[ANN] [ICO CLOSED] Inchain - insurance for the crypto economy

[ttg43]

About the business model.
In general I don't fully understand why you need the insurance products in your initial business model. Because the profits are generated by the investment ('insurance') fund. Simplified, the difference between the bond coupon and the fund performance is the company profit.

Your model is not correct. The main profit is generated by insurance premium. Roi from investment fund needed for bond coupon's payments (values are approximately equal to each other). So the full company's profit looks like this: insuruance premium + roi of fund - bond coupon's payments. Usage investment funds - usual practice in traditional insurance models.  

So why not just create the crypto investment fund and attract investors? I can assure you the demand is much higher than the supply at the market now. There are thousands of investors with millions of dollars waiting.

So why all traditional insurance companies not just create investment funds and attract investors? Answer: "Because insurance - the main goal. Investment fund - just a tool".

[SpacemanOne]

About the business model.
In general I don't fully understand why you need the insurance products in your initial business model. Because the profits are generated by the investment ('insurance') fund. Simplified, the difference between the bond coupon and the fund performance is the company profit.

Your model is not correct. The main profit is generated by insurance premium. Roi from investment fund needed for bond coupon's payments (they are approximately equal to each other). So the full company's profit looks like this: insuruance premium + roi of fund - bond coupon's payments. Usage investment funds - usual practice in traditional insurance models.  

My model is correct. And it is the same as yours. I wrote 'Simplified' if you didn't notice.
Profit = insuruance premium - bond coupon's payments + roi of fund
In numbers (example): 
insurance premium = 3%
bond coupon's payments = 10%
So we need to compensate the difference. 3-10 = -7%
The fund performance should be more than 7% to generate profit. Yes, 7% is not 10%. But the greater part that needs to be compensated is the bond coupon.
You don't understand for some reason that the profit depends on the fund performance only. Because without the investment fund the company has LOSS.
As you can see the main (and the only) profit is generated by the investment fund. After the fund ROI reaches 7% the whole company profit depends on the fund performance.
The insurance premium generates not profit but loss, as you can see from your own model.

[SpacemanOne]

So why not just create the crypto investment fund and attract investors? I can assure you the demand is much higher than the supply at the market now. There are thousands of investors with millions of dollars waiting.

So why all traditional insurance companies not just create investment funds and attract investors? Answer: "Because insurance - the main goal. Investment fund - just a tool".

How do you know why the InChain team decided to use such a business model? I think you are not authorized to speak for them.

Usually the business is made for profits. The main goal of any business is profit, not doing business itself. So that's the reason I'm asking my question.
If a part of the business can generate the same or greater profit than the whole business itself why not to run the business part only? At least from the start?

[ttg43]

About the business model.
In general I don't fully understand why you need the insurance products in your initial business model. Because the profits are generated by the investment ('insurance') fund. Simplified, the difference between the bond coupon and the fund performance is the company profit.

Your model is not correct. The main profit is generated by insurance premium. Roi from investment fund needed for bond coupon's payments (they are approximately equal to each other). So the full company's profit looks like this: insuruance premium + roi of fund - bond coupon's payments. Usage investment funds - usual practice in traditional insurance models.  

My model is correct. And it is the same as yours. I wrote 'Simplified' if you didn't notice.
Profit = insuruance premium - bond coupon's payments + roi of fund
In numbers (example): 
insurance premium = 3%
bond coupon's payments = 10%
So we need to compensate the difference. 3-10 = -7%
The fund performance should be more than 7% to generate profit. Yes, 7% is not 10%. But the greater part that needs to be compensated is the bond coupon.
You don't understand for some reason that the profit depends on the fund performance only. Because without the investment fund the company has LOSS.
As you can see the main (and the only) profit is generated by the investment fund. After the fund ROI reaches 7% the whole company profit depends on the fund performance.
The insurance premium generates not profit but loss, as you can see from your own model.

You just playing with numbers and words. Insurance policies and bonds, investment fund - all parts of one system. You want to concentrate public attention only at one part of model. If you want to sell insurance policies you need to have fund, if you want to have fund you need to attract big money, if you attract big money you should pay % for using it. Where is the problem?

[SpacemanOne]

Usage investment funds - usual practice in traditional insurance models

I can also tell you why insurance companies use investment funds.
Because they want more profits. They have the money. They can just keep them untouched or invest to generate some profit. They choose to invest.

[SpacemanOne]

About the business model.
In general I don't fully understand why you need the insurance products in your initial business model. Because the profits are generated by the investment ('insurance') fund. Simplified, the difference between the bond coupon and the fund performance is the company profit.

