ICONOMI - Live for today. Invest for tomorrow.

[stormia]

Wow nice rebuttal, you really showed me there! When people resort to ad hominems it's a good sign they have no more substance to back them up.

[magc16]

I'm liking the cheap ICN price.  FEAR must be in the air.  Hahahahaha...  I just keep piling up my ICNs...

[fennyllywof-7700]

Wow nice rebuttal, you really showed me there! When people resort to ad hominems it's a good sign they have no more substance to back them up.

or i just can't be bothered to waste time with a shill boy retard who has his head far up Jani's ass. 

[stormia]

Wow nice rebuttal, you really showed me there! When people resort to ad hominems it's a good sign they have no more substance to back them up.

or i just can't be bothered to waste time with a shill boy retard who has his head far up Jani's ass.  

Lol but you have time for these lame excues for posts. Willing to waste time on something comletely devoid of value and substance but not on something insightful and meaningful. You aren't fooling anybody. Keep it up you are only proving my point further and further.

[hellsingfan]

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?

If that's true, then it sounds like a pointless system.

For example:

Let's say I collect 1000 BTC to start a crypto fund when BTC is worth $1000

I promise to pay 50% of "profit" as dividends (all calculated in USD and also counting un-invested assets)

I make no investments and BTC goes up to $2000

If I send 50% of that $1m "profit" out as dividends, then I would be refunding 500 BTC to the holders straight out of the ico money.  

What is the point of collecting crypto for an investment fund, then slowly refunding the exact same crypto if the $ value of it appreciates?

This would actually be fucked up if I took 25% of the "profit", or 125 BTC for myself directly out of the ico crypto as a fee.  <----Can you confirm if Taas is doing this?  I highly doubt it, because that would be alarming.

They are pegged to the dollar. Hence their profit is based on dollars not BTC. Yes they will be 'giving back btc'.

- They're investing in crypto
- Returning profits in Dollars- (1 TAAS is $1).

Yes they used crypto to raise funds which ideally should be in dollars but no one in the fiat world just throws money into any new fund that launches. That craziness only exists in the crypto-world.

[MoveCrypto]

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?

If that's true, then it sounds like a pointless system.

For example:

Let's say I collect 1000 BTC to start a crypto fund when BTC is worth $1000

I promise to pay 50% of "profit" as dividends (all calculated in USD and also counting un-invested assets)

I make no investments and BTC goes up to $2000

If I send 50% of that $1m "profit" out as dividends, then I would be refunding 250 BTC to the holders straight out of the ico money.  

What is the point of collecting crypto for an investment fund, then slowly refunding the exact same crypto if the $ value of it appreciates?

This would actually be fucked up if I took 25% of the "profit", or 125 BTC for myself directly out of the ico crypto as a fee.  <----Can you confirm if Taas is doing this?  I highly doubt it, because that would be alarming.

They are pegged to the dollar. Hence their profit is based on dollars not BTC. Yes they will be 'giving back btc'.

- They're investing in crypto
- Returning profits in Dollars- (1 TAAS is $1).

Yes they used crypto to raise funds which ideally should be in dollars but no one in the fiat world just throws money into any new fund that launches. That craziness only exists in the crypto-world.

So they will be taking a 25% fee directly out of the ico crypto because the $ value of their un-invested crypto appreciated?

Do you have a source for this?

[iread2little]

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?

[MoveCrypto]

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 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?

[iread2little]

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 $.

[stormia]

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?

Is 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.

TaaS is only doing a fraction of what Iconomi is doing, they aren't even comparable. One can compare TaaS to ICNP but ICNP is only part of Iconomi.

[iread2little]

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.

[stormia]

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 hasn't had time to keep or not keep promises so idk what you are taking about. You act like it is already a huge success and it hasn't even done anything yet.

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.

[iread2little]

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.

[stormia]

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 succesful ICNP investments.

Do you know what actually IS doing nothing? Simply holding onto ICO funds and claiming their passive appreciation is profit (that TaaS can then siphon 25% off of for themselves, and distrbute % to token holders to make it look like it is a success when in fact nothing has been done yet).

Go take your TaaS support to the TaaS thread where it belongs. It looks like it is desperately needed there.

[iread2little]

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!!!

[stormia]

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?

[iread2little]

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.

[kdricardo]

With additional beta testers being added daily, the number of ICONOMI platform users and assets in ICNX remains to rise. There are 270 ICONOMI platform beta testers at the moment, with $590,556.26 of assets within ICNX.

don´t foget that!
Iconomi anonce in Slack that they wil have an affiliat programm

[DomainMagnate]

They intend to add 6k beta testers and they only have 270 now.If they invite at these rates,I reckon it would take a decade for me to get access.

[Mendeleev]

They intend to add 6k beta testers and they only have 270 now.If they invite at these rates,I reckon it would take a decade for me to get access.

As they scale up, they should be able to add more each time (in theory)

For example, if they doubled every month or so, it wouldn't take very long to get through 6000.