UTRUST

[janggernaut]

50 million supply is much better. Thanks UTRUST i like 

It's impossible because 420 million tokens have been sold to investors. They decided to burn 500 million tokens which the result their total supply only 500 million tokens

[martinholly167]

it's not good for investor if expand ICO , i think UTRUST already very great now.

They do not seem to plan this no ?

It seems like they have thought about this earlier, this is from the whitepaper that i downloaded long time ago.

During the round, the tokens are distributed in a first-come-first-served basis and only the tokens sold on each round will be created and issued (for example, if only 50% of the tokens are sold in 7 days, then only 500 million tokens will be generated, thereby decreasing the total token pool from 1 billion to 500 million).

[mrsaint]

Isn't it ironic when they say that utrust is not about the ICO, yet literally every single e-mail and press release speaks exclusively of the ICO? Meanwhile, how much did they talk (and show) about their product and development besides spreading thin air?

So they decided to extend the ICO - even though they stated previously with a lot of furor that by having reached the softcap they gained "technical and operational viability" with a "solid foundation to work from".

[o48o]

it's not good for investor if expand ICO , i think UTRUST already very great now.

They do not seem to plan this no ?

It seems like they have thought about this earlier, this is from the whitepaper that i downloaded long time ago.

During the round, the tokens are distributed in a first-come-first-served basis and only the tokens sold on each round will be created and issued (for example, if only 50% of the tokens are sold in 7 days, then only 500 million tokens will be generated, thereby decreasing the total token pool from 1 billion to 500 million).

Good point... I also don't understand what's with all the drama. It's not the first time an ICO got extended.

I understand that extending will affect mostly to bounty hunters feelings, and you shouldn't irritate people who got lots of free time and are getting paid to write in bitcointalk. But then again, this is not the first time they have to deal with extented icos.

[levyashin]

Good point... I also don't understand what's with all the drama. It's not the first time an ICO got extended.

I understand that extending will affect mostly to bounty hunters feelings, and you shouldn't irritate people who got lots of free time and are getting paid to write in bitcointalk. But then again, this is not the first time they have to deal with extented icos.

I am agreeing with you, all the fuss about it is getting extended is nonsense. It is not the first nor the last one.

Besides one week ico was too short for ico process.

[Sozialtourist]

This is a good thing

    Team Tokens — REDUCED  
    Smart Contract — AUDITED
    Private Investors — VESTED  
    500 Million Tokens — BURNED

---------------------------

So how much does Utrust finally want to raise money? $21.375.000?
275M (ICO) - $17.875.000
150M (Pre-ICO, investors) - $3.500.000
75M (bounty, marketing, team) - not for sale

With 21M market cap, the token price should triple easily.

I understand the first shock that is hitting everybody, but if you take a moment and think about it, this is also good news. 1 week was short for an ICO

I actually don't like when ICOs are extended but thankfully UTRUST has taken some actions, like burning half of token supply, reducing team tokens + vesting period for private investors, that the extension might not be bad at all.

i agree with you in every point i think they acted quite well and in the interest of the investors.

Usually, I am not a fan when an ICO gets extended beside the soft cap is already reached. But UTrust also cut the maximum amount of tokens in half and not just only extended the ICO. I think it was a good choice.

[mrsaint]

Good point... I also don't understand what's with all the drama. It's not the first time an ICO got extended.

What drama? The issue is that they keep changing the rules that they have set for themselves and for their investors. This extension was never satisfactorily explained, while according to their own words, the ICO had been a blast and delivered sufficient funds for a successful operation. The way how they keep changing things around with apparent ease is a sign of neglectance, in the best case, and a sign of disregard for their investors in the worst.

[batako]

This is a good thing

    Team Tokens — REDUCED  
    Smart Contract — AUDITED
    Private Investors — VESTED  
    500 Million Tokens — BURNED

---------------------------

So how much does Utrust finally want to raise money? $21.375.000?
275M (ICO) - $17.875.000
150M (Pre-ICO, investors) - $3.500.000
75M (bounty, marketing, team) - not for sale

With 21M market cap, the token price should triple easily.

I understand the first shock that is hitting everybody, but if you take a moment and think about it, this is also good news. 1 week was short for an ICO

I actually don't like when ICOs are extended but thankfully UTRUST has taken some actions, like burning half of token supply, reducing team tokens + vesting period for private investors, that the extension might not be bad at all.

i agree with you in every point i think they acted quite well and in the interest of the investors.

Usually, I am not a fan when an ICO gets extended beside the soft cap is already reached. But UTrust also cut the maximum amount of tokens in half and not just only extended the ICO. I think it was a good choice.

Extended ICO's duration when the softcap already reached isn't a good choice to take. I am not followed this project very much but this recent case caught my attention.

[bitcoindima]

there will always be people that disagree whit some movement of a project, so its nothing new, i trust in utrust, and this project wil succseed

[lvsca]

Yestarday total tokens sold was 435 millions and today 415 millions? Show your adress with tokens 

i didn't understand with that, can some one explain it?

[cantdecide]

it's not good for investor if expand ICO , i think UTRUST already very great now.

They do not seem to plan this no ?

It seems like they have thought about this earlier, this is from the whitepaper that i downloaded long time ago.

During the round, the tokens are distributed in a first-come-first-served basis and only the tokens sold on each round will be created and issued (for example, if only 50% of the tokens are sold in 7 days, then only 500 million tokens will be generated, thereby decreasing the total token pool from 1 billion to 500 million).

