some have paid off. I consider it nothing compared to the original idea, the idea I was sold on was this was supposed to be the "new economy", things were supposed to be transparent, we were going to be paid dividends from countless revenue streams, we had a timeline, and promises of bi-weekly AMA's; now all of that's out the window and what have we been left with? The promise that they're buying back ICN with no burn address provided and given their track record does it really make sense to trust them? A half-a**ed AMA months later where most of the questions weren't even answered. Maybe Taas is just one fund and I suppose that is just a subset of one of capabilities Iconomi was supposed to have but Taas is doing it right. Imagine trades being made and being posted to the blockchain in real time where you or anyone else can verify them, imagine dividends being paid on time quarterly and devs that care about the funds value, imagine constant communication and promises being kept. You don't get that with Iconomi. You don't get anything with either yet so let's hold off on the exaggerated claims. TaaS first payout is going to be from what investments and trades they've made exactly? Looks to me like it will be from them considering the appreciation of the ico funds as "profit", which allows them to take 25% for doing nothing but hold your money. If you had just held it your self you would get 100% of that appreciation. Actually Taas already provides communication and 4 of the members have already been apart of a previous fund that pays it's investors, so it's a little different then making an ICO and throwing in random keywords like Iconomi did and then scrambling and finding out you can't do this and that afterward. Taas is going to make money via 1. Long-term cyclical investment 2. Cross-exchange arbritrage 3. Algorthmic swing trading 4. Derivatives. The appreciation of the funds as all this happens is just the icing on the cake. |
|
|
|
Iconomi might come back it's just really hard to tell and the benefits that their first mover advantage gave them seem to be fewer and fewer as the days go on. It kinda sucks they originally collected $10,000,000 USD and the funds value has grown $50,000,000+ just based on the rise of crypto in general and we as holders don't really benefit at all from it. When on the other hand you have coins like Taas that have collected $8,000,000 and since the end of their ICO the value of their funding has grown 25% ($2,000,000) and they've already confirmed that profits generated from overall crypto growth count as profit (as it should) and will be paid back to investors as dividends, meaning the first dividend payments already going to be 50% of that $2,000,000 and it's only been 8 days since the end of the ICO. Meanwhile Iconomi won't provide the burn address or even tell it's investors how much they've invested in their latest ICO's until the end of the quarter, how does that make any sense and how is that transparent?
Personally I'd prefer not to distribute gains from ICO assets growth. By distributing you limit the investment capabilities. More money to invest = more profit for investors. BTW your numbers are skewed plus TaaS is building portfolio using 75% of ICO funds which leaves them with just $6M to invest if they distribute ICO funds value gains. Also ICONOMI has several revenue streams ICNX, ICNP, public DAA and yet unadvertised ICNL. In addition to that ICN is going to be a utility token as well. Do your math now Actually 15% was used for operations and development not 25%. If you get 50% of profit, 25% goes back into the fund, and 25% goes to devs that's not a bad deal. It's been how many months so far and Iconomi still only has 250 beta users and they're aiming for a total of 6,000 before they deem the system usable? They can claim to have streams of income from X, Y, and Z but if you can't even verify they're burning the coins what value do their claims really have? Wouldn't it be a bit strange to use $ value of uninvested crypto as your baseline for profit calculations? Imagine you give me 1000 BTC for a crypto investment fund when BTC is worth $1000 I do nothing, and BTC goes to $2000 I refund you 250 BTC, keep 125 BTC to myself as fee, and 625 BTC remains in the fund. Are you sure that's how it works? Do you have a source? I do understand your point and that's a fair way of looking at it but this it's not going to be like Iconomi in the sense where they pretty much do nothing and then claim "oh look the values 500% since ICO" when that's really just they value of the underlying assets. Taas is going to be making various trades regularly and the BTC, ETH, etc. value will increase but yes the overall value of the fund is calculated in $. How is ICNP doing nothing when it has invested in 7(?) things, all of which that have been released have appreciated in value, and in the case of Golem some has been sold and profit has already been realized. It TaaS also developing an index fund and platform like ICNX and the DAMP that will also generate revenue? Or is that considered doing nothing as well. Hence why I said "pretty much doing nothing". You're right they have made some investments and some have paid off. I consider it nothing compared to the original idea, the idea I was sold on was this was supposed to be the "new economy", things were supposed to be transparent, we were going to be paid dividends from countless revenue streams, we had a timeline, and promises of bi-weekly AMA's; now all of that's out the window and what have we been left with? The promise that they're buying back ICN with no burn address provided and given their track record does it really make sense to trust them? A half-a**ed AMA months later where most of the questions weren't even answered. Maybe Taas is just one fund and I suppose that is just a subset of one of capabilities Iconomi was supposed to have but Taas is doing it right. Imagine trades being made and being posted to the blockchain in real time where you or anyone else can verify them, imagine dividends being paid on time quarterly and devs that care about the funds value, imagine constant communication and promises being kept. You don't get that with Iconomi. |
|
|
|
Iconomi might come back it's just really hard to tell and the benefits that their first mover advantage gave them seem to be fewer and fewer as the days go on. It kinda sucks they originally collected $10,000,000 USD and the funds value has grown $50,000,000+ just based on the rise of crypto in general and we as holders don't really benefit at all from it. When on the other hand you have coins like Taas that have collected $8,000,000 and since the end of their ICO the value of their funding has grown 25% ($2,000,000) and they've already confirmed that profits generated from overall crypto growth count as profit (as it should) and will be paid back to investors as dividends, meaning the first dividend payments already going to be 50% of that $2,000,000 and it's only been 8 days since the end of the ICO. Meanwhile Iconomi won't provide the burn address or even tell it's investors how much they've invested in their latest ICO's until the end of the quarter, how does that make any sense and how is that transparent?
