[ANN][ICO] Spectiv: DECENTRALIZED VIRTUAL REALITY (OLD THREAD)

[csmcc]

Just want to update to make sure you all know that we are working on a lot behind the scenes - Further development, potential partnerships, marketing, legal organization, and more! We are excited about Spectiv and look forward to having you test our initial platform.

Thanks for keeping us up to date. Do you have an estimated time for initial platform launch to test?

We will be able to answering this shortly, we are meeting with our recently hired platform developer tomorrow. We hope to have a version of the platform that users can experience within 30 days. This will likely be more of an interactive demo, and not the full alpha.

If your team can pull this off before the ICO start than trust me your ICO is going to be a massive success.

OK. As an early adopter of VR, this interests me and I've been reading through this thread (although WAY too much of it is about bounties and worries about prices/Aug 1st etc. Not enough about the actual project itself!). I quoted this post as some sort of beta I can look at pre-ICO would be a "must have" for me.

Background: I work in IT. Have done for 20+ years. Fair amount of development experience. Lots of non-functional testing experience. Mainly load/performance/network testing and test automation. Have been involved with/using VR since Oculus DK1 stage. Currently own a Vive. Had a launch version Oculus as well, but sold that as I prefer Vive. Also have a phone adapter type headset (a BoboVR - one of the better ones on the market).

So, how do think this weighs up as an ICO?

Sorry, but I have HUGE doubts.  

Taking it mainstream? OK. Fine. Already trying to do that are: Steam, Oculus (backed by Facebook), Samsung, Sony, YouTube, Google etc etc. There are already a LOT of big players pushing this. What makes me think an unknown crypto can do a better job? Nothing.

Platform. An indy VR platform. OK. There are already a few of those. And they are pretty well known in the VR community. Plus Steam already allows homebrew software and YouTube allows any user supplied content. Google Play store has plenty indy VR stuff for the phone headset market. Again, some big, established, players you're going up against.

360 degree video? Is a niche within a niche. I have VR. Have done for a long time. How much do I use 360 vids? Almost not at all. Quality is king. Will be people be interested in user submitted content? (Which is no different to YouTube), no, not really. Highly unlikely to pay for it. Also, streaming it will require major bandwidth. Things like football and major sporting events? Yeah. Great. But the licensing and rights to stream stuff like that is a hugely expensive area dominated by MASSIVE global players. To stream stuff like this legally, I don't see this having much chance. If you can provide some concrete proof of partnerships in this arena, that might give me some hope, but just saying you plan to in a white paper? Not enough for me. As you say yourself, license agreements like that require good user numbers (which means BIG bandwidth requirements to support it). But how do you get the user numbers first? Not with home-made 360 vids, I can tell you that. VR users have had to endure months and months of homebrew shitware just to get where they are now. Their appetite for more of the same is ..... lets just be nice and say "very low"!

Free headset? At best, it's going to be a junk version mobile phone type set. Anyone thinking these compare with Oculus/Vive/PSVR .... nope. Sorry. Not even close. I don't see this as much of an incentive to anyone.

A lot of the things mentioned in here - porn, games (obviously), interior design, medical applications, are already either in development or available elsewhere. I struggle to see how this will offer anything over the established markets.

The advertising numbers in the white paper seem HUGELY optimistic to me. $100k for an advert on your platform? Who on earth is going to be paying those kind of numbers!

End result, much as I love VR, and expect and hope it will grow in coming years, I don't see how this offers anything new and it will be going up against some established players in an already niche market. The tokens themselves don't seem to server much purpose to me, and the dual token only makes it more confusing as to where the value lies.

I'll keep watching this, but I won't be buying into the ICO. I suspect, at best, it's a huge long term bet ....

[1713401738]

1713401738

[1713401738]

1713401738

[1713401738]

1713401738

[Morphling]

it seems the crowdsale has been delayed? is that true, i also want to know when will the token distributed after ico?

[alexcbobr]

I correctly understood that the ICO will be postponed to August 14 or is it not true?

