ICONOMI - Live for today. Invest for tomorrow.

[MoveCrypto]

These guys who were spending 6+ hours per day trolling with dozens of different accounts on BTT and Reddit did not simply quit and go home:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=826008;sa=showPosts

They changed their accounts and style to something much more clever and less recognizable:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#Concern_troll

A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the troll claims to hold. The concern troll posts in Web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.[51] This is a particular case of sockpuppeting.

You look less like a nutter when you're actually replying with arguments/refutations, rather than this concern troll theory.

Is snkns (the person you just replied to) a concern troll? Because he's been very active on reddit, with his concerns.

Is it possible for anybody to raise any concern at all, without them being labelled a troll?

You're being a silly billy. Alex Jones level silly.

Oh, and don't think I didn't notice when you replied to me from your newbie account, and promptly deleted it the other day. I wouldn't be throwing trolling accusations at other people, while you're using sock accounts to agree with yourself  

You're being silly if you think the guys behind the February troll campaign aren't still trolling under different names with a different style.

It's obvious to anyone who has been paying attention, including you.  Although, you may not admit it if you think the trolling aligns with your interests.

It actually doesn't align with any of our interests because the biggest source of profit in this venture is not wasting energy trying to influence someone to dump (seasoned people in crypto are immune to these tricks and will dump when they need liquidity or want to take profit anyways), but rather using energy to welcome new investors/users to ICN and the platform.

[1714299590]

1714299590

[1714299590]

1714299590

[1714299590]

1714299590

[1714299590]

1714299590

[1714299590]

1714299590

[Enjorlas]

It's obvious to anyone who has been paying attention.

Yes. We know what's going on.

[Mendeleev]

You're being silly if you think the guys behind the February troll campaign aren't still trolling under different names with a different style.

It's obvious to anyone who has been paying attention, including you. Although, you may not admit it if you think the trolling aligns with your interests.

It actually doesn't align with any of our interests because the biggest source of profit in this venture is not wasting energy trying to influence someone to dump (seasoned people in crypto are immune to these tricks and will dump when they need liquidity or want to take profit anyways), but rather using energy to welcome new investors/users to ICN and the platform.

Neither of us can prove that one way or the other.

The alternative is that "everything is all fine, and nobody has anything to be concerned about", though.

Who decided that?

The concerns raised make sense, given the information available to those raising the concerns, regardless of intent.

You can't simply dismiss those concerns as trolling/FUD, just because you're unable to address them.

I'm not saying you've definitely invested into a team of unscrupulous individuals but, if you have, you'll feel a whole lot stupider if you look back at how you religiously defended them from the people you're currently dismissing as trolls.

As for the rest, I'm not a fan of keeping up appearances for the sake of lining my own pockets. This shit needs solid foundations and, right now, those foundations are crumbling, and more and more people are starting to see that.

[MoveCrypto]

These guys who were spending 6+ hours per day trolling with dozens of different accounts on BTT and Reddit did not simply quit and go home:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=826008;sa=showPosts

They changed their accounts and style to something much more clever and less recognizable:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#Concern_troll

A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the troll claims to hold. The concern troll posts in Web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.[51] This is a particular case of sockpuppeting.

You look less like a nutter when you're actually replying with arguments/refutations, rather than this concern troll theory.

Is snkns (the person you just replied to) a concern troll? Because he's been very active on reddit, with his concerns.

Is it possible for anybody to raise any concern at all, without them being labelled a troll?

You're being a silly billy. Alex Jones level silly.

Oh, and don't think I didn't notice when you replied to me from your newbie account, and promptly deleted it the other day. I wouldn't be throwing trolling accusations at other people, while you're using sock accounts to agree with yourself  

You're being silly if you think the guys behind the February troll campaign aren't still trolling under different names with a different style.

It's obvious to anyone who has been paying attention, including you.  Although, you may not admit it if you think the trolling aligns with your interests.