Personally I'd prefer not to distribute gains from ICO assets growth. By distributing you limit the investment capabilities. More money to invest = more profit for investors. BTW your numbers are skewed plus TaaS is building portfolio using 75% of ICO funds which leaves them with just $6M to invest if they distribute ICO funds value gains. Also ICONOMI has several revenue streams ICNX, ICNP, public DAA and yet unadvertised ICNL. In addition to that ICN is going to be a utility token as well. Do your math now Actually 15% was used for operations and development not 25%. If you get 50% of profit, 25% goes back into the fund, and 25% goes to devs that's not a bad deal. It's been how many months so far and Iconomi still only has 250 beta users and they're aiming for a total of 6,000 before they deem the system usable? They can claim to have streams of income from X, Y, and Z but if you can't even verify they're burning the coins what value do their claims really have? Wouldn't it be a bit strange to use $ value of uninvested crypto as your baseline for profit calculations? Imagine you give me 1000 BTC for a crypto investment fund when BTC is worth $1000 I do nothing, and BTC goes to $2000 I refund you 250 BTC, keep 125 BTC to myself as fee, and 625 BTC remains in the fund. Are you sure that's how it works? Do you have a source? I do understand your point and that's a fair way of looking at it but this it's not going to be like Iconomi in the sense where they pretty much do nothing and then claim "oh look the values 500% since ICO" when that's really just they value of the underlying assets. Taas is going to be making various trades regularly and the BTC, ETH, etc. value will increase but yes the overall value of the fund is calculated in $. |
|
|
|
Iconomi might come back it's just really hard to tell and the benefits that their first mover advantage gave them seem to be fewer and fewer as the days go on. It kinda sucks they originally collected $10,000,000 USD and the funds value has grown $50,000,000+ just based on the rise of crypto in general and we as holders don't really benefit at all from it. When on the other hand you have coins like Taas that have collected $8,000,000 and since the end of their ICO the value of their funding has grown 25% ($2,000,000) and they've already confirmed that profits generated from overall crypto growth count as profit (as it should) and will be paid back to investors as dividends, meaning the first dividend payments already going to be 50% of that $2,000,000 and it's only been 8 days since the end of the ICO. Meanwhile Iconomi won't provide the burn address or even tell it's investors how much they've invested in their latest ICO's until the end of the quarter, how does that make any sense and how is that transparent?
Personally I'd prefer not to distribute gains from ICO assets growth. By distributing you limit the investment capabilities. More money to invest = more profit for investors. BTW your numbers are skewed plus TaaS is building portfolio using 75% of ICO funds which leaves them with just $6M to invest if they distribute ICO funds value gains. Also ICONOMI has several revenue streams ICNX, ICNP, public DAA and yet unadvertised ICNL. In addition to that ICN is going to be a utility token as well. Do your math now Actually 15% was used for operations and development not 25%. If you get 50% of profit, 25% goes back into the fund, and 25% goes to devs that's not a bad deal. It's been how many months so far and Iconomi still only has 250 beta users and they're aiming for a total of 6,000 before they deem the system usable? They can claim to have streams of income from X, Y, and Z but if you can't even verify they're burning the coins what value do their claims really have? |
|
|
|
|
Iconomi might come back it's just really hard to tell and the benefits that their first mover advantage gave them seem to be fewer and fewer as the days go on. It kinda sucks they originally collected $10,000,000 USD and the funds value has grown $50,000,000+ just based on the rise of crypto in general and we as holders don't really benefit at all from it. When on the other hand you have coins like Taas that have collected $8,000,000 and since the end of their ICO the value of their funding has grown 25% ($2,000,000) and they've already confirmed that profits generated from overall crypto growth count as profit (as it should) and will be paid back to investors as dividends, meaning the first dividend payments already going to be 50% of that $2,000,000 and it's only been 8 days since the end of the ICO. Meanwhile Iconomi won't provide the burn address or even tell it's investors how much they've invested in their latest ICO's until the end of the quarter, how does that make any sense and how is that transparent?
|
|
|
|
]
First we ignored Taas
Now we laugh at Taas
Then we fight Taas....
