[ANN][INCNT] Incent Loyalty | Waves Token | Traded on Bittrex

[FandangledGizmo]

Please have a look at the Bittrex trading history. You will see that our bot market purchased quite some Incent over the course of several hours, few small orders every minute.

Regarding the dump: We just paid a PR outlet in Incent for their services during the ICO. They immediately transferred the whole payment to Bittrex and it looks like they want to sell all of it, pretty short-sighted if you ask me.

Thanks for a possible explanation.

Not only is it short-sighted, they must be a TERRIBLE PR company. If the market happened to naturally dump ('on the news' perhaps) well that's out of anyone's control but what could be worse for PR than them dumping Incent (potentially precipitating a larger dump) at the very point you are starting to buy off the market for the first time ever and so hopefully demonstrate the impact & future potential of one of Incent's main USP's? Only get to make one first impression & ironically the people paid to help make it great have made it pretty poor.

Regards bot buying, shareholders will be keen to see evidence presented transparently, clearly and frequently in this thread especially given the recent market movements.

Good luck, some great projects using Incent atm.

I think it's extremely likely. They transferred a large quantity to Bittrex and a dump immediately ensued. Followed, no doubt, by a bunch of other holders who got spooked. I saw a couple of large sell walls moving downwards as they tried to jump in front of each other, presumably hoping to be the one to catch the bot's buys.
I'm not sure what evidence we can provide of bot buying except the trading history on Bittrex - other than the fact that Incent will be turning up in the accounts of EncryptoTel and MobileGo holders, and our reserves should be getting refilled as fast as they're paying out (for obvious reasons, we don't pay ICO investors directly with an exchange withdrawal). That should be all the proof you need.

I guess the bot buying Bittrex history would be good if people are concerned but it does seem like it all squares out pretty clearly.

The only thing I could think of is that you could sell your/company Incent to ICO holders off-market & for a slight premium. Without clear accounting, ICO holders wouldn't know if they paid over the market and investors wouldn't know if ICO investor demand is all being supplied from circulating supply bought on exchanges or from total supply but I guess that would be visible too via reserves/other etc.

[Cassius]

Please have a look at the Bittrex trading history. You will see that our bot market purchased quite some Incent over the course of several hours, few small orders every minute.

Regarding the dump: We just paid a PR outlet in Incent for their services during the ICO. They immediately transferred the whole payment to Bittrex and it looks like they want to sell all of it, pretty short-sighted if you ask me.

Thanks for a possible explanation.

Not only is it short-sighted, they must be a TERRIBLE PR company. If the market happened to naturally dump ('on the news' perhaps) well that's out of anyone's control but what could be worse for PR than them dumping Incent (potentially precipitating a larger dump) at the very point you are starting to buy off the market for the first time ever and so hopefully demonstrate the impact & future potential of one of Incent's main USP's? Only get to make one first impression & ironically the people paid to help make it great have made it pretty poor.

Regards bot buying, shareholders will be keen to see evidence presented transparently, clearly and frequently in this thread especially given the recent market movements.

Good luck, some great projects using Incent atm.

I think it's extremely likely. They transferred a large quantity to Bittrex and a dump immediately ensued. Followed, no doubt, by a bunch of other holders who got spooked. I saw a couple of large sell walls moving downwards as they tried to jump in front of each other, presumably hoping to be the one to catch the bot's buys.
I'm not sure what evidence we can provide of bot buying except the trading history on Bittrex - other than the fact that Incent will be turning up in the accounts of EncryptoTel and MobileGo holders, and our reserves should be getting refilled as fast as they're paying out (for obvious reasons, we don't pay ICO investors directly with an exchange withdrawal). That should be all the proof you need.

I guess the bot buying Bittrex history would be good if people are concerned but it does seem like it all squares out pretty clearly.

The only thing I could think of is that you could sell your/company Incent to ICO holders off-market & for a slight premium. Without clear accounting, ICO holders wouldn't know if they paid over the market and investors wouldn't know if ICO investor demand is all being supplied from circulating supply bought on exchanges or from total supply but I guess that would be visible too via reserves/other etc.

That's true. Orders on DEX would be transparent, but I'm not sure about the others. It might be possible to post a log in realtime, but I'm not sure it's worth the hassle and it may cause more problems than it's worth.
The reality is that we're a centralised company and trust is inherent in that, and in any case I'd like to think our reputation is worth more than the relatively small sums of money we could make by screwing our investors and customers over.

[ifightformerkel]

What do you think, will be incent on poloniex in the next 30 days?

[Duchess]

What do you think, will be incent on poloniex in the next 30 days?