It actually doesn't align with any of our interests because the biggest source of profit in this venture is not wasting energy trying to influence someone to dump (seasoned people in crypto are immune to these tricks and will dump when they need liquidity or want to take profit anyways), but rather using energy to welcome new investors/users to ICN and the platform.

Neither of us can prove that one way or the other.

The alternative is that "everything is all fine, and nobody has anything to be concerned about", though.

Who decided that?

The concerns raised make sense, given the information available to those raising the concerns, regardless of intent.

You can't simply dismiss those concerns as trolling/FUD, just because you're unable to address them.

I'm not saying you've definitely invested into a team of unscrupulous individuals but, if you have, you'll feel a whole lot stupider if you look back at how you religiously defended them from the people you're currently dismissing as trolls.

A lot of their "concerns", on r/ethtrader for example, don't make any sense so you know they must be trolling.

ICN has always been a profit-sharing token.  The switch from dividends->buyback & burn did not change the fact that it's still a profit-sharing token.  

All the sudden people are very "concerned" about the fact that it's a profit-sharing token with no use other than to share profits.

This has been the case ever since we read the whitepaper.  The majority of people who are suddenly campaigning about this particular "concern" are most likely from competing projects and/or trying to trick people into divesting from ICN.

[Mendeleev]

A lot of their concerns, on r/ethtrader, for example, don't make any sense so you know they must be trolling.

ICN has always been a profit-sharing token.  The switch from dividends->buyback & burn did not change the fact that it's still a profit-sharing token.  

All the sudden people are very "concerned" about the fact that it's a profit-sharing token with no use other than to share profits?  

It doesn't make sense to suddenly be concerned about something that has been the case ever since we first read the whitepaper.

They make sense to me, and to others agreeing with them.

It is not simply the case that they are a group of trolls who are all working together, to crash the price. That's just an easy way to dismiss them.

It's not really an issue of who is right, or who is wrong. If you can't refute their arguments in an equally convincing fashion, then you're going to lose the debate, and the token will lose value. Simple as that.

"Oh, they're just the same trolls from February" isn't a valid rebuttal. You WILL lose this argument, if that is all you have to say.

To that end, you need to be encouraging the team to respond to people's concerns. If you think the concerns are provably bullshit, then have Tim (yes, Tim!) publish a post which addresses the concerns head on. It really is that simple. Until then, people are just going to assume that there's no response other than "lol, trolls! Just ignore them!"

You are HARMING the price by dismissing these concerns as trolling.

What is your current position on what ICN represents? Is it a share in the company? Do you receive any rights, or rewards, by holding the ICN (share)? Is there any recent, official word on this? Buybacks in the old economy work because the share has value in the form of rights/rewards. Reducing supply is NOT a factor which drives value on its own.

If I hold two lumps of dog shit, and burn one, the remaining lump of dog shit is not instantly worth twice as much. Or whatever fraction is applicable to the total supply of dog shit.

Until people see an official word from the team, which puts these concerns to rest, they will continue to harp on these issues, and you dismissing them as trolls will not stop them.

[MoveCrypto]

A lot of their concerns, on r/ethtrader, for example, don't make any sense so you know they must be trolling.

ICN has always been a profit-sharing token.  The switch from dividends->buyback & burn did not change the fact that it's still a profit-sharing token.  

All the sudden people are very "concerned" about the fact that it's a profit-sharing token with no use other than to share profits?  

It doesn't make sense to suddenly be concerned about something that has been the case ever since we first read the whitepaper.

They make sense to me, and to others agreeing with them.

It is not simply the case that they are a group of trolls who are all working together, to crash the price. That's just an easy way to dismiss them.

It's not really an issue of who is right, or who is wrong. If you can't refute their arguments in an equally convincing fashion, then you're going to lose the debate, and the token will lose value. Simple as that.

"Oh, they're just the same trolls from February" isn't a valid rebuttal. You WILL lose this argument, if that is all you have to say.

To that end, you need to be encouraging the team to respond to people's concerns. If you think the concerns are provably bullshit, then have Tim (yes, Tim!) publish a post which addresses the concerns head on. It really is that simple. Until then, people are just going to assume that there's no response other than "lol, trolls! Just ignore them!"