[tazmantasik]

ICO delay two weeks does not matter, it is important that the funds are safe.

I agree with you, regarding current hacking attacks and coindash hack, it is important to make sure everything is ok before ico.

Yeah coindash gives us a lesson, that we must prepare everything well

[hanlieuiypm9832]

ICO delay two weeks does not matter, it is important that the funds are safe.

I agree with you, regarding current hacking attacks and coindash hack, it is important to make sure everything is ok before ico.

Yeah coindash gives us a lesson, that we must prepare everything well

BTW, the ICO website should be safe enough that should not be hacked by the hackers. The ICO eth address should be kept safely.

[suryati]

ICO delay two weeks does not matter, it is important that the funds are safe.

I agree with you, regarding current hacking attacks and coindash hack, it is important to make sure everything is ok before ico.

Yeah coindash gives us a lesson, that we must prepare everything well

BTW, the ICO website should be safe enough that should not be hacked by the hackers. The ICO eth address should be kept safely.

yes i aggre with you, the project secures all assets primarily investor assets so that it can not be stolen.
I hope this ICO has set the strategy and has secured eth safe assets from hackers.   

[Vohoanghiep]

If you are interested in the Bounty Campaign, you can check it out here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1975288

We are starting translations, signature campaign, and article/blog bounties now. You must fill out the forms on that post to actually be involved in the bounties.

Dear!
My current rank is now a Member.
Looking forward to you updating!

[Amel]

I correctly understood that the ICO will be postponed to August 14 or is it not true?

This information has been announced in the main pages please check back
The crowdsale will open on 08/14/2017 at 2:00PM (GMT -5) and will run through 09/04/17.

[Cactushrt]

Hello dev.
Our account rose to become member. Can we change our signature campaign member code?
And now I have switched my signature code into a member.

You can post it on bounty thread not here in the ann thread or you can directly pm the bounty manager.

[aimer1488]

Good morning, spectiv! When the table of blog/article compaign will be updated?

[csmcc]

Just want to update to make sure you all know that we are working on a lot behind the scenes - Further development, potential partnerships, marketing, legal organization, and more! We are excited about Spectiv and look forward to having you test our initial platform.

Thanks for keeping us up to date. Do you have an estimated time for initial platform launch to test?

We will be able to answering this shortly, we are meeting with our recently hired platform developer tomorrow. We hope to have a version of the platform that users can experience within 30 days. This will likely be more of an interactive demo, and not the full alpha.

If your team can pull this off before the ICO start than trust me your ICO is going to be a massive success.

OK. As an early adopter of VR, this interests me and I've been reading through this thread (although WAY too much of it is about bounties and worries about prices/Aug 1st etc. Not enough about the actual project itself!). I quoted this post as some sort of beta I can look at pre-ICO would be a "must have" for me.

Background: I work in IT. Have done for 20+ years. Fair amount of development experience. Lots of non-functional testing experience. Mainly load/performance/network testing and test automation. Have been involved with/using VR since Oculus DK1 stage. Currently own a Vive. Had a launch version Oculus as well, but sold that as I prefer Vive. Also have a phone adapter type headset (a BoboVR - one of the better ones on the market).

So, how do think this weighs up as an ICO?

Sorry, but I have HUGE doubts. 

Taking it mainstream? OK. Fine. Already trying to do that are: Steam, Oculus (backed by Facebook), Samsung, Sony, YouTube, Google etc etc. There are already a LOT of big players pushing this. What makes me think an unknown crypto can do a better job? Nothing.

Platform. An indy VR platform. OK. There are already a few of those. And they are pretty well known in the VR community. Plus Steam already allows homebrew software and YouTube allows any user supplied content. Google Play store has plenty indy VR stuff for the phone headset market. Again, some big, established, players you're going up against.