As someone said, I doubt that Waves related tokens will hit poloniex easily due to the Waves dev causing a stink with the exchange. Waves related tokens are tainted by association. However, never say never and we might be pleasantly surprized. Lets hope poloniex will add incent irrespective of the Waves issue.

[ifightformerkel]

Too bad i dont have 100 btc to put a nice buy order at 10k sat. and see how my money double in the next days.

[Stein]

Nice "buy pressure"... It will go back under 10000 sats

Damn, you called it. Wish you weren't right

[Stein]

Please have a look at the Bittrex trading history. You will see that our bot market purchased quite some Incent over the course of several hours, few small orders every minute.

Regarding the dump: We just paid a PR outlet in Incent for their services during the ICO. They immediately transferred the whole payment to Bittrex and it looks like they want to sell all of it, pretty short-sighted if you ask me.

Seems pretty short sited of Incent that they did not contract a lockup period which is standard in business and business 101 level.
It ensures the market will not disproportionately increase the supply, which drives prices downward. 40+% in this case.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lockup-period.asp

[Duchess]

Please have a look at the Bittrex trading history. You will see that our bot market purchased quite some Incent over the course of several hours, few small orders every minute.

Regarding the dump: We just paid a PR outlet in Incent for their services during the ICO. They immediately transferred the whole payment to Bittrex and it looks like they want to sell all of it, pretty short-sighted if you ask me.

Seems pretty short sited of Incent that they did not contract a lockup period which is standard in business and business 101 level.
It ensures the market will not disproportionately increase the supply, which drives prices downward. 40+% in this case.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lockup-period.asp

I bought some at 16k aarrghh...

maybe it is one of those things that you have to leave and forget and in a year's time if there was adoption it might be higher.

[Cassius]

Please have a look at the Bittrex trading history. You will see that our bot market purchased quite some Incent over the course of several hours, few small orders every minute.

Regarding the dump: We just paid a PR outlet in Incent for their services during the ICO. They immediately transferred the whole payment to Bittrex and it looks like they want to sell all of it, pretty short-sighted if you ask me.

Seems pretty short sited of Incent that they did not contract a lockup period which is standard in business and business 101 level.
It ensures the market will not disproportionately increase the supply, which drives prices downward. 40+% in this case.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lockup-period.asp

That's really not going to fly in a sector like this unfortunately.

[Markov]

Please have a look at the Bittrex trading history. You will see that our bot market purchased quite some Incent over the course of several hours, few small orders every minute.

Regarding the dump: We just paid a PR outlet in Incent for their services during the ICO. They immediately transferred the whole payment to Bittrex and it looks like they want to sell all of it, pretty short-sighted if you ask me.

Seems pretty short sited of Incent that they did not contract a lockup period which is standard in business and business 101 level.
It ensures the market will not disproportionately increase the supply, which drives prices downward. 40+% in this case.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lockup-period.asp

That's really not going to fly in a sector like this unfortunately.

I don't see why it wouldn't work in crypto since the PR obviously went back to btc or Fiat. Kind of immature to have done that and kind of bad investors were not informed of it earlier. Tech is nice but behaviour is is slightly shocking.

[Cassius]

Please have a look at the Bittrex trading history. You will see that our bot market purchased quite some Incent over the course of several hours, few small orders every minute.

Regarding the dump: We just paid a PR outlet in Incent for their services during the ICO. They immediately transferred the whole payment to Bittrex and it looks like they want to sell all of it, pretty short-sighted if you ask me.

Seems pretty short sited of Incent that they did not contract a lockup period which is standard in business and business 101 level.
It ensures the market will not disproportionately increase the supply, which drives prices downward. 40+% in this case.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lockup-period.asp

That's really not going to fly in a sector like this unfortunately.

I don't see why it wouldn't work in crypto since the PR obviously went back to btc or Fiat. Kind of immature to have done that and kind of bad investors were not informed of it earlier. Tech is nice but behaviour is is slightly shocking.

Lots of people were paid in Incent for their work on ico. Any one of them could have dumped, and still could, just like anyone else. Most were smarter.
The dump was the first we knew about it, which was also when we shared that information.

[Markov]

Please have a look at the Bittrex trading history. You will see that our bot market purchased quite some Incent over the course of several hours, few small orders every minute.

Regarding the dump: We just paid a PR outlet in Incent for their services during the ICO. They immediately transferred the whole payment to Bittrex and it looks like they want to sell all of it, pretty short-sighted if you ask me.

