delete [RESOLVED]

[Lauda]

@CryptoDevil: Not only is it bullying the members of the signature campaign, but such a post is highly advantageous for your cause as it is just an open threat that is meant to deter people from joining the campaign and encourage them to leave the campaign.

Disagreed. You obviously aren't aware of how the trust system works nor how similar cases in the past were resolved. He could have just proceeded, after being censored, to leave a negative rating to all participating members. However, he was kind enough to post a warning first.

I can tell you right now that you would not dare to give negative trust to any of the members without giving them a proper warning and proving that Enjin coin is truly a scam.

Relevance? This seems like a provocative statement, which makes the situation worse.

If you did give members negative trust without a proper warning, that would cause a backlash in the Bitcointalk community and destroy your reputation.

No, it most certainly would not. His reputation ain't fragile enough for a single mistake, especially not this "for profit project" to destroy it.

Everything that John70 did is completely within the forum parameters. So I have no idea why you have chosen to charge user “John70” with negative trust for that. I don’t that is fair on the Enjin coin team.

Don't censor valid questions and criticism, especially not from DT members.

[1714869499]

1714869499

[1714869499]

1714869499

[1714869499]

1714869499

[1714869499]

1714869499

[1714869499]

1714869499

[1714869499]

1714869499

[cryptodevil]

I chose not to follow through with my warning to participants of the signature campaign, at this time, because the Enjincoin team were sufficiently pressured by the existence of this thread and being marked themselves that we are at least getting some responses from them about the issues concerning the credibility of the claims they are making. They were warned not to continue deleting my posts in their moderated announcement thread and they chose to ignore that warning, hence the action which was taken to bring them back to the table was, and is, justified.

As for idiotic ad-hominems being thrown at me about why I don't rate [insert sketchy ICO here], too, if anybody has legitimate concerns and evidence which would warrant such I will be more than happy to take a look. In any event, accusing me of wrongdoing based on not exposing all crypto scams in existence, or by having an ulterior motive for personal gain in targeting specific ones, is just vapid nonsense. If the issues I am raising about an ICO and its team are legitimate then they need to be addressed, irrespective of the emotional backlash being hurled around this thread.

Let me repeat what I stated in the OP, I do not consider this ICO a scam, per se, as Enjin is clearly a platform which has been in existence for several years. The fact is that red flags concerning the size and scope of Enjin Pty Ltd, such as their claims towards the number of full-time employees they have and the profitability, or otherwise, of the 'many millions' in sales they claim to make each month, justify being called out because similar ICOs, equally conducted over a very short time-period, have fraudulently misrepresented their size and scope through utilising the names and profiles of 'employees' who were absolutely not who they were being represented as by the ICO team and neither was the underlying commercial entity. This is why I have brought up the matter of the employees and the stats showing the 75% drop in visitors across their network.

As has been said by somebody else in this thread, and something I agree with, this ICO would be a terrible investment for many reasons, but I have not raised this thread because of that. I have done so because the red flags I mentioned show a high risk that the promoters of this ICO are being dishonest about the true financial state of their company. Their actions in response to my questioning was alarming and constituted another red flag.

It is down to them to prove the legitimacy of their business operation, as they are the ones asking the public for many millions in investment.

With that in mind, there is one very simple way for them to validate their supposed size, scope and viability, and that is to provide audited accounts, or a statement from their auditors, which would serve to prove the size, scope and viability they claim. "We don't have to" isn't a rebuttal. The fact that you are promoting this ICO on the claimed strength of your business operation actually raises a serious issue which does not affect other ICOs for which the investment is designed to fund a project from scratch, namely, that you potentially could already be running at a loss, or have unfunded liabilities.

So, given that fact, the curious matter of the non-existent web footprint of some of your employees outside of your own platform, plus the proven loss in userbase for the last three years, the persistent claims your team make about the many millions in sales you are turning over in the run-up to what is a very short period of time to launch an ICO do not sound credible. As I already said, if you were making good profit on those many millions in sales you wouldn't need to be running an ICO at all to fund this project.