360 degree video? Is a niche within a niche. I have VR. Have done for a long time. How much do I use 360 vids? Almost not at all. Quality is king. Will be people be interested in user submitted content? (Which is no different to YouTube), no, not really. Highly unlikely to pay for it. Also, streaming it will require major bandwidth. Things like football and major sporting events? Yeah. Great. But the licensing and rights to stream stuff like that is a hugely expensive area dominated by MASSIVE global players. To stream stuff like this legally, I don't see this having much chance. If you can provide some concrete proof of partnerships in this arena, that might give me some hope, but just saying you plan to in a white paper? Not enough for me. As you say yourself, license agreements like that require good user numbers (which means BIG bandwidth requirements to support it). But how do you get the user numbers first? Not with home-made 360 vids, I can tell you that. VR users have had to endure months and months of homebrew shitware just to get where they are now. Their appetite for more of the same is ..... lets just be nice and say "very low"!

Free headset? At best, it's going to be a junk version mobile phone type set. Anyone thinking these compare with Oculus/Vive/PSVR .... nope. Sorry. Not even close. I don't see this as much of an incentive to anyone.

A lot of the things mentioned in here - porn, games (obviously), interior design, medical applications, are already either in development or available elsewhere. I struggle to see how this will offer anything over the established markets.

The advertising numbers in the white paper seem HUGELY optimistic to me. $100k for an advert on your platform? Who on earth is going to be paying those kind of numbers!

End result, much as I love VR, and expect and hope it will grow in coming years, I don't see how this offers anything new and it will be going up against some established players in an already niche market. The tokens themselves don't seem to server much purpose to me, and the dual token only makes it more confusing as to where the value lies.

I'll keep watching this, but I won't be buying into the ICO. I suspect, at best, it's a huge long term bet ....

As I got it Spectv platform will mainly  focus not on technicalities of VR but rather on user's incentives to create content for VR. In this sense the chance for success is very high/

Oculus already tried a "non-gaming VR studio". They gave up and shut it down. They have Facebook behind them! (And are now paying $50m to encourage content creators)

http://uk.businessinsider.com/r-facebooks-virtual-reality-unit-oculus-shutters-film-studio-2017-5

What make you think this could work instead? I've been involved with VR for years. The demand for video is not big. The bandwidth needed to stream it to a lot of people is huge. The costs of licensing any sort of big sporting even are also huge. Go look up how much FIFA sold the rights for the 2018/2022 world cups for!

I just don't see how this can work. It doesn't offer anything new or make anything better.

They offer 360 videos. Home made ones. And maybe a free google cardboard style viewer. That seems to be about it. I'm into VR and this doesn't interest me at all.

YouTube already does everything this wants to do. For free. And comes pre-installed on pretty much every phone on the planet (and one of their main "partners" already has a channel on there full of 360 content). And these guys want to take that on?!?!? Why would anyone go to the trouble of using this over YouTube? (Or Vimeo, or Facebook ..... who also offer 360 video .... I imagine there are others too.)

And there is almost no technical discussion in this thread. Or talk of tie up deals. Just loads of people chasing bounties .... 

The few technical questions I could find (I have now read this entire thread) got either ignored, or got vague meaningless answers. Without a beta platform, some decent technical detail, and a shitload more info on who they are trying to partner with (and how they will host and support this .... all I could find was "probably Amazon S3"), you're buying into nothing much here.

I'm into VR. And I'm into crypto. And I work in IT. And nothing about this ICO appeals to me. That seems wrong given my interests.

I would be interested to see some decent detailed comment from the actual team, rather than bounty hunters shooting this down simply to try and prop up their bounty payments.

They mentioned on 15 July a "pre-alpha" demo should be available within 30 days. So that should now be available before the ICO right?

Also, I saw several replies from the team saying they had no plans to get this on any exchanges??? They would leave that up to the community. Why? That doesn't make any sense to me. As it stands, they will have a big pile of Ether (which they can cash in) and you will have a token you can't trade anywhere?!?!? And will have to petition to get it on exchanges if ever want to trade it. Can the team explain why they are not dealing with the exchanges themselves?

[dfebrero]

Is part of the logic executed on the token contract ?