You are HARMING the price by dismissing these concerns as trolling.

What is your current position on what ICN represents? Is it a share in the company? Do you receive any rights, or rewards, by holding the ICN (share)? Is there any recent, official word on this? Buybacks in the old economy work because the share has value in the form of rights/rewards. Reducing supply is NOT a factor which drives value on its own.

If I hold two lumps of dog shit, and burn one, the remaining lump of dog shit is not instantly worth twice as much. Or whatever fraction is applicable to the total supply of dog shit.

Until people see an official word from the team, which puts these concerns to rest, they will continue to harp on these issues, and you dismissing them as trolls will not stop them.

People may have to read between the lines on some of this stuff due to regulations.  If the team makes a blog post that clearly spells it out: "ICN tokens have value because all of the profit Iconomi generates will always be distributed back to ICN holders"  then they would be admitting to breaking this part of the Howey test:

2) There is an expectation of profits from the investment

It's obviously not a share of a company (a stock).  There's no legal framework to allow anonymous token holders to be the owners of a company.

I think they hired at least 1 new law firm after the ico ended, who may have advised them to be more careful about the language they use and the promises they clearly spell out for investors (or maybe we should start calling them contributors like the other ico's do in order to appease the regulators).

[Mendeleev]

You may have to read between the lines on some of this stuff due to regulations.  If the team makes a blog post that clearly spells it out: "ICN tokens have value because all of the profit we generate will always be used to buy/burn ICN"  then they would be admitting a violation of the Howey test:

2) There is an expectation of profits from the investment

And no, it's not a share of a company.  There's no legal framework to allow an anonymous token holder to have the same rights as a stock shareholder.  Again, can figure this out by reading between the lines.

Buying back the tokens with the earned profits means NOTHING if the tokens have no actual worth. It's like an empty gesture. They're using a portion of the profits earned from investors' money, to buy back the tokens which THEY issued to investors. The rest of the profits remain in the fund.

As they have stated they will buy ICN back below the highest bid, and below the last price - and state clearly that they don't want to artificially increase the market value (which is fine) - then the buybacks won't affect the market at that point. Any support "wall" is irrelevant, as it has always been, when other whales are in the game.

As the token has no intrinsic value, and Iconomi aren't artificially increasing its value during buybacks, then the only factor worth considering is supply reduction... which, as I said, is not enough to increase value alone.

You are still left with a token of NO VALUE which is slowly decreasing in supply.

It doesn't matter how much ICN they buy back with their profits, the remaining ICN is worthless without a use-case, and the market will ultimately reflect that, because Iconomi aren't in control of the market.

The only other driving factor here is that enough people erroneously believe that this model actually works, and somehow this collective misconception will drive the price up. But that has already been dis-proven, as the price has dropped after the announcement - which wouldn't be possible if people actually believed this "deflation" hype.

In reality, you could reduce the supply to ONE ICN, and that single ICN will still have ZERO actual value, unless somebody from the team can explain otherwise (e.g. rights/perks/whatever)

So don't bother with this "read between the lines" nonsense. Until somebody from the team can explain away the above, people will keep criticising this move, for those reasons I've explained.

Is this making any sense yet? Because it was glaringly obvious to me as soon as I read the announcement, and it seems to be glaringly obvious to those "trolls" on reddit, too.

Anyone can make a token on Ethereum. If I create 100 MEND tokens right now, in return for tokens of established value, then I invest those value tokens elsewhere, turn a profit, and start to buy my MEND back with 20% of my profits, would you accept that as a legitimate business model?! I doubt it.

It's like I borrow a dollar to place a 5 to 1 bet, I win, then give the dollar back. But I keep 4 dollars for myself.

This whole thing is a joke until somebody from Iconomi can explain why ICN is actually worth anything.

Hint: You are not someone from Iconomi, so please encourage Tim or Jani to address those concerns. Preferably Tim, as Jani appears to be a halfwit.