Your model is not correct. The main profit is generated by insurance premium. Roi from investment fund needed for bond coupon's payments (they are approximately equal to each other). So the full company's profit looks like this: insuruance premium + roi of fund - bond coupon's payments. Usage investment funds - usual practice in traditional insurance models.  

My model is correct. And it is the same as yours. I wrote 'Simplified' if you didn't notice.
Profit = insuruance premium - bond coupon's payments + roi of fund
In numbers (example): 
insurance premium = 3%
bond coupon's payments = 10%
So we need to compensate the difference. 3-10 = -7%
The fund performance should be more than 7% to generate profit. Yes, 7% is not 10%. But the greater part that needs to be compensated is the bond coupon.
You don't understand for some reason that the profit depends on the fund performance only. Because without the investment fund the company has LOSS.
As you can see the main (and the only) profit is generated by the investment fund. After the fund ROI reaches 7% the whole company profit depends on the fund performance.
The insurance premium generates not profit but loss, as you can see from your own model.

You just playing with numbers and words. Insurance policies and bonds, investment fund - all parts of one system. You want to concentrate public attention only at one part of model. If you want to sell insurance policies you need to have fund, if you want to have fund you need to attract big money, if you attract big money you should pay % for using it. Where is the problem?

The problem is that you don't understand the financial model essence.
If I want to sell the insurance policies I DON'T need to have fund. At least as big as the total insured amount of money at wallets/exchanges. I sell the insurance policies at a higher price than they really cost. This way I have profits without any funds.
The InChain model is different, they transfer the insured events risks to the bond holders. The only risk they work with is the fund performance risk.

[ttg43]

So why not just create the crypto investment fund and attract investors? I can assure you the demand is much higher than the supply at the market now. There are thousands of investors with millions of dollars waiting.

So why all traditional insurance companies not just create investment funds and attract investors? Answer: "Because insurance - the main goal. Investment fund - just a tool".

How do you know why the InChain team decided to use such a business model? I think you are not authorized to speak for them.

What? There was no one word about Inchain in this comment, i was talking about traditional insuruance.

Usually the business is made for profits. The main goal of any business is profit, not doing business itself. So that's the reason I'm asking my question.
If a part of the business can generate the same or greater profit than the whole business itself why not to run the business part only? At least from the start?

Maybe because insurance market in crypto is still not occupied and it's more attractive direction? What for should Inchain start investment fund if Iconomi already did it?

[ttg43]

About the business model.
In general I don't fully understand why you need the insurance products in your initial business model. Because the profits are generated by the investment ('insurance') fund. Simplified, the difference between the bond coupon and the fund performance is the company profit.

Your model is not correct. The main profit is generated by insurance premium. Roi from investment fund needed for bond coupon's payments (they are approximately equal to each other). So the full company's profit looks like this: insuruance premium + roi of fund - bond coupon's payments. Usage investment funds - usual practice in traditional insurance models.  

My model is correct. And it is the same as yours. I wrote 'Simplified' if you didn't notice.
Profit = insuruance premium - bond coupon's payments + roi of fund
In numbers (example): 
insurance premium = 3%
bond coupon's payments = 10%
So we need to compensate the difference. 3-10 = -7%
The fund performance should be more than 7% to generate profit. Yes, 7% is not 10%. But the greater part that needs to be compensated is the bond coupon.
You don't understand for some reason that the profit depends on the fund performance only. Because without the investment fund the company has LOSS.
As you can see the main (and the only) profit is generated by the investment fund. After the fund ROI reaches 7% the whole company profit depends on the fund performance.
The insurance premium generates not profit but loss, as you can see from your own model.

You just playing with numbers and words. Insurance policies and bonds, investment fund - all parts of one system. You want to concentrate public attention only at one part of model. If you want to sell insurance policies you need to have fund, if you want to have fund you need to attract big money, if you attract big money you should pay % for using it. Where is the problem?

The problem is that you don't understand the financial model essence.
If I want to sell the insurance policies I DON'T need to have fund. At least as big as the total insured amount of money at wallets/exchanges. I sell the insurance policies at a higher price than they really cost. This way I have profits without any funds.
The InChain model is different, they transfer the insured events risks to the bond holders. The only risk they work with is the fund performance risk.

i know that i DON'T need funds, but only at markets with deep liquidity. At markets with low capitalisation you need additional sources of income to reduce the costs and risks.

[ttg43]

Usage investment funds - usual practice in traditional insurance models

I can also tell you why insurance companies use investment funds.
Because they want more profits. They have the money. They can just keep them untouched or invest to generate some profit. They choose to invest.

Did i somewhere say they don't?

[SpacemanOne]

Usually the business is made for profits. The main goal of any business is profit, not doing business itself. So that's the reason I'm asking my question.
If a part of the business can generate the same or greater profit than the whole business itself why not to run the business part only? At least from the start?