Let your auditors show your business is viable, is of the size and scope you claim and does not have any unfunded liabilities and you're good to go.

[nemgun]

@witek I preferred to leave you at the weekend so that you can reflect on what is happening, and question yourself. To reply to your previous message, you still made the mistake of diluting information which is dishonest, you wanted to compare the traffic of enjin to that of bitcointalk, both platforms are entirely different. Bitcointalk is a forum, Enjin is a gaming platform. You could have also compared the traffic of a big bank to Enjin's traffic and see that even if Enjin has a better traffic, the bank generates real revenue, whereas you do not.

I preferred to compare Enjin to other game platforms, Enjin is almost twice lower in rank compared to others.

I have a question to ask you, you want to have the game developers use enjin in order to launch their games on the Enjin platform, tell me about a single profitable game that consulted you and that you launched and especially who is in the TOP 50 of the MMOs (I did not say the first 10). Because you say that game developers will consult Enjin in order to launch their product while you do not have enough traffic.

What investors will gain apart from a rapid devaluation of the price. Your company works with hypes, we understand that you have taken advantage of the hype of minecraft to gain in traffic and users, you want to do the same thing with ethereum to make you money, listing a token for 40-50 $ M is way too much, and it is your own token and your own platform.

Why don't you implement ethereum directly as you will have to do it regardless of the token as you will need node communications with Ethereum, it would have been more interesting for you to implement cryptos directly and bring them on your platform, and then, develop your smart contracts and token, it would have been more professional and adapted. While you go directly for a crowdsale and token, which shows the wish for easy gains which is verifiable.

The loss will be covered by the tokens distribution to your partners in order to help with the token adoption.

I will give you the example of a smart person, have a look at bitdice.me They are excellent, very fluid, you may find 50-100 people connected simultaneously, and yet they have a current profit of 2300 BTC, they have a Reputation on the forum. After gradually adding the cryptos to the platform they decided to launch an ICO to transform the platform and evolve to a new form, but they have a long experience in cryptos.

In the end, this ICO serves only to your team without any real counterpart to the investors.

[Maximb]

Let me repeat what I stated in the OP, I do not consider this ICO a scam, per se, as Enjin is clearly a platform which has been in existence for several years. The fact is that red flags concerning the size and scope of Enjin Pty Ltd, such as their claims towards the number of full-time employees they have and the profitability, or otherwise, of the 'many millions' in sales they claim to make each month, justify being called out because similar ICOs, equally conducted over a very short time-period, have fraudulently misrepresented their size and scope through utilising the names and profiles of 'employees' who were absolutely not who they were being represented as by the ICO team and neither was the underlying commercial entity. This is why I have brought up the matter of the employees and the stats showing the 75% drop in visitors across their network.

I understand you’re coming from the angle that everything is a potential scam unless proven otherwise and I do agree that a good significant amount of ICOs fall within that range and should be questioned by the community and contributors. I do find this thread unfair to our hard working team as it is categorized under the ‘scam’ forum category and they don’t deserve to be labeled that way.

In regards to team size, clearly a platform such as Enjin requires at least some developers, marketing and support staff.

We’re not listing a massive team here. We listed one marketing person (Lilia:  https://www.linkedin.com/in/lilia-pritchard-30b2b2148), one qa / support person (Chris), 1 network / security admin person (Brad) and the rest of the team are developers.

We have even more staff that help with support and community management and other various tasks that are not listed, as they will not be involved in the Enjin Coin platform.

To assume that Enjin can operate without even a single person in those critically required positions is unreasonable and is not a realistic red flag for a service of our size.

I believe you misunderstood the claim we made regarding the ‘many millions’, so let me clarify:

Enjin provides an ecommerce module (similar to shopify) called DonationCraft and Enjin Store. This virtual store module is used by many thousands of clients (gaming communities) to sell virtual goods to players, here is an example of store from a 1 million+ user community on Enjin called Mineplex:

http://www.mineplex.com/shop

You can find many more examples by looking at the community list here:

http://www.enjin.com/communities

This store module features a number of payment gateways, such as Paypal, Coinbase, Stripe, etc.. and will feature the future Enjin Coin Payment Gateway. The combined USD value that all store modules process on a monthly basis is in the millions. We do not receive this money directly, we provide the store system, tools and gateway integrations that processes this flow of funds including the custom CMS / Forum system.