[MoveCrypto]

You may have to read between the lines on some of this stuff due to regulations.  If the team makes a blog post that clearly spells it out: "ICN tokens have value because all of the profit we generate will always be used to buy/burn ICN"  then they would be admitting a violation of the Howey test:

2) There is an expectation of profits from the investment

And no, it's not a share of a company.  There's no legal framework to allow an anonymous token holder to have the same rights as a stock shareholder.  Again, can figure this out by reading between the lines.

Sending dividends to the tokens with the earned profits means NOTHING if the tokens have no actual worth. It's like an empty gesture. They're using a portion of the profits earned from investors' money, to send dividends to the tokens which THEY issued to investors. The rest of the profits remain in the fund.

As they have stated they will send dividends to ICN holders - and state clearly that they don't want to artificially increase the market value (which is fine) - then the dividends won't affect the market at that point. Any dividends are irrelevant, as they have always been, when other whales are in the game.

As the token has no intrinsic value, and Iconomi aren't artificially increasing its value, then the only factor worth considering is dividends... which, as I said, is not enough to increase value alone.

You are still left with a token of NO VALUE which is slowly receiving dividends.

It doesn't matter how much ETH they send back with their profits, the remaining ICN is worthless without a use-case, and the market will ultimately reflect that, because Iconomi aren't in control of the market.

The only other driving factor here is that enough people erroneously believe that this dividend model actually works, and somehow this collective misconception will drive the price up.

In reality, you could send dividends for FIVE years, and ICN will still have ZERO actual value, unless somebody from the team can explain otherwise (e.g. rights/perks/whatever)

So don't bother with this "read between the lines" nonsense. Until somebody from the team can explain away the above, people will keep criticising this move, for those reasons I've explained.

Is this making any sense yet? Because it was glaringly obvious to me as soon as I read the announcement, and it seems to be glaringly obvious to those "trolls" on reddit, too.

Anyone can make a token on Ethereum. If I create 100 MEND tokens right now, in return for tokens of established value, then I invest those value tokens elsewhere, turn a profit, and start to send dividends to MEND holders with 20% of my profits, would you accept that as a legitimate business model?! I doubt it.

It's like I borrow a dollar to place a 5 to 1 bet, I win, then give the dollar back. But I keep placing bets with the profit and giving you 20% of the winnings.

This whole thing is a joke until somebody from Iconomi can explain why ICN is actually worth anything.

Hint: You are not someone from Iconomi, so please encourage Tim or Jani to address those concerns. Preferably Tim, as Jani appears to be a halfwit.

I replaced all the times you mentioned buyback in your argument with dividends.  

The exact same argument could have been applied anytime to the dividend model, so it makes zero sense that this is suddenly a huge concern unless you are trolling.

edit: I also fixed the fallacy in the "borrow a dollar" example you made at the end

[Mendeleev]

I replaced all the times you mentioned buyback in your argument with dividends.  

The exact same argument could have been applied anytime to the dividend model, so it makes ZERO sense that this is suddenly a huge concern unless you are trolling.

Wrong.

Dividends are a flow of income, which means the token has value. If I know 10,000 ICN will net me 1 ETH per month (for the sake of argument), then I have incentive to buy and hold 10,000 ICN, and ICN's value is driven by that fact.

In the old economy, buybacks are potentially a better option than dividends. In this particular case, everything I (and others) have said, has shown that they are an inferior option - UNLESS somebody from the team can prove otherwise.

Replacing one word with another is not an argument, and my post makes no sense after you have done so. E.g. a whale can't keep ICN at 20 cents each, if the token is able to pay a guaranteed income stream to its holder. That would be insane, and there would be a lot more incentive to RAISE the cost of the token.

You're clutching at straws.

Please encourage Tim Zagar to address these issues. You are not doing a very good job of it yourself.

Edit: Your "borrow a dollar" fix only works in the case of dividends. It does not work in the case of buybacks. Sorry. You are not intellectually equipped for this discussion. You are talking rubbish.

[MoveCrypto]

I replaced all the times you mentioned buyback in your argument with dividends.  