Seems pretty short sited of Incent that they did not contract a lockup period which is standard in business and business 101 level.
It ensures the market will not disproportionately increase the supply, which drives prices downward. 40+% in this case.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lockup-period.asp

That's really not going to fly in a sector like this unfortunately.

I don't see why it wouldn't work in crypto since the PR obviously went back to btc or Fiat. Kind of immature to have done that and kind of bad investors were not informed of it earlier. Tech is nice but behaviour is is slightly shocking.

Lots of people were paid in Incent for their work on ico. Any one of them could have dumped, and still could, just like anyone else. Most were smarter.
The dump was the first we knew about it, which was also when we shared that information.

That's fine to pay people in Incent, it is normal practice however the norm is to lock-up those shares/tokens to avoid an instant dump. It is irresponsible to investors not to consider it and the excuse of this being crypto is just an excuse.
You are asking for investors but you are not looking in their best interest and not being transparent about it.

[ifyousmell]

Please have a look at the Bittrex trading history. You will see that our bot market purchased quite some Incent over the course of several hours, few small orders every minute.

Regarding the dump: We just paid a PR outlet in Incent for their services during the ICO. They immediately transferred the whole payment to Bittrex and it looks like they want to sell all of it, pretty short-sighted if you ask me.

Seems pretty short sited of Incent that they did not contract a lockup period which is standard in business and business 101 level.
It ensures the market will not disproportionately increase the supply, which drives prices downward. 40+% in this case.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lockup-period.asp

That's really not going to fly in a sector like this unfortunately.

I don't see why it wouldn't work in crypto since the PR obviously went back to btc or Fiat. Kind of immature to have done that and kind of bad investors were not informed of it earlier. Tech is nice but behaviour is is slightly shocking.

Lots of people were paid in Incent for their work on ico. Any one of them could have dumped, and still could, just like anyone else. Most were smarter.
The dump was the first we knew about it, which was also when we shared that information.

That's fine to pay people in Incent, it is normal practice however the norm is to lock-up those shares/tokens to avoid an instant dump. It is irresponsible to investors not to consider it and the excuse of this being crypto is just an excuse.
You are asking for investors but you are not looking in their best interest and not being transparent about it.

When a coin (in this case Incent) is promised to be bought off the market because of an event or anything, something is off. I'm glad I bought at 10k and sold it at 19k just before the beginning of ICO, and washed my hands off this. I had similar experiences with colored coins back in 2014 and I guess my instincts kicked in.

[onemanatatime]

Been following this project from day one even before the ico started.

Looks like it's about time for this project to get a boost.....

[Cassius]

That's fine to pay people in Incent, it is normal practice however the norm is to lock-up those shares/tokens to avoid an instant dump. It is irresponsible to investors not to consider it and the excuse of this being crypto is just an excuse.
You are asking for investors but you are not looking in their best interest and not being transparent about it.

When a coin (in this case Incent) is promised to be bought off the market because of an event or anything, something is off. I'm glad I bought at 10k and sold it at 19k just before the beginning of ICO, and washed my hands off this. I had similar experiences with colored coins back in 2014 and I guess my instincts kicked in.

That is the business model. There's nothing untoward about that. It's a perfectly valid approach and lots of businesses use it. In fact it's becoming the norm in crypto due to the regulatory problems involved with issuing dividends. Just because you got burned with colored coins doesn't mean 'something is off'.

Re: locking Incent for partners - as I said, that's problematic. I guess we could have done for the team, though (unsurprisingly) no one from the team has sold. For the PR company, a lock-up period would have been a dealbreaker. Incent is a crypto startup, a high-risk company in a high-risk sector. Who's to guarantee that the Incent would be worth anything at the end of the lock-up period? We might be confident, but they have bills to pay.
That's not to say we aren't very disappointed in the course of action they took.

[Cassius]

Been following this project from day one even before the ico started.

Looks like it's about time for this project to get a boost.....

Good for you. Market fluctuations notwithstanding, there's a lot of good stuff going on.

[Markov]

That's fine to pay people in Incent, it is normal practice however the norm is to lock-up those shares/tokens to avoid an instant dump. It is irresponsible to investors not to consider it and the excuse of this being crypto is just an excuse.
You are asking for investors but you are not looking in their best interest and not being transparent about it.

When a coin (in this case Incent) is promised to be bought off the market because of an event or anything, something is off. I'm glad I bought at 10k and sold it at 19k just before the beginning of ICO, and washed my hands off this. I had similar experiences with colored coins back in 2014 and I guess my instincts kicked in.

That is the business model. There's nothing untoward about that. It's a perfectly valid approach and lots of businesses use it. In fact it's becoming the norm in crypto due to the regulatory problems involved with issuing dividends. Just because you got burned with colored coins doesn't mean 'something is off'.

