|
bitcoin-shark
|
 |
February 17, 2018, 08:19:49 PM |
|
 Hello everybody! You need to know that all unsold during ICO tokens will be burned and EHF tokens will be available on the crypto-exchange markets since the end of 2018. this is really good news, this means that the price of tokens will can only grow with time... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you want to be a moderator, report many posts with accuracy. You will be noticed.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
Genesis07
Member
 Offline
Activity: 252
Merit: 10
|
|
February 17, 2018, 08:22:44 PM |
|
Hello everybody! You need to know that all unsold during ICO tokens will be burned and EHF tokens will be available on the crypto-exchange markets since the end of 2018. this is really good news, this means that the price of tokens will can only grow with time... absolutely  its time to get ready to buy some ehealth tokens during the sale for long term hodling. |
|
|
|
|
saintkamei
Member
Offline
Activity: 210
Merit: 10
|
|
February 17, 2018, 08:55:12 PM |
|
"The United States of America:
The U.S. citizens and residents could participate in ICOs, but there are novel regulation rules for that.
Participation of U.S. citizens and residents in eHealth First's ICO is not prohibited by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") or U.S. law. However, despite the recent investigation of The DAO and SEC Report No. 81207 ("SEC Report"), establishing the status of an Initial Coin Offering ("ICO") as "securities" subject to regulation under U.S. law, ICO investors are uncertain, especially with respect to ICO's offered by foreign companies, such as eHealth First.
Basing on the review of the U.S. current legislation, the eHealth First Project Team considers, that the EHF Token isn't a security.
Nevertheless, eHealth First makes no promise of compliance with SEC regulations with regards to this ICO. Although eHealth First fully believes in the innovation and success of this project, it advises all potential investors that ICO investments carry certain risks and uncertainties. U.S. citizens and residents seeking to invest in this ICO are urged to independently assess all emerging risks. We provide the Guide for U.S. investors to help foster understanding of the current legal status of ICOs in the U.S., specifically ICOs offered by foreign companies, but we are not providing legal advice on this subject."
Saw this on the website. Are you suggesting US citizens can legally participate in the ICO should they understand that it is not an IPO equivalent of cryptocurrency?
Basically, yes. If the token is not a security token, technically, the above mentioned rules does not apply, but since many countries still don't have clear rules about cryptocurrency in general and ICOs in particular, investing in ICOs still represents a risk, especially in America. It is risk alright, whether in US or elsewhere in the world. What I thought was bold of eHealth First is to say you can participate when many ICOs wouldn't. It's a Swiss company registered in EU, would this jeopardise any future operations in the US because it doesn't meet the regulatory diktats on ICOs? Have they done the test to determine if the token is security or utility, i thought there is a company who want to do it but i forgot the name. I think that there should be a list of qualities that a token should possess in order to be qualified as a security token. Like paying dividends, for example. I don't think that eHealth token qualifies. It was said somewhere that it's a utility token, no? The good use case will make good price even if it's not dividend token. There will be demands in token ICOs like KICK ICO/KICK coin will be be a dividend if going by the regulatory norms but even ICOs like Loomia and Utrust have made it a point to not allow US citizens from participating. Was wondering if this will have any legal implications considering how distrustful law enforcement people are against cryptos. |
|
|
|
|
loup
|
|
February 17, 2018, 09:01:19 PM |
|
Hello everybody! You need to know that all unsold during ICO tokens will be burned and EHF tokens will be available on the crypto-exchange markets since the end of 2018. this is really good news, this means that the price of tokens will can only grow with time... absolutely its time to get ready to buy some ehealth tokens during the sale for long term hodling. Good news, I think burning the tokens is the best solution for unsold tokens. The other options usually devalue the token. |
|
|
|
|
Nazgar
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 0
|
|
February 17, 2018, 09:07:03 PM |
|
this is really good news, this means that the price of tokens will can only grow with time... absolutely its time to get ready to buy some ehealth tokens during the sale for long term hodling. Good news, I think burning the tokens is the best solution for unsold tokens. The other options usually devalue the token. Good choice to burn the unsold token. Several ICO that didn't burn had many issues after listening on a exchange. Professional decisions lice the whole approach on ehealth |
|
|
|
|
|
cmg12
|
|
February 17, 2018, 09:31:20 PM |
|
