[ANN][ICO] EHF eHealth First

[aveon]

yes, at the moment EHF will be a software platform.

there's no need to go into the hardware business at least at this point.there are other companies that are doing it and it's better to focus on something.

That is of course true, but on the other hand it would maybe not harm to make partnerships with some hardware companies to get a better working eco system afterwards for software and hardware, if this is possible.

Making partnership with hardware vendor sure will make a win-win solution for both sides.

Of course it will be win-win, but at the beginning it will be needed a platform that gives good results and only then to expand to hardware area.

Again, no concrete info about cooperation with hardware devs in the WP. They will probably only keep that idea in mind so far

[Frickeladm]

At times the WP seems to be very general, and I want more specific. They want to cooperate with different software developers but do not give any precise info. To understand the whole system, I need more detailed info, because I do not get if it is just a future intention or a certain plan

Since a developers isn't hired yet, we are yet to see technical details in whitepaper.

Can agree, after read through the WP there are not much details about lots of the stuf they want to do. Give us more examples guys!

You can ask a question to the team if you have a specific question.

Is it just a software platform or you are manufacturing equipments like those japanese pulse analyser to measure health. Which I forgot the name will update when I do

There are no devices there. There will be a database of medical knowledge, a patient's medical history, available to any doctor and probably the most neural network for diagnosis, as well as remote diagnostics, probably based on some test with questions.

but how do you tie in the coin? Or any kind of trading? On one hand you have a lot of personal medical data and on the other hand....the coin? so you would sell your medical data and business are paying for it in EHF? I dont get the concept completley. Transferring the data over blockchain is a very good idea but how to get a financial system involved? That is something iam not getting from the wp in detail.

[Gamerate]

Ehealth needs a Country with regulatory gaps to get Operations started, of course the project has potential anywhere in the world and you can get to it with ease, but you have to start in a country with fewer restrictions

I think when you start a project like this you simply have to comply with the rules, otherwise it will never be accepted.

Current rules in most countries allow many functions of project, and current trend to make medicine more digital helps it in future too.

[Gamerate]

is there anybody willing to make a partnership to reach the min invest?

since I can't afford the min im willing to do that

I do not understand why the minimum is so high. First its whitelist, next high minimum, wonder what will be the next big requirements

Well I think 5 ETH is high, but way better then 10 ETH before. Still I think there are a lot of people who are willing to put in 5 ETH in projects, even more.
But yes, to spread the tokens more it would be better if they would make a minimum of 0.5ETH or at least 1 ETH.

Isnt 10 ETH minimum investment usually for private investors? And why did Ehealth change it to 5 ETH? It is more friendly for traders

Very high requirements. But I can understand your approach to avoid the smaler investors and to force the bigerone to get in counntact with you before the huge amount of invest.
Will there be other requirenemts for small investors in future?

There are different requirements for other stages. I haven't found min investment, but prices and discounts (if any) are in the whitepaper.

Min investment in pre-ICO and later will be price of one token.

[MandatoryOption]

yes, at the moment EHF will be a software platform.

there's no need to go into the hardware business at least at this point.there are other companies that are doing it and it's better to focus on something.

That is of course true, but on the other hand it would maybe not harm to make partnerships with some hardware companies to get a better working eco system afterwards for software and hardware, if this is possible.

Making partnership with hardware vendor sure will make a win-win solution for both sides.

Of course it will be win-win, but at the beginning it will be needed a platform that gives good results and only then to expand to hardware area.

Again, no concrete info about cooperation with hardware devs in the WP. They will probably only keep that idea in mind so far

About what kind of hardware are you talking? I think I missed that part.

[ParRus]

yes, at the moment EHF will be a software platform.

there's no need to go into the hardware business at least at this point.there are other companies that are doing it and it's better to focus on something.

That is of course true, but on the other hand it would maybe not harm to make partnerships with some hardware companies to get a better working eco system afterwards for software and hardware, if this is possible.

Making partnership with hardware vendor sure will make a win-win solution for both sides.

I don't know if there are suitable partners, this whole area is not simple and requires special knowledge. Everything will depend of eHealth team, of the ability to find suitable partners afrer ICO.

[niklasmato]

is there anybody willing to make a partnership to reach the min invest?

since I can't afford the min im willing to do that

I do not understand why the minimum is so high. First its whitelist, next high minimum, wonder what will be the next big requirements

Well I think 5 ETH is high, but way better then 10 ETH before. Still I think there are a lot of people who are willing to put in 5 ETH in projects, even more.
But yes, to spread the tokens more it would be better if they would make a minimum of 0.5ETH or at least 1 ETH.

Isnt 10 ETH minimum investment usually for private investors? And why did Ehealth change it to 5 ETH? It is more friendly for traders

Very high requirements. But I can understand your approach to avoid the smaler investors and to force the bigerone to get in counntact with you before the huge amount of invest.
Will there be other requirenemts for small investors in future?