Maybe because insurance market in crypto is still not occupied and it's more attractive direction? What for should Inchain start investment fund if Iconomi already did it?

How do you know it's more attractive? Do you have any numbers or comparison analysis?
For example,
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-bitcoin-cyber-analysis-idUSKCN11411T

In the most recent study, the rate of closure for bitcoin exchanges in Moore's research edged up to 48 percent among those operating from 2009 to March 2015. Hacking did not necessarily trigger the closure in each case.

Are you ready to pay 8% (48% divided by 6 years) for your insurance? What bond buyer will take 10% bond if his total loss risk is about 8%?

This is just an example, I didn't perform any serious analysis.

[SpacemanOne]

Usage investment funds - usual practice in traditional insurance models

I can also tell you why insurance companies use investment funds.
Because they want more profits. They have the money. They can just keep them untouched or invest to generate some profit. They choose to invest.

Did i somewhere said they don't?

I just wanted to stress the traditional insurance companies may or may not use the investment funds. It's their decision. But their business won't fail if they don't use the investment funds. But InChain MUST use the investment fund and is fully dependent on its performance.

[ttg43]

Usually the business is made for profits. The main goal of any business is profit, not doing business itself. So that's the reason I'm asking my question.
If a part of the business can generate the same or greater profit than the whole business itself why not to run the business part only? At least from the start?

Maybe because insurance market in crypto is still not occupied and it's more attractive direction? What for should Inchain start investment fund if Iconomi already did it?

How do you know it's more attractive? Do you have any numbers or comparison analysis?

Every market with blns of cap and with no insurance services at all - attractive direction.

For example,
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-bitcoin-cyber-analysis-idUSKCN11411T

In the most recent study, the rate of closure for bitcoin exchanges in Moore's research edged up to 48 percent among those operating from 2009 to March 2015. Hacking did not necessarily trigger the closure in each case.

Are you ready to pay 8% (48% divided by 6 years) for your insurance? What bond buyer will take 10% bond if his total loss risk is about 8%?

This is just an example, I didn't perform any serious analysis.

I agree there are many scum exchanges, but as you know (i hope so) not every exchange and web-wallet will be insured by Inchain.

[SpacemanOne]

Every market with blns of cap and with no insurance services at all - attractive direction.

yes, drugs and weapon trading markets are all - attractive direction (they all have blns of cap).

[ttg43]

Every market with blns of cap and with no insurance services at all - attractive direction.

yes, drugs and weapon trading markets are all - attractive direction (they all have blns of cap).

if you can insure their risks and if they need it - you are welcome

[puremage111]

Just one question there

For ico bounties, if the 1.75 is not raised, we still get paid right?

Thanks and regards

[rubiprojects]

Just one question there

For ico bounties, if the 1.75 is not raised, we still get paid right?

Thanks and regards

No, not raised, ico will be refunded, this coin is worth nothing

[ttg43]

For now raised $199000.

[nowclever]

You need 1.55 m more, where do you raise so much money without better promotions on forum and social media, and with current facebook and twitter abusers, this will never get such big fund. I have to say OP is incompetent.

Reasons:
1. he didn't hear people's words, to use TVE for effective social media campaigns instead with current low level spammer campaign, spammer campaign is dead and almost does void on promotion. I saw he said ok he would use TVE, but the fact is not. Now TVE doesn't need you.
2. too high and unrealistic limit, 1.75 million?
3. signature campaign is bad, too greedy you ask people to post 50 while others are 20-30, ark even doesn't require a post, that is why this campaign only attracts few people.

[ttg43]

You need 1.55 m more, where do you raise so much money without better promotions on forum and social media, and with current facebook and twitter abusers, this will never get such big fund. I have to say OP is incompetent.

Reasons:
1. he didn't hear people's words, to use TVE for effective social media campaigns instead with current low level spammer campaign, spammer campaign is dead and almost does void on promotion. I saw he said ok he would use TVE, but the fact is not. Now TVE doesn't need you.

No, he didn't. Show us any proof about this.

[Kazadar]

3. signature campaign is bad, too greedy you ask people to post 50 while others are 20-30, ark even doesn't require a post, that is why this campaign only attracts few people.

50 posts over 3 months is greedy? The ones with 20-30 are often 20-30 a month somethimes even a week.

A quick check in the altcoin market place,

ARK 1 post/week
ALTEX 5 post/week
Wings 20 posts/month
Ceal 15 posts/week
Quintessence 15 posts/week
CryptoJacks 36 posts/week
Incent 30 post/2 months
Antshares 20 post/month

So Inchains 17 posts/month is slightly below average for signature campaigns.