Hello everybody! You need to know that all unsold during ICO tokens will be burned and EHF tokens will be available on the crypto-exchange markets since the end of 2018. this is really good news, this means that the price of tokens will can only grow with time... absolutely its time to get ready to buy some ehealth tokens during the sale for long term hodling. Good news, I think burning the tokens is the best solution for unsold tokens. The other options usually devalue the token. Burning unsold tokens is the only right way to conduct ICO and make sure that it will be fair for all of it's participants |
|
|
|
|
|
helloal
|
|
February 17, 2018, 10:10:42 PM |
|
Hello everybody! You need to know that all unsold during ICO tokens will be burned and EHF tokens will be available on the crypto-exchange markets since the end of 2018. this is really good news, this means that the price of tokens will can only grow with time... absolutely its time to get ready to buy some ehealth tokens during the sale for long term hodling. Good news, I think burning the tokens is the best solution for unsold tokens. The other options usually devalue the token. Burning unsold tokens is the only right way to conduct ICO and make sure that it will be fair for all of it's participants It shows that the team is not only focussing on the health related aspects of the project - but are aware of best-practices for crypto crowd funding. I also quite like the new picture - it’s sleek and modern |
|
|
|
Genesis07
Member
Offline
Activity: 252
Merit: 10
|
|
February 17, 2018, 10:22:01 PM |
|
"The United States of America:
The U.S. citizens and residents could participate in ICOs, but there are novel regulation rules for that.
Participation of U.S. citizens and residents in eHealth First's ICO is not prohibited by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") or U.S. law. However, despite the recent investigation of The DAO and SEC Report No. 81207 ("SEC Report"), establishing the status of an Initial Coin Offering ("ICO") as "securities" subject to regulation under U.S. law, ICO investors are uncertain, especially with respect to ICO's offered by foreign companies, such as eHealth First.
Basing on the review of the U.S. current legislation, the eHealth First Project Team considers, that the EHF Token isn't a security.
Nevertheless, eHealth First makes no promise of compliance with SEC regulations with regards to this ICO. Although eHealth First fully believes in the innovation and success of this project, it advises all potential investors that ICO investments carry certain risks and uncertainties. U.S. citizens and residents seeking to invest in this ICO are urged to independently assess all emerging risks. We provide the Guide for U.S. investors to help foster understanding of the current legal status of ICOs in the U.S., specifically ICOs offered by foreign companies, but we are not providing legal advice on this subject."
Saw this on the website. Are you suggesting US citizens can legally participate in the ICO should they understand that it is not an IPO equivalent of cryptocurrency?
Basically, yes. If the token is not a security token, technically, the above mentioned rules does not apply, but since many countries still don't have clear rules about cryptocurrency in general and ICOs in particular, investing in ICOs still represents a risk, especially in America. It is risk alright, whether in US or elsewhere in the world. What I thought was bold of eHealth First is to say you can participate when many ICOs wouldn't. It's a Swiss company registered in EU, would this jeopardise any future operations in the US because it doesn't meet the regulatory diktats on ICOs? Have they done the test to determine if the token is security or utility, i thought there is a company who want to do it but i forgot the name. I think that there should be a list of qualities that a token should possess in order to be qualified as a security token. Like paying dividends, for example. I don't think that eHealth token qualifies. It was said somewhere that it's a utility token, no? The good use case will make good price even if it's not dividend token. There will be demands in token ICOs like KICK ICO/KICK coin will be be a dividend if going by the regulatory norms but even ICOs like Loomia and Utrust have made it a point to not allow US citizens from participating. Was wondering if this will have any legal implications considering how distrustful law enforcement people are against cryptos. on a side note: kickico stopped having a dividend airdrop, since it ruined the price of the tokens totally. they burned all dividend tokens and now the price is rising again. |
|
|
|
|
|
belechau
|
|
February 17, 2018, 10:32:53 PM |
|
"The United States of America:
The U.S. citizens and residents could participate in ICOs, but there are novel regulation rules for that.
Participation of U.S. citizens and residents in eHealth First's ICO is not prohibited by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") or U.S. law. However, despite the recent investigation of The DAO and SEC Report No. 81207 ("SEC Report"), establishing the status of an Initial Coin Offering ("ICO") as "securities" subject to regulation under U.S. law, ICO investors are uncertain, especially with respect to ICO's offered by foreign companies, such as eHealth First.