There are different requirements for other stages. I haven't found min investment, but prices and discounts (if any) are in the whitepaper.

The 5eth is only for the pre-ico according to what I've read.

[aveon]

yes, at the moment EHF will be a software platform.

there's no need to go into the hardware business at least at this point.there are other companies that are doing it and it's better to focus on something.

That is of course true, but on the other hand it would maybe not harm to make partnerships with some hardware companies to get a better working eco system afterwards for software and hardware, if this is possible.

Making partnership with hardware vendor sure will make a win-win solution for both sides.

I don't know if there are suitable partners, this whole area is not simple and requires special knowledge. Everything will depend of eHealth team, of the ability to find suitable partners afrer ICO.

Let's just wait fot their collaboration with software manufacturers and see the result. In case of success, the devs will probably turn into some hardware staff. However, it is way too early now to even project that

[bitcoin-shark]

At times the WP seems to be very general, and I want more specific. They want to cooperate with different software developers but do not give any precise info. To understand the whole system, I need more detailed info, because I do not get if it is just a future intention or a certain plan

Since a developers isn't hired yet, we are yet to see technical details in whitepaper.

Can agree, after read through the WP there are not much details about lots of the stuf they want to do. Give us more examples guys!

You can ask a question to the team if you have a specific question.

Is it just a software platform or you are manufacturing equipments like those japanese pulse analyser to measure health. Which I forgot the name will update when I do

There are no devices there. There will be a database of medical knowledge, a patient's medical history, available to any doctor and probably the most neural network for diagnosis, as well as remote diagnostics, probably based on some test with questions.

so there will be no devices the project will be developed only at the software level
which will be based on a database, the patient's earlier symptoms and a few test questions, then elaborated by an ai, maybe later they will make partnerships with companies for the hardware...

[the_donald]

yes, at the moment EHF will be a software platform.

there's no need to go into the hardware business at least at this point.there are other companies that are doing it and it's better to focus on something.

That is of course true, but on the other hand it would maybe not harm to make partnerships with some hardware companies to get a better working eco system afterwards for software and hardware, if this is possible.

Making partnership with hardware vendor sure will make a win-win solution for both sides.

I don't know if there are suitable partners, this whole area is not simple and requires special knowledge. Everything will depend of eHealth team, of the ability to find suitable partners afrer ICO.

Let's just wait fot their collaboration with software manufacturers and see the result. In case of success, the devs will probably turn into some hardware staff. However, it is way too early now to even project that

collaborations can be expected later on in this field. this project is gonna take a long time to develop. only after can they start considering hardware development.

[aveon]

yes, at the moment EHF will be a software platform.

there's no need to go into the hardware business at least at this point.there are other companies that are doing it and it's better to focus on something.

That is of course true, but on the other hand it would maybe not harm to make partnerships with some hardware companies to get a better working eco system afterwards for software and hardware, if this is possible.

Making partnership with hardware vendor sure will make a win-win solution for both sides.

I don't know if there are suitable partners, this whole area is not simple and requires special knowledge. Everything will depend of eHealth team, of the ability to find suitable partners afrer ICO.

Let's just wait fot their collaboration with software manufacturers and see the result. In case of success, the devs will probably turn into some hardware staff. However, it is way too early now to even project that

collaborations can be expected later on in this field. this project is gonna take a long time to develop. only after can they start considering hardware development.

Yes, that's what I thing in case of a long-term project. Maybe in the future, they will not need any collaboration at all since they will have all the needed specialists and assets within

[haxllega]

Ehealth needs a Country with regulatory gaps to get Operations started, of course the project has potential anywhere in the world and you can get to it with ease, but you have to start in a country with fewer restrictions

I think when you start a project like this you simply have to comply with the rules, otherwise it will never be accepted.

Current rules in most countries allow many functions of project, and current trend to make medicine more digital helps it in future too.

It helps a lot to make the whole process more efficient and faster. I think many countries think about using their healthcare systems on the blockchain.

[niklasmato]

yes, at the moment EHF will be a software platform.

there's no need to go into the hardware business at least at this point.there are other companies that are doing it and it's better to focus on something.

That is of course true, but on the other hand it would maybe not harm to make partnerships with some hardware companies to get a better working eco system afterwards for software and hardware, if this is possible.

Making partnership with hardware vendor sure will make a win-win solution for both sides.

I don't know if there are suitable partners, this whole area is not simple and requires special knowledge. Everything will depend of eHealth team, of the ability to find suitable partners afrer ICO.

Let's just wait fot their collaboration with software manufacturers and see the result. In case of success, the devs will probably turn into some hardware staff. However, it is way too early now to even project that

collaborations can be expected later on in this field. this project is gonna take a long time to develop. only after can they start considering hardware development.