[csmcc]

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate it.

Rather than a huge annoying re-quote, I'll just leave the relevant parts.

1. With the new timeline, we 100% expect to have a demo version of the site before the crowdsale now. The Alpha release will likely be after the crowdsale though.

That is definitely good. Too much style, too little substance so far. I'll be interested to see how it looks.

2. We may be able to handle discussions with exchanges now that we have a new legal structuring planned. The reason we previously stated we could not was due to legal reasons and advice provided to us.

I don't know who was advising you, but giving people an untradeable token doesn't sound like good advice to me. Probably good you got rid of whoever that was. Would you buy a car you couldn't drive???

as there are companies solely focused on that business model (NextVR).

Wow. I actually see this as bad! Really bad.

So you are not first to market with dedicated VR streaming? I had not heard of these guys, but they are clearly ahead of you (I don't see how you using crypto gives you any advantage over them?). And YouTube & co have a HUGE advantage in the non-dedicated area (but still offer it and are established). That's not good.

That's your thing (dedicated VR streaming) that made you different blown out of the water!

Good luck with it. I suspect you're gonna need it ....

[minbosen]

hello,dev, glad to see the announcement about the cooperation with the Sutton Stone, you mentioned that there will be a period of 60 days, I just want to confirm the ICO date will not be changed.

[csmcc]

hello,dev, glad to see the announcement about the cooperation with the Sutton Stone, you mentioned that there will be a period of 60 days, I just want to confirm the ICO date will not be changed.

FFS.

What does it say in the MASSIVE messages already re-quoted 3 times on this page alone.

It's delayed. No new date yet. You "bounty" guys are supposed to promote for them. It might help you "promote" if you actually read what they post.

 

[MsCollec]

I hope you guys werent planing to use parity multisig code

[Pab]

Great news,Spectiv will be super legitimate,some my thoughts about events.Not all events are licenced,many of them are even not streamed.We have in Poland very popular music festivals one of them is Woodstock,polish Woodstock is over 100000 young people are coming for three days of indie music festival,any streaming is available,there are some amateur vids available on you tube,next is big reggea and reggea related music festivals,there are small ethnic culture festivals,clubs with his events etc

In a case of big licenced events,Spectiv  may get in to coparation with tv,tv channels,If Spectiv will be legit,nicely done with good community of members Spectiv may offer his Service for high quality streaming
I like all idea,it is kind of challange,The most importent Spectiv is legit and is going beyond crypto.FB ,youtube is not protected from illigal downloads

[csmcc]

NextVR is not doing what we are doing.

You're right.

They're focussing on the (potentially) profitable part of this. While you're messing around trying to take on YouTube and hoping people are going to pay to watch some guy run around his garden streaming footage from a cheap 360 cam. If you can even get that running. I just tried a Google Jump (another competitor) 3D VR video at max quality on YouTube and it needed a big chunk of bandwidth. (Approx 15 Mbps) If you want to be taken seriously, I'd want to see some costings and estimates on your storage and bandwidth requirements. As you will be looking at some BIG numbers here. (I performance test networks for a living) A vague "oh, we'll probably use Amazon S3" doesn't cut it. I use AWS cloud machines to swarm test networks. I have to provide detailed costing on the instances, what type they are, how long they'll be in use, why I'm using one region over another, etc etc. And I'm one guy working for a decent sized UK tech firm. You are supposedly a team of experts, but are providing no detail worth seeing.

You're talking about a highly technical project here. With some BIG technical requirements if it's going to work. But giving virtually (no pun intended) no detail.

 

I am the easiest portion of your target market. A VR enthusiast. Nothing about this project has enthused me so far. Sorry.

I'll keep watching this. Out of interest. But I have the feeling I'll either be watching a sinking ship, or a team scurrying off with a load of ICO money they have no intention of following through on.

(And if the beta/preview/whatever version fails to appear before the ICO, then I'm calling scam on this. It's all WAY too vague and unrealistic. But you've said it will appear, so that won't happen right?)


