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/shopYou can find many more examples by looking at the community list here:
http://www.enjin.com/communitiesThis 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/pricingEnjin 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.pdfWith 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.