This is no indicator that all of this was planed in before. It only states that all unsold tokens after the ICO  will get burned, which is a widely used process.
The current state is, that they burned tokens before the ICO finished to reduce the whole possible token amount. This is in my eyes a really good step because it gives the chance to raise the price. Also that they reduced their own tokens is a good sign, because they also could have gone with 100,000,000 tokens and finished the ICO then with the current state around 430,000,000 tokens. This means, 570,000,000 token would get burned and 100,000,000 would be tokens owned by the devs. All in all, the current state is much better then before.

[Adya]

there will always be people that disagree whit some movement of a project, so its nothing new, i trust in utrust, and this project wil succseed

hah) utrust one of those 90% tokens wich will depreciate in future. those 90% Buterin talking about.

[Buchi-88]

Hope UTrust does well at the exchanges!

UTRUST already going to be on exchange from start so other will add soon. this is long term project

Do you have the full exchanges list?

HitBTC will be just the beginning, we will still see a lot of new developments and hopefully for new exchanges, the Team is really surprised to anticipate the steps and we will have the opportunity to negotiate in big markets with big volumes. We can expect exciting names 

Thank you, thats very good news, you also planed with Cryptopia?

regards

[the_donald]

there will always be people that disagree whit some movement of a project, so its nothing new, i trust in utrust, and this project wil succseed

hah) utrust one of those 90% tokens wich will depreciate in future. those 90% Buterin talking about.

let's hope so. this project has me very interested. spending crypto directly is a very important step to adoption.

[stormcleric]

Definitely it is not a good idea to extend the ICO period. It does not mean it will be bad for Utrust, in fact I believe it will be a positive measure.

But as some others pointed out, a week is just too few time for an ICO. 2 weeks seem the rule to follow. If they have stated a 2 week ICO right from the beginning it would have been better.

[clixcoin]

Definitely it is not a good idea to extend the ICO period. It does not mean it will be bad for Utrust, in fact I believe it will be a positive measure.

But as some others pointed out, a week is just too few time for an ICO. 2 weeks seem the rule to follow. If they have stated a 2 week ICO right from the beginning it would have been better.

I don't think there is problem to extend the date of this ICO there is good chance to attract more investors for this project. The more funds mean dev will get more resources to make the development process more faster and launch this platform much early than expected.

[alphashotgun]

And you lost all your trust in one day. Extented ICO show, that you very greedy and don't value investors!

thats what i say all the time thank you - nobody really listens

[lobat999]

Definitely it is not a good idea to extend the ICO period. It does not mean it will be bad for Utrust, in fact I believe it will be a positive measure.

But as some others pointed out, a week is just too few time for an ICO. 2 weeks seem the rule to follow. If they have stated a 2 week ICO right from the beginning it would have been better.

I don't think there is problem to extend the date of this ICO there is good chance to attract more investors for this project. The more funds mean dev will get more resources to make the development process more faster and launch this platform much early than expected.

I agree with your point of view with regards to the extension of the ICO. I only hope it will be for the betterment of the UTRUST community.

[mrsaint]

So now with their extended ICO they revised their white paper for the millionth time. Amongst the changes this paragraph was added regarding the ICO:

"It was expected to [sic] for the single round to run for a variable period no longer than 7 days or until all tokens were issued, whichever happened first. However, considering recent market developments and the acceptance of new countries in the ICO, the process will run until [DATE]."

That's convenient. Fill in the blank for whatever you see fit. First [DATE] was November 9 I suppose. Now [DATE] is November 20. And tomorrow... lies in the stars.

Oh, and the chart that follows right after still shows a total token pool of 1 billion. Common guys, you are collecting millions of dollars, and you cannot even concentrate on getting your lacking white paper right? It cannot be *that* difficult, and it's not just about writing pompous press releases, especially if you're planning to pioneer the world of cryptocoins in the future.  

[lw75]

Why am I not surprised.   They keep changing their terms and conditions as they wish, while we, the real "investors" (not their "private investors" nobody here cares about) have absolutely no say in it. Extending the ICO? What is the point of soft- and hard cap targets if you ignore them? What a farce. I am tired of utrust talking about what an "awesome" "community" we are. This is not about being awesome or about being a fanboy. This about people who trusted them with real money in hope that they do something of value. Until now, it's been just talk and wishful thinking, and even then, when people raised critical questions, questions remained unanswered.

For me the important step will how to get rid of my tokens without having to agree on their new terms that I haven't agreed on to begin with.

Isn't it ironic when they say that utrust is not about the ICO, yet literally every single e-mail and press release speaks exclusively of the ICO? Meanwhile, how much did they talk (and show) about their product and development besides spreading thin air?

So they decided to extend the ICO - even though they stated previously with a lot of furor that by having reached the softcap they gained "technical and operational viability" with a "solid foundation to work from".

Good point... I also don't understand what's with all the drama. It's not the first time an ICO got extended.

What drama? The issue is that they keep changing the rules that they have set for themselves and for their investors. This extension was never satisfactorily explained, while according to their own words, the ICO had been a blast and delivered sufficient funds for a successful operation. The way how they keep changing things around with apparent ease is a sign of neglectance, in the best case, and a sign of disregard for their investors in the worst.

Not hard to reach the conclusion Kakumei doens't seem to be bothered with responding to what I see as what must be responded to. Ignoring intentionally or uninentionally is not done. To debunk, refute, clear up and so forth are traits a community manager should show as much as possible, which is not the case. Without condemning you Kakumei and also the ones you answer to it's my advice to review the current approach.

As for me I'm holding on to the big picture while not tripping over UTRUST's learning curve that they still very much face in my opinion. You have my support!