Basing on the review of the U.S. current legislation, the eHealth First Project Team considers, that the EHF Token isn't a security.
Nevertheless, eHealth First makes no promise of compliance with SEC regulations with regards to this ICO. Although eHealth First fully believes in the innovation and success of this project, it advises all potential investors that ICO investments carry certain risks and uncertainties. U.S. citizens and residents seeking to invest in this ICO are urged to independently assess all emerging risks. We provide the Guide for U.S. investors to help foster understanding of the current legal status of ICOs in the U.S., specifically ICOs offered by foreign companies, but we are not providing legal advice on this subject."
Saw this on the website. Are you suggesting US citizens can legally participate in the ICO should they understand that it is not an IPO equivalent of cryptocurrency?
Basically, yes. If the token is not a security token, technically, the above mentioned rules does not apply, but since many countries still don't have clear rules about cryptocurrency in general and ICOs in particular, investing in ICOs still represents a risk, especially in America. It is risk alright, whether in US or elsewhere in the world. What I thought was bold of eHealth First is to say you can participate when many ICOs wouldn't. It's a Swiss company registered in EU, would this jeopardise any future operations in the US because it doesn't meet the regulatory diktats on ICOs? Have they done the test to determine if the token is security or utility, i thought there is a company who want to do it but i forgot the name. I think that there should be a list of qualities that a token should possess in order to be qualified as a security token. Like paying dividends, for example. I don't think that eHealth token qualifies. It was said somewhere that it's a utility token, no? The good use case will make good price even if it's not dividend token. There will be demands in token ICOs like KICK ICO/KICK coin will be be a dividend if going by the regulatory norms but even ICOs like Loomia and Utrust have made it a point to not allow US citizens from participating. Was wondering if this will have any legal implications considering how distrustful law enforcement people are against cryptos. on a side note: kickico stopped having a dividend airdrop, since it ruined the price of the tokens totally. they burned all dividend tokens and now the price is rising again. Every investment is prone to changes in our own roadmaps in the future, worrying about legal implications is completely out of the question for me, as regulations come to pass, the Community can not be affected by sudden changes, regulations can not be abusive and harmful to those who already act in crypto |
|
|
|
|
|
matjas
|
|
February 17, 2018, 10:39:31 PM |
|
I hearty welcome the decision of burning the unsold tokens. Regardless of how many tokens get sold this will definitely increase the value of the tokens present in the market.
I welcome too. And i'm a little selfish about this. I hope they reach only soft cap and project continues with lowest tokens possible It doesnt necessarily mean good news for investors if they dont reach hard cap. More initial investment means more money which can be used for development and promotion of their platform. In the long term i think the value of the token will be higher if they reach hard cap. |
|
|
|
|
turkandjaydee
|
|
February 17, 2018, 11:24:28 PM |
|
Does this mean there won't be further ICO rounds? Or will unsold tokens only be burned after the 2nd or whatever ICO round?
It will be burned after the very last ICO round that has been decided of course. But I don't know about extension, it can be held at an urgent time. |
|
|
|
|
|
Altcoinrusher
|
|
February 17, 2018, 11:32:55 PM |
|
I hearty welcome the decision of burning the unsold tokens. Regardless of how many tokens get sold this will definitely increase the value of the tokens present in the market.
I welcome too. And i'm a little selfish about this. I hope they reach only soft cap and project continues with lowest tokens possible It doesnt necessarily mean good news for investors if they dont reach hard cap. More initial investment means more money which can be used for development and promotion of their platform. In the long term i think the value of the token will be higher if they reach hard cap. Well, I think it would be ideal if the team would be flexible and have another plan if they don't reach the soft cap, but I doubt it since this project is very essential to us and investors will be surely be eyeing on this one. |
|
|
|
|
|
areschen
|
|
February 18, 2018, 02:41:28 AM |
|
I hearty welcome the decision of burning the unsold tokens. Regardless of how many tokens get sold this will definitely increase the value of the tokens present in the market.