In regards to Enjin, we provide website plans for gaming clients, this is how Enjin Pte Ltd generates revenue and has done so for the last 8 years:

https://www.enjin.com/pricing

Enjin Coin will be deeply integrated into Enjin as the first step in our adoption plans and will allow anyone to create a fully gamified website, forum and store with virtual goods creation and management on the blockchain for the key reasons we outlined in our whitepaper:

https://enjincoin.io/enjincoin_whitepaper.pdf

With that in mind, there is one very simple way for them to validate their supposed size, scope and viability, and that is to provide audited accounts, or a statement from their auditors, which would serve to prove the size, scope and viability they claim. "We don't have to" isn't a rebuttal. The fact that you are promoting this ICO on the claimed strength of your business operation actually raises a serious issue which does not affect other ICOs for which the investment is designed to fund a project from scratch, namely, that you potentially could already be running at a loss, or have unfunded liabilities.

So, given that fact, the curious matter of the non-existent web footprint of some of your employees outside of your own platform, plus the proven loss in userbase for the last three years, the persistent claims your team make about the many millions in sales you are turning over in the run-up to what is a very short period of time to launch an ICO do not sound credible. As I already said, if you were making good profit on those many millions in sales you wouldn't need to be running an ICO at all to fund this project.

Let your auditors show your business is viable, is of the size and scope you claim and does not have any unfunded liabilities and you're good to go.

I’d like to make this clear, we are not promoting this ICO on the strength of our business, but rather on the strength of our smart cryptocurrency concept as defined in our whitepaper. The ability to ignite mass adoption on the Enjin network is a huge bonus that we hold, that seldom any other ICOs hold.

I find it somewhat ridiculous and utterly unfair to create this requirement for clearing up the false ‘scam’ accusation, and should rather be requested in our main thread to boost contributor confidence (with this one removed).

Saying that, I don’t see an issue in providing a statement to any potential contributor or anyone interested from an auditor that verifies that Enjin Pte Ltd is a profitable viable business and does not have any unfunded liabilities. Please check my PM to you regarding this.

I hope we can finally clear this up and I welcome your future posts in our main thread.

[The Bitcoin Co-op]

Let me repeat what I stated in the OP, I do not consider this ICO a scam, per se, as Enjin is clearly a platform which has been in existence for several years.

But this thread is in the Scam Accusations section... that will necessarily make people think Enjin is accused of being a scam, and it already has, despite your stated desire to the contrary. If the goal was just to cast doubt on their ICO model and the viability of it as an investment (which would be totally fair and legitimate), it would have made more sense to go about this differently. Why jump to calling something a scam when you could just say that you think it won't succeed, which is a categorically different accusation?

[Maximb]

There has been some misunderstandings and some posts were removed by us which caused the situation to escalate. I hope to clear this up, and we'll be showcasing our development and code progress in the other thread soon.

[cryptodevil]

Following discussions outside of this forum, whereby I was provided with reasonable proof showing Enjin Pte Ltd., Singapore, was considered a going-concern as at Financial Year-End June 2016 (2017 Accounts not being due yet), albeit with the clarification that the six named staff, Josh Woelfel, Lilia Pritchard, Vyacheslav Volkov, Brad Bayliss, Chris Hirasawa and Evan Lindsay, are full-time contractors as opposed to permanent salaried employees, I am satisfied that the concerns initially raised have now been sufficiently addressed and will be removing the negative trust ratings accordingly.

This is not an endorsement of either Enjin Pte Ltd. nor the Enjincoin ICO. The matter concerned ensuring that the project was being described correctly and in terms of the two specific issues of financial health and employees, this has now been addressed.

I will be locking this thread to give people time to view the resolution and will then delete it.