The exact same argument could have been applied anytime to the dividend model, so it makes ZERO sense that this is suddenly a huge concern unless you are trolling.

Wrong.

Dividends are a flow of income, which means the token has value. If I know 10,000 ICN will net me 1 ETH per month (for the sake of argument), then I have incentive to buy and hold 10,000 ICN, and ICN's value is driven by that fact.

In the old economy, buybacks are potentially a better option than dividends. In this particular case, everything I (and others) have said, has shown that they are an inferior option - UNLESS somebody from the team can prove otherwise.

Replacing one word with another is not an argument, and my post makes no sense after you have done so. E.g. a whale can't keep ICN at 20 cents each, if the token is able to pay a guaranteed income stream to its holder. That would be insane, and there would be a lot more incentive to RAISE the cost of the token.

You're clutching at straws.

Please encourage Tim Zagar to address these issues. You are not doing a very good job of it yourself.

Edit: Your "borrow a dollar" fix only works in the case of dividends. It does not work in the case of buybacks. Sorry. You are not intellectually equipped for this discussion. You are talking rubbish.

You are talking rubbish and dancing around the fact that the same amount of profit gets distributed either way.

It's funny, every time I destroy your troll argument, you get frustrated and resort to personal attacks.

[Enjorlas]

Mendeleev, I know you are a troll but at least troll in a coherent manner so we can properly communicate with you.

Buybacks:
- Defer capital gain taxes until the asset is sold
- Add liquidity to ICN rather than to ETH
- Remove legal implications that dividends might cause
- Add buy walls to the order book providing price support
- Eliminate the possibility of sending ETH to lost/unused/exchange addresses

Dividends:
- ETH gas fees would be slightly cheaper than maker/taker fees on exchanges
- Dividends are a more commonly known model of profit distribution which would generate more hype from new traders
- The dividend model was promised early on to ICONOMI investors

[Mendeleev]

You are talking rubbish and dancing around the fact that the profit gets distributed either way.

It's funny, every time I destroy your troll argument, you get frustrated and resort to personal attacks.

You haven't destroyed anything. Your responses don't address anything I've said. You argue in bad faith. You speak of fallacy, and yet you imagine that simply replacing one word with another is enough to make your point.

You are not countering anything I, or others, have said, and I don't really want you to.

I want you to stop trying (because you are bad at it), and I want you to encourage a member of the team to address them, so we can all see the official response to those concerns.

It may be insulting, and I'm sorry, but you are ill-equipped for this discussion. But that's fine. Your responses aren't what people are asking for. They want the official word - not your silly attempts at deflection, because you're emotionally married to this project.

[MoveCrypto]

You are talking rubbish and dancing around the fact that the profit gets distributed either way.

It's funny, every time I destroy your troll argument, you get frustrated and resort to personal attacks.

You haven't destroyed anything. Your responses don't address anything I've said. You argue in bad faith. You speak of fallacy, and yet you imagine that simply replacing one word with another is enough to make your point.

You are not countering anything I, or others, have said, and I don't really want you to.

I want you to stop trying (because you are bad at it), and I want you to encourage a member of the team to address them, so we can all see the official response to those concerns.

It may be insulting, and I'm sorry, but you are ill-equipped for this discussion. But that's fine. Your responses aren't what people are asking for. They want the official word - not your silly attempts at deflection, because you're emotionally married to this project.

Again, personal attacks because I pointed out that your dividends vs. buyback argument is baseless for one simple reason:

The same amount of profit gets distributed to ICN holders either way.  It's the profit itself that gives ICN value, not the distribution mechanism.

[Mendeleev]

Mendeleev, I know you are a troll but at least troll in a coherent manner so we can properly communicate with you.

Buybacks:
- Defer capital gain taxes until the asset is sold
- Add liquidity to ICN rather than to ETH
- Remove legal implications that dividends might cause
- Add buy walls to the order book providing price support
- Eliminate the possibility of sending ETH to lost/unused/exchange addresses

Dividends:
- ETH gas fees would be slightly cheaper than maker/taker fees on exchanges
- Dividends are a more commonly known model of profit distribution which would generate more hype from new traders
- The dividend model was promised early on to ICONOMI investors

Yes, I saw you post this non-argument a few pages ago.