Re: locking Incent for partners - as I said, that's problematic. I guess we could have done for the team, though (unsurprisingly) no one from the team has sold. For the PR company, a lock-up period would have been a dealbreaker. Incent is a crypto startup, a high-risk company in a high-risk sector. Who's to guarantee that the Incent would be worth anything at the end of the lock-up period? We might be confident, but they have bills to pay.
That's not to say we aren't very disappointed in the course of action they took.

If it was a dealbreaker from the PR point of view then you should have advised the investors. It was obvious they would sell in that case. Your role is to protect and advise investors in Incent but you don't seem to get it.

[Cassius]

That's fine to pay people in Incent, it is normal practice however the norm is to lock-up those shares/tokens to avoid an instant dump. It is irresponsible to investors not to consider it and the excuse of this being crypto is just an excuse.
You are asking for investors but you are not looking in their best interest and not being transparent about it.

When a coin (in this case Incent) is promised to be bought off the market because of an event or anything, something is off. I'm glad I bought at 10k and sold it at 19k just before the beginning of ICO, and washed my hands off this. I had similar experiences with colored coins back in 2014 and I guess my instincts kicked in.

That is the business model. There's nothing untoward about that. It's a perfectly valid approach and lots of businesses use it. In fact it's becoming the norm in crypto due to the regulatory problems involved with issuing dividends. Just because you got burned with colored coins doesn't mean 'something is off'.

Re: locking Incent for partners - as I said, that's problematic. I guess we could have done for the team, though (unsurprisingly) no one from the team has sold. For the PR company, a lock-up period would have been a dealbreaker. Incent is a crypto startup, a high-risk company in a high-risk sector. Who's to guarantee that the Incent would be worth anything at the end of the lock-up period? We might be confident, but they have bills to pay.
That's not to say we aren't very disappointed in the course of action they took.

If it was a dealbreaker from the PR point of view then you should have advised the investors. It was obvious they would sell in that case. Your role is to protect and advise investors in Incent but you don't seem to get it.

I get where you're coming from, but just so you're duly warned: we crowdfunded $1.1 million and distributed 23 million Incent. Anyone who holds any Incent at all might dump it at any point, and the market is thin enough to take it down to zero if someone really wants to.
It's a market. It's a part of the Open Value proposition. It's not cool they did it, but it's their call. Same as it will be with anyone else who sells.
We'll do everything we reasonably can to build value for investors, but we're not in the business of telling people what they can and can't do with their own money.

[jc12345]

That's fine to pay people in Incent, it is normal practice however the norm is to lock-up those shares/tokens to avoid an instant dump. It is irresponsible to investors not to consider it and the excuse of this being crypto is just an excuse.
You are asking for investors but you are not looking in their best interest and not being transparent about it.

When a coin (in this case Incent) is promised to be bought off the market because of an event or anything, something is off. I'm glad I bought at 10k and sold it at 19k just before the beginning of ICO, and washed my hands off this. I had similar experiences with colored coins back in 2014 and I guess my instincts kicked in.

That is the business model. There's nothing untoward about that. It's a perfectly valid approach and lots of businesses use it. In fact it's becoming the norm in crypto due to the regulatory problems involved with issuing dividends. Just because you got burned with colored coins doesn't mean 'something is off'.

Re: locking Incent for partners - as I said, that's problematic. I guess we could have done for the team, though (unsurprisingly) no one from the team has sold. For the PR company, a lock-up period would have been a dealbreaker. Incent is a crypto startup, a high-risk company in a high-risk sector. Who's to guarantee that the Incent would be worth anything at the end of the lock-up period? We might be confident, but they have bills to pay.
That's not to say we aren't very disappointed in the course of action they took.

All market deals should be done at arms length and in a free market spirit. If someone is paid in Incent and they dump it is perfectly fine. Some others that want the coins will buy those at a lower rate. At some point the circle will complete itself and those that wanted to dump have dumped and those that want to buy have bought. This is how new floors are formed and needs at least one cycle to get to the new floor. Everyone has his or her price and there will also be lesser or greater sells along the way. Unless there is a hack of a holders wallet or some other material event, dumps should become less over time and as adoption grows holders will become more distributed and at some point the resistance level will be broken where it becomes difficult for one holder to dump the price in a material way.

I know this sounds very theoretical, but it is important to keep market forces real and not to apply artificial meddling.

[Stratagem]

How do I pull my INCNT off the ICO website?
There's no withdraw or transfer button.

Thanks in advance.