Yes, that's what I thing in case of a long-term project. Maybe in the future, they will not need any collaboration at all since they will have all the needed specialists and assets within

There will be a need for devices to interpret all the data... the AI will be Able to analyze, and the blockchain used for storing.. but you need a device which takes the measurements.

[pizza_dev]

Ehealth needs a Country with regulatory gaps to get Operations started, of course the project has potential anywhere in the world and you can get to it with ease, but you have to start in a country with fewer restrictions

I think when you start a project like this you simply have to comply with the rules, otherwise it will never be accepted.

Current rules in most countries allow many functions of project, and current trend to make medicine more digital helps it in future too.

It helps a lot to make the whole process more efficient and faster. I think many countries think about using their healthcare systems on the blockchain.

I think it will get even more popular in the future.

[Amelie Poulain]

yes, at the moment EHF will be a software platform.

there's no need to go into the hardware business at least at this point.there are other companies that are doing it and it's better to focus on something.

That is of course true, but on the other hand it would maybe not harm to make partnerships with some hardware companies to get a better working eco system afterwards for software and hardware, if this is possible.

Making partnership with hardware vendor sure will make a win-win solution for both sides.

I don't know if there are suitable partners, this whole area is not simple and requires special knowledge. Everything will depend of eHealth team, of the ability to find suitable partners afrer ICO.

Let's just wait fot their collaboration with software manufacturers and see the result. In case of success, the devs will probably turn into some hardware staff. However, it is way too early now to even project that

collaborations can be expected later on in this field. this project is gonna take a long time to develop. only after can they start considering hardware development.

I agree, it's too early to talk about this at this stage. Now for eHealth team need focus at ICO program, this will determine the further development.

[hanshammer]

is there anybody willing to make a partnership to reach the min invest?

since I can't afford the min im willing to do that

I do not understand why the minimum is so high. First its whitelist, next high minimum, wonder what will be the next big requirements

Well I think 5 ETH is high, but way better then 10 ETH before. Still I think there are a lot of people who are willing to put in 5 ETH in projects, even more.
But yes, to spread the tokens more it would be better if they would make a minimum of 0.5ETH or at least 1 ETH.

It's a private round, majority of ICOs have higher min contributions at this stage probably because this round is mainly for institutional investors and whales. I'm sure during the main ICO the requirements will be much lower.

This is the reason. They want to attract bigger investors in this private sale round. Bigger investors also get bigger discounts.

On of the biggest problems with huge investors is that many of them just dump a token after it hits exchanges. They are just in for the discount.

[Bolovich]

is there anybody willing to make a partnership to reach the min invest?

since I can't afford the min im willing to do that

I do not understand why the minimum is so high. First its whitelist, next high minimum, wonder what will be the next big requirements

Well I think 5 ETH is high, but way better then 10 ETH before. Still I think there are a lot of people who are willing to put in 5 ETH in projects, even more.
But yes, to spread the tokens more it would be better if they would make a minimum of 0.5ETH or at least 1 ETH.

It's a private round, majority of ICOs have higher min contributions at this stage probably because this round is mainly for institutional investors and whales. I'm sure during the main ICO the requirements will be much lower.

This is the reason. They want to attract bigger investors in this private sale round. Bigger investors also get bigger discounts.

On of the biggest problems with huge investors is that many of them just dump a token after it hits exchanges. They are just in for the discount.

I don't know if having high minimuns is a good idea because as you have said the big investors just dump a token after it hits exchanges.

[zgrdyg]

I read a onepager in one of the upcoming ICOs, now i know we have a 300 paged whitepaper, brochures and presentations in ehealth, maybe a summerized whitepaper should be good for everyone:) 300 page is a lot for some of us.

Btw. I am ok with 5 eth. minimum cap on the private sale phase. Devs want to attract bigger investors so 5 eth is quite normal i think.

[ImTotya]

yes, at the moment EHF will be a software platform.

there's no need to go into the hardware business at least at this point.there are other companies that are doing it and it's better to focus on something.

That is of course true, but on the other hand it would maybe not harm to make partnerships with some hardware companies to get a better working eco system afterwards for software and hardware, if this is possible.

I believe that from the beginning you need to develop a software platform. And then move on to hardware reference.

[levyashin]

I read a onepager in one of the upcoming ICOs, now i know we have a 300 paged whitepaper, brochures and presentations in ehealth, maybe a summerized whitepaper should be good for everyone:) 300 page is a lot for some of us.

Btw. I am ok with 5 eth. minimum cap on the private sale phase. Devs want to attract bigger investors so 5 eth is quite normal i think.

Actually, it is more than normal. I saw 80-100 eth minimum for even pre-sale.

So for private sale 5 eth minimum is not a high number even it is a very low number.

By the way, i think brochure can be used as a summary of the whitepaper.