Then Taas yolo's into the next Ethereum
am starting to worry that the Toss My Salad team are not as autistic as the ICONOMI boys and that they will actually moon TAAS before us. Starting to hate myself I didn't get any salad tossers  They have a plan to distribute their first dividend on July this year. I do not understand how can they do it so quickly but if they do as they say,Taas will definitely be on moon. They'll be able to do it because they're not just investing in ICO's, they're also going to do arbitrage between exchanges according to the white paper. |
|
|
|
Will poloniex list?
Poloniex doesn't list coins with dividends from previous history. Most likely just Kraken and some smaller exchanges. Probably legal issues. Kraken is US based so they probably have a lot of lawyers to handle the tax issues whereas Poloniex is unknown. Even iconomi, which was more popular than Melonport and TaaS combined, didn't get listed on Poloniex. Iconomi chose not to be listed on Poliniex and claimed they were under an NDA. Doesn't Digix provide dividends? |
|
|
|
I used an exchange to send ETH / BTC to my TAAS adress are didivdends and earnings sent to those adresses?
Can I change them anywhere? Like provide my MEW for the payout?
I believe if you keep TAAS on exchanges you wont be receiving the dividends,similar like Iconomi. You need to have a wallet for which you own the private keys like MEW or mist to receive your payout By the way the payout will be in ETH or BTC, can anyone confirm this? This is not true. We are educating exchanges on the process of distributing payouts. It is done in ETH. MEW is supported. my question should be clarified .. where can I provide MEW adress to get my dividends / payout and TAAs sent to? You don't. This is the beauty of a smart contract that knows where to send the funds. How long after the ICO do you estimate it would take for the smart contract that handles dividends to be completed. Also do you have any idea how long it's going to take for your cryptographic audit system to be put in place? CA is estimated to be deployed in the next 2-3 weeks after ICO. Stay tuned for updates How long after the ICO do you estimate it would take for the smart contract that pays out dividends to be completed? |
|
|
|
I used an exchange to send ETH / BTC to my TAAS adress are didivdends and earnings sent to those adresses?
Can I change them anywhere? Like provide my MEW for the payout?
I believe if you keep TAAS on exchanges you wont be receiving the dividends,similar like Iconomi. You need to have a wallet for which you own the private keys like MEW or mist to receive your payout By the way the payout will be in ETH or BTC, can anyone confirm this? This is not true. We are educating exchanges on the process of distributing payouts. It is done in ETH. MEW is supported. my question should be clarified .. where can I provide MEW adress to get my dividends / payout and TAAs sent to? You don't. This is the beauty of a smart contract that knows where to send the funds. How long after the ICO do you estimate it would take for the smart contract that handles dividends to be completed. Also do you have any idea how long it's going to take for your cryptographic audit system to be put in place? |
|
|
|
When will be the next time that ICONOMI buy some tokens back from the profit? I have seen the plans about it but now I cant find them.
A little off: Do you have any opinions on TaaS? Do you see them as a competitor to the service of ICONOMI? Any opinions on investing?
Taas is definitly their competitors but ICONOMI has 2 advantages over Taas 1.They have more funds while Taas collected only 5k btc. 2.They started before Taas so they have some good investments like Golem and Bbytes And what about the team? I don't know much information about Taas, but ICONOMI team have great experience and a lot of relationships because they were running a business involved in bitcoin. I think Taas is a solid investment, they already have a previous fund that makes consistent profit. You can check out their trading reports here and make your own decision: https://bitup.io/business-modelFirst we ignored Taas Now we laugh at Taas...  The play on words is corny. I'm not here to compete with you guys I'm here to collaborate share ideas and make more money. I hold ICN to hence me being in the thread. |
|
|
|
When will be the next time that ICONOMI buy some tokens back from the profit? I have seen the plans about it but now I cant find them.
A little off: Do you have any opinions on TaaS? Do you see them as a competitor to the service of ICONOMI? Any opinions on investing?
Taas is definitly their competitors but ICONOMI has 2 advantages over Taas 1.They have more funds while Taas collected only 5k btc. 2.They started before Taas so they have some good investments like Golem and Bbytes And what about the team? I don't know much information about Taas, but ICONOMI team have great experience and a lot of relationships because they were running a business involved in bitcoin. I think Taas is a solid investment, they already have a previous fund that makes consistent profit. You can check out their trading reports here and make your own decision: https://bitup.io/business-model |
|
|
|
Did you guys already see the interface Taas had on their last project BitUp: http://imgur.com/a/uzPI4. They even have monthly trading and operations reports. |
|
|
|
It's live |
|
|
|
|