PS .... I hope you prove me wrong. I really do. Because I'm a VR enthusiast, and an early investor in the technology. I've spent a fair chunk of cash on it already and I want it to succeed. But this whole project sounds like it was made up in the pub one night ....

[sud]

NextVR is not doing what we are doing.

You're right.

They're focussing on the (potentially) profitable part of this. While you're messing around trying to take on YouTube and hoping people are going to pay to watch some guy run around his garden streaming footage from a cheap 360 cam. If you can even get that running. I just tried a Google Jump (another competitor) 3D VR video at max quality on YouTube and it needed a big chunk of bandwidth. (Approx 15 Mbps) If you want to be taken seriously, I'd want to see some costings and estimates on your storage and bandwidth requirements. As you will be looking at some BIG numbers here. (I performance test networks for a living) A vague "oh, we'll probably use Amazon S3" doesn't cut it. I use AWS cloud machines to swarm test networks. I have to provide detailed costing on the instances, what type they are, how long they'll be in use, why I'm using one region over another, etc etc. And I'm one guy working for a decent sized UK tech firm. You are supposedly a team of experts, but are providing no detail worth seeing.

You're talking about a highly technical project here. With some BIG technical requirements if it's going to work. But giving virtually (no pun intended) no detail.

 

I am the easiest portion of your target market. A VR enthusiast. Nothing about this project has enthused me so far. Sorry.

I'll keep watching this. Out of interest. But I have the feeling I'll either be watching a sinking ship, or a team scurrying off with a load of ICO money they have no intention of following through on.

(And if the beta/preview/whatever version fails to appear before the ICO, then I'm calling scam on this. It's all WAY too vague and unrealistic. But you've said it will appear, so that won't happen right?)


PS .... I hope you prove me wrong. I really do. Because I'm a VR enthusiast, and an early investor in the technology. I've spent a fair chunk of cash on it already and I want it to succeed. But this whole project sounds like it was made up in the pub one night ....

Good to have some technical person here, who knows a lot about VR. I'd just like to point out that none of the big streaming platforms (youtube, twitch, etc.) was focusing on profit at the beginning. Getting userbase is always first. I don't know what kind of content Spectiv will be offering on the platform but I hope it wont be 360 of some guys garden footage. I see you are sceptic about it and that's a good thing - you bring lots of valid points. For example I also wonder about bandwidth and storage costs as VR videos can be huge - SpectivVR can you elaborate more on this matter?

One thing I can tell is the team is not doing a money grab, their intentions to make a great VR platform are real.

[csmcc]

OK. Stop the clock. 

I wasn't in a position to watch videos earlier today. Only read and post.

So everything I've posted on here up to now, is 100% based on reading. I read this entire thread. I looked for ICO DD's on it. I looked on Reddit. I googled. A lot.

That formed my opinion up to this point.



I'm just finishing watching this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhLlXfdbN3I



My opinion has changed.

I'm not quite finished watching it yet. But I already changed my mind on one point.

I don't think this is a cash grab/scam.

I'll post fully what I think once I finish the video ....



For reference.....

I'm probably double the age of the guy in the video. (Either of them)

I do due diligence on anything I'm going to put money in. ICO madness has not affected this guy.

Been into IT since I was at school. Studied it. Worked in IT for 20+ years. I mainly do non-functional testing. I stress infrastructures. Networks. Websites. Databases. Etc etc. Basically, people give me software, services, whatever ... and tell me how great they are. And then I break them. First dozen years or so in financial services. Last few years with a large EPoS manufacurer.

But I'm also a gamer since the Atari days.

And been into/around VR since DK1. I have a Vive now. A dedicated rig for it. A dedicated room in my house for it. And a BoboVR for dicking around using phone-VR.

So this ICO interested me. I had noticed it via the "bounty hunters". (They worked on that front. But MAN they can be annoying with the constant shit-posting in this thread ...)



Anyway. Gonna finish watching that interview .....