[ANN][ICO] Blockshipping - Transforming the Global Shipping Industry. Sale 14.05

[EyeofthebeHODLer]

The Team of this great project is indeed working very hard to move this project forward this is clear sign of success, in fact Blockshipping  is a sleeping giant and one of the unstoable project of our time !!!

Thanks for your support! We would love to have you join the discussion on Telegram! We are always there and ready to answer questions.

[MaryAngela_Fantocci]

It will be just like the post quoted above - shipping lines will transact in their own blockchain. Section 4.8 of the Whitepaper, as referred above, might be of your interest

thank you for answering, why on your opinion Lines need blockchain? If you're customer and use containers it's not a problem to check the status of it on the Line's tracking..

To put it simple, to have a platform where they don't need to deposit trust in anyone in particular, which will allow them to save money on operations.

Maybe shipping lines will be in partnership with this platform but in any way I can't understand technical meaning of the platform (how information will be writing to blockchain)

[tempus]

This is a very interesting project and it seems to be one of a few with a lot of expertise behind.

But, there is also something quiet important that I don't like or maybe I don't fully get it yet.

First how I understand the token (CCC): The only purpose out of Investor-perspective for now and some time is to act as something like a share, a security token, to receive dividends. Other functions may be added in future but that might be some time away and is not totally planned yet?


The problem I believe to see is this:

On page 31 of the Whitepaper: 5.3.3 Revenue Sharing Model

I know that those numbers are more like examples, but for the moment, let's say it will turn out that way.

There is said for 2022:
Expected Revenue per year: USD 3,187,951 ---> 10.28% shared revenue, which would be in dividends per token and year: USD 0.0638

Let's say I buy into the ICO now, for $30k:
$30k / USD 0.62 (price) = 48387 CCC Tokens

Let's say I hold those tokens until 2022 and the numbers above would turn out to be near to future reality:
I would get about $0.0638 per year and token: 48387 * $0.0638 = $3087 dividends per year in 2022. Unlikely to get more in the years before.

If it would be a safe bet it would be much better than what any bank gives in interest rates. But it's still an Investment with some risk and the year 2022 is some time away.


There is something else:

Let's say an ICO-Investor wants to speculate on a rising price: It wouldn't make that much sense. If the price would go up about 100%, a future Buyer would have to pay $60k to get the same $3087 as dividends in year 2022 - if the revenue shouldn't be higher. Unlikely that rational participants would buy that later at a higher price. And let's say the revenue would be 3 times of that: Dividends would be about $9k. That's better for sure but only if it happens and it would still be a long time to go with $30 locked until 2022 or $60k locked if the token price would rise about 100% until 2022.

With other words: It seems to me as if the future token price on exchanges will have something like a "natural cap" because a rising price would decrease the dividend-incentive. The other way may also be true of course.. if it goes down hard, it would become much more interesting.

In my opinion it really would/will need additional functionality to add incentive, and it's said that there are plans but very vague and not further specified and probably also "some time" in the future. If my thoughts are not wrong (?) it's not that interesting in my opinion, even if everything else looks very interesting and highly professional.


By the way, I don't understand this (WP - page 30):

B. Market Maker Fund – a unique beneficial feature

Additionally, to further support the CCC and its price in the free market, especially
in the times after the ICO and before the launch of the platform a major part of the collected funds will be locked in a Market Maker Fund. What this means is that IF the price of the CCC on the free market at any time after the closing of the ICO but before the first phase of the solution is launched should fall to a level below a certain percentage of the introduction/starting price, then everyone who have bought CCCs during the ICO will be able to sell back their coins to Blockshipping, if they regret buying the coin. In that case Blockshipping will pay back from the Market Maker Fund.
In fact, by doing so we are offering all our supporters an economic safety net, which is a unique feature on the crypto market.

Let's say the token gets listed on one or more exchanges but goes down for about 40% and an ICO-buyer regrets buying the token: The market maker fund would buy it back to which price? To the then current market price or to the ICO-price or something between?

[TraditionalScience]

This is a very interesting project and it seems to be one of a few with a lot of expertise behind.

But, there is also something quiet important that I don't like or maybe I don't fully get it yet.

First how I understand the token (CCC): The only purpose out of Investor-perspective for now and some time is to act as something like a share, a security token, to receive dividends. Other functions may be added in future but that might be some time away and is not totally planned yet?


The problem I believe to see is this:

On page 31 of the Whitepaper: 5.3.3 Revenue Sharing Model

I know that those numbers are more like examples, but for the moment, let's say it will turn out that way.

There is said for 2022:
Expected Revenue per year: USD 3,187,951 ---> 10.28% shared revenue, which would be in dividends per token and year: USD 0.0638

Let's say I buy into the ICO now, for $30k:
$30k / USD 0.62 (price) = 48387 CCC Tokens

Let's say I hold those tokens until 2022 and the numbers above would turn out to be near to future reality:
I would get about $0.0638 per year and token: 48387 * $0.0638 = $3087 dividends per year in 2022. Unlikely to get more in the years before.