I welcome too. And i'm a little selfish about this. I hope they reach only soft cap and project continues with lowest tokens possible I believe that this is the right decision. This will protect the project from sharp drawdowns of the course and shows that the management is confident in their ideas and will continue to implement all the tasks! Burning unsold tokens will make the token have a higher value, but we must have an adequate and transparent accounting on those tokens before they will be burned to prevent issues.Imho. Most ICOs will burning unsold tokens ，I think EHF do the same. As an individual investor, I am happy to see some token burned |
|
|
|
|
cantdecide
|
|
February 18, 2018, 03:01:33 AM |
|
I hearty welcome the decision of burning the unsold tokens. Regardless of how many tokens get sold this will definitely increase the value of the tokens present in the market.
I welcome too. And i'm a little selfish about this. I hope they reach only soft cap and project continues with lowest tokens possible It doesnt necessarily mean good news for investors if they dont reach hard cap. More initial investment means more money which can be used for development and promotion of their platform. In the long term i think the value of the token will be higher if they reach hard cap. Yeah but that is the point of an soft cap. The soft cap should be calculated for make the development possible even if it is harder then. Just soft cap is of course a bit less, but I also would prefere if projects are not at full hard cap, especially if it is a lot. |
|
|
|
|
hicaribou
|
|
February 18, 2018, 04:42:19 AM |
|
I hearty welcome the decision of burning the unsold tokens. Regardless of how many tokens get sold this will definitely increase the value of the tokens present in the market.
I welcome too. And i'm a little selfish about this. I hope they reach only soft cap and project continues with lowest tokens possible I believe that this is the right decision. This will protect the project from sharp drawdowns of the course and shows that the management is confident in their ideas and will continue to implement all the tasks! Burning unsold tokens will make the token have a higher value, but we must have an adequate and transparent accounting on those tokens before they will be burned to prevent issues.Imho. Most ICOs will burning unsold tokens ，I think EHF do the same. As an individual investor, I am happy to see some token burned They will burn the unsold tokens, they have stated this and someone has shared it on a few pages before. In my opinion, thats the best decision which is fair for all ICO participants. |
|
|
|
|
Frickeladm
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 182
Merit: 1
|
|
February 18, 2018, 05:57:43 AM |
|
I hearty welcome the decision of burning the unsold tokens. Regardless of how many tokens get sold this will definitely increase the value of the tokens present in the market.
I welcome too. And i'm a little selfish about this. I hope they reach only soft cap and project continues with lowest tokens possible I believe that this is the right decision. This will protect the project from sharp drawdowns of the course and shows that the management is confident in their ideas and will continue to implement all the tasks! Burning unsold tokens will make the token have a higher value, but we must have an adequate and transparent accounting on those tokens before they will be burned to prevent issues.Imho. Most ICOs will burning unsold tokens ，I think EHF do the same. As an individual investor, I am happy to see some token burned [/qote] Not all ICO's, there are some that hold onto theier tokens like its their ow child. Good thing they will raise the value with the burning |
|
|
|
|
|
Piggy
|
|
February 18, 2018, 06:08:48 AM |
|
They have several phases of the ico and will try to sell as much token as possible during this time. After that make sense to burn everything that was unsold.
|
|
|
|
|
|
the_donald
|
|
February 18, 2018, 06:15:49 AM |
|
They have several phases of the ico and will try to sell as much token as possible during this time. After that make sense to burn everything that was unsold.
this should be standard practice for all ICO's . rarity = value in the market. |
|
|
|
chichidori
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1694
Merit: 1003
|
|
February 18, 2018, 07:06:35 AM |
|
They have several phases of the ico and will try to sell as much token as possible during this time. After that make sense to burn everything that was unsold.
this should be standard practice for all ICO's . rarity = value in the market. Sometime scarcity can affect its price if it become too small to spread around people will lose interest, if its too big the price will dump but the bright side of it many will hold the token not just few investors. it has its own consequences but will go with the one that is easier. |
|
|
|
|
|
zgrdyg
|
|
February 18, 2018, 07:27:38 AM |
|
If EHF has worldwide success, that would of course be very cool. But for the Start Europe and the USA should be enough for the first time.
I disagree with you, yes they should focus on certain areas in the beginning but this shouldn't be Europe or USA i think, there are more places in need of health solutions in anyway. USA and European countries advanced than the other countries. |
|
|
|
|