As I say, I'll wait for the team to officially respond to the concerns that have been posted by myself, and by others.

If they can prove to us that our arguments don't hold up, then I will happily eat crow.

People like you, and MoveCrpyto, are adding nothing but fanboy nonsense, because you can't construct a decent counter-argument, and are fuelled purely by an emotional attachment to a project that is currently under immense scrutiny - and you have no idea how to deal with it.

[Mendeleev]

Again, personal attacks because I pointed out that your dividends vs. buyback argument is baseless for one simple reason:

The same amount of profit gets distributed to ICN holders either way.  It's the profit itself that gives ICN value, not the distribution mechanism.

I believe I have correctly assessed that you are incapable of addressing the points that have been made.

If you wish to take that personally, so be it.

[MoveCrypto]

Again, personal attacks because I pointed out that your dividends vs. buyback argument is baseless for one simple reason:

The same amount of profit gets distributed to ICN holders either way.  It's the profit itself that gives ICN value, not the distribution mechanism.

I believe I have correctly assessed that you are incapable of addressing the points that have been made.

If you wish to take that personally, so be it.

I already addressed them but you go around in circles and put the focus on me to try to distract from this simple fact:

It's the profit itself that gives ICN tokens value, not the distribution mechanism.

[Enjorlas]

Iconomi is getting listed on Shapeshift soon.

[Enjorlas]

Mendeleev, I know you are a troll but at least troll in a coherent manner so we can properly communicate with you.

Buybacks:
- Defer capital gain taxes until the asset is sold
- Add liquidity to ICN rather than to ETH
- Remove legal implications that dividends might cause
- Add buy walls to the order book providing price support
- Eliminate the possibility of sending ETH to lost/unused/exchange addresses

Dividends:
- ETH gas fees would be slightly cheaper than maker/taker fees on exchanges
- Dividends are a more commonly known model of profit distribution which would generate more hype from new traders
- The dividend model was promised early on to ICONOMI investors

Yes, I saw you post this non-argument a few pages ago.

As I say, I'll wait for the team to officially respond to the concerns that have been posted by myself, and by others.

If they can prove to us that our arguments don't hold up, then I will happily eat crow.

People like you, and MoveCrpyto, are adding nothing but fanboy nonsense, because you can't construct a decent counter-argument, and are fuelled purely by an emotional attachment to a project that is currently under immense scrutiny - and you have no idea how to deal with it.

I hope these may be able to help:
http://www.wikihow.com/Have-a-Good-Argument
http://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-logic-definition-examples-quiz.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

And if you really feel up to it possibly:
http://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/reasoning.html

Sorry, but you keep referring to what you are saying as an argument and I don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

This may be the most helpful:
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/argument.html

[Mendeleev]

Again, personal attacks because I pointed out that your dividends vs. buyback argument is baseless for one simple reason:

The same amount of profit gets distributed to ICN holders either way.  It's the profit itself that gives ICN value, not the distribution mechanism.

I believe I have correctly assessed that you are incapable of addressing the points that have been made.

If you wish to take that personally, so be it.

I already addressed them but you go around in circles and put the focus on me to try to distract from this simple fact:

It's the profit itself that gives ICN tokens value, not the distribution mechanism.

And I explained why that won't work the way you seem to think it will.

Profit via dividends = obvious token of value
Theoretical profit via buyback when we potentially hold no rights/perks = a whole lot of variables/concerns which you can't address

Again, please pass this on to the team. I've saved the page, in case anybody deletes any part of the discussion.

It's been an interesting discussion, though, and I hope to see an official word which will clear up the things we've discussed here.

[Mendeleev]

Sorry, but you keep referring to what you are saying as an argument and I don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Sounds more like a YOU problem, to me.

Perhaps you're just not very bright?