Isn't it interesting that the team did not yet react on the damaging Whistleblower-article that came out yesterday?
On April 26 I had an interesting discussion with tobson2 and said this about communication:
(...)
See, everything what is expressed is communication under the line. That even includes „a lack of“ at the wrong time, because also that is interpreted. And communication is not just about „what“ but also about „how“ and intensity, context and timing and even if done near to perfect, there are unknowns because everything is interpreted subjectively by individuals. (...)
If we think about what a natural reaction of a legit project on such an article would be, it's also possible to think about
what they communicate with their silence.
Imagine you are a high-level-member, or even the CEO, of a company that gets attacked by a made up story build on lies. Wouldn't you want to rebut it as soon as possible? And of course, a detailed reaction may take some time but a natural thing to do would've been:
1) Right after the article hit them at least react with a tweet, saying that the article is bullshit and a detailed reaction will follow
2) After about 8-10 hours at latest it should be possible to publish a blog-post that refutes all lies.
And when it's about serious allegations (and that article absolutely has that): It would be right to take legal action and in such a case, differently to the study, it would also be right to
publicly say that legal actions will be taken.
They've done nothing so far. Why?
If anybody should have doubts that there would be good reasons to react fast on something like that, just take a look at the chart:
The chart does not only show the reaction on the article. It shows much more:
1) There wasn't even an immediate and strong reaction right after the article was published
2) But since there was no reaction of Savedroid, more people became uncertain and sold
3) Then there even was a bit of a recovery - maybe because some believed, Savedroid would "soon" rebut the article
4) But over the day today the silence was interpreted as
"what is said in the article is probably true, otherwise Savedroid would have refuted it"The problem also is: After such a long time a reaction of Savedroid could not have the same impact as if they would have reacted reasonable and quickly.
So, again the question is: Why?
Simple answer: There is a high probability that the allegations lined out in that article are true.
And again, the most serious one in my opinion is this one:
"Shortly before the end of the tokensale, the Sales team was instructed to contact big Investors of the ICO and to persuade them to additional Investments. There have been made promises of high premium and returns. An increase of value of the SVD-token of 500% and more in a few months was predicted, former employees tell. Also a doctored image was sent out which showed that the Savedroid Token was planned to being traded on the known Crypto-Exchange Binance. Savedroid didn't want to comment on that as well." The problem for Savedroid is, in case that should be true, that they can not say that it is not. Because if they've done that there is proof out there. In such a case former employees probably still have such mails and some of the bigger Investors have those mails.
But, if they don't say that it's not true it would be the same like confirming it to be true.
Considered such allegations are true, and I believe they are, the situation for them right now is probably like this:
They try to find a way to react on this in a convincing way while not saying too much, because if they would go into details they would go into total confrontation. They could easily lose such fight within a few hours, maybe just minutes, with the result to be outed as blatant liars. Just imagine Savedroid would claim that they have never done this and Gründerszene simply replies with a screenshot of a mail including such a doctored SVD-Binance-Pic. Or imagine a big Investor, who is mad as hell now because his 100K are not even 10k now, would come forward.
But... if they just come up with random and unspecified write up it would also say a lot while additionally they would be confronted with questions, like
"Hey, you didn't say anything about the Binance-allegation! Is it true or not?"...
With other words:
In case such allegations are true they find themselves in a trap without any good option. There is another thing in case the Binance-topic should turn out to be true: It could legally cross a line. My knowledge about that is too limited but I don't think that it would not be illegal to manipulate Investors into giving them high amounts of money using lies and deception.
Plus: Also on April 25 I've written a longer post about a potential scenario regarding the Top5-Exchange:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2578161.msg35591368#msg35591368In case this Binance-allegation should be true, it's totally safe to say that SVD will never be listed on Binance. And it's also likely that no other big exchange will list them. And that would have more consequences when it's about the price of course. The chance that this goes back to ICO-level is not high but it would even decrease significantly if SVD doesn't get a better listing in future. The price is constantly falling at low volume and the result is that more and more Holder think
"damn, I wish I would have sold yesterday or last week" etc. And those guys will use every bit of recovery to sell, especially if they see no hope.
Result today:
The price right now is at 0.00081993 EUR. That's a loss of 91.8% - it would have to rise x 12 to get to ICO-price-level. That makes obvious who is bleeding for their bullshit.