If it would be a safe bet it would be much better than what any bank gives in interest rates. But it's still an Investment with some risk and the year 2022 is some time away.


There is something else:

Let's say an ICO-Investor wants to speculate on a rising price: It wouldn't make that much sense. If the price would go up about 100%, a future Buyer would have to pay $60k to get the same $3087 as dividends in year 2022 - if the revenue shouldn't be higher. Unlikely that rational participants would buy that later at a higher price. And let's say the revenue would be 3 times of that: Dividends would be about $9k. That's better for sure but only if it happens and it would still be a long time to go with $30 locked until 2022 or $60k locked if the token price would rise about 100% until 2022.

With other words: It seems to me as if the future token price on exchanges will have something like a "natural cap" because a rising price would decrease the dividend-incentive. The other way may also be true of course.. if it goes down hard, it would become much more interesting.

In my opinion it really would/will need additional functionality to add incentive, and it's said that there are plans but very vague and not further specified and probably also "some time" in the future. If my thoughts are not wrong (?) it's not that interesting in my opinion, even if everything else looks very interesting and highly professional.


By the way, I don't understand this (WP - page 30):

B. Market Maker Fund – a unique beneficial feature

Additionally, to further support the CCC and its price in the free market, especially
in the times after the ICO and before the launch of the platform a major part of the collected funds will be locked in a Market Maker Fund. What this means is that IF the price of the CCC on the free market at any time after the closing of the ICO but before the first phase of the solution is launched should fall to a level below a certain percentage of the introduction/starting price, then everyone who have bought CCCs during the ICO will be able to sell back their coins to Blockshipping, if they regret buying the coin. In that case Blockshipping will pay back from the Market Maker Fund.
In fact, by doing so we are offering all our supporters an economic safety net, which is a unique feature on the crypto market.

Let's say the token gets listed on one or more exchanges but goes down for about 40% and an ICO-buyer regrets buying the token: The market maker fund would buy it back to which price? To the then current market price or to the ICO-price or something between?

The revenue share model is based on the revenue generated by the platform (in USD). This amount of USD is purely dependent on the performance of the platform not the rate of CCC. These USD will be exchanged to ETH which again will be used to buy CCCs in market (using the "reverse Dutch auction"). If the market price should be low more CCC token will be bought and distributed. I.e. a high market price = more money to the sellers and fewer tokens to distribute whereas a lower market price = less money to the sellers and more CCCs to the hodl'ers.

[tempus]

...cut...

The revenue share model is based on the revenue generated by the platform (in USD). This amount of USD is purely dependent on the performance of the platform not the rate of CCC. These USD will be exchanged to ETH which again will be used to buy CCCs in market (using the "reverse Dutch auction"). If the market price should be low more CCC token will be bought and distributed. I.e. a high market price = more money to the sellers and fewer tokens to distribute whereas a lower market price = less money to the sellers and more CCCs to the hodl'ers.

Thanks for the quick reply! It's an interesting model for sure. But what I see as kind of weak is that additional functionality, which may make the token more attractive is not described yet, but it's said:

C. Future utilities of CCC
On top of the current utility of CCC we have a couple of additional innovative ideas
and concepts where we can see the possibility to open up and use the CCC for certain functions on the GSCP platform and thus enabling CCC owners to actively be able to get more value for their CCC. We have more concepts in the pipe-line but cannot publish these in detail at this early stage, simply because we do not want others to copy them before we have had the time to finish the development and are ready to implement them in the GSCP system.

WP: 30 & 31



Problem in my opinion is the combination of what it is, what it is not, and also important: Time-factor. If we focus on purpose and incentive of the token, there is nothing else than receiving dividends and that is years away. Even if estimated very optimistic, that the revenue would go through the roof in some years, it would still be a long way to go and in my opinion it still wouldn't be likely to see a significantly rising price in short- or mid-term, because at some point it wouldn't make any sense to pay more money to get the "same" dividend. Considered the estimations for the next years, I believe that limit may already be reached at the current price.

Since the token is no real stock, it doesn't represent ownership, it also will not be possible to interpret progress like "the company is probably much more worth now, so the token-value should rise". One can say: The more and the better the progress, the more likely a higher revenue and a higher dividend-payout as a result. But that estimation only makes sense if the token price isn't too expensive. With other words: Incentives for a positive market-dynamic are missing in my opinion.

What I mean becomes clear if compared to Tesla: That company burns so much money, is a high risk, but the value of shares is very high because market participants kind of "bet" on the value of the company - probably because it's very innovative/progressive. If Tesla-Investors would only think about dividends this psychological momentum for the market would be missing. In this project I see the psychological momentum as missing, because receiving dividends in some years (and still not that much if the estimations should turn out as correct in tendency) is not enough while it would even be contradicted by a rising price. That's the major part in my opinion.

And since the token is a security token (although it does not represent ownership) it could even be a problem to get it listed on the bigger exchanges. Until now that is still a regulatory problem for many, what may lead to a lack of liquidity and volume. And there could even be a problem for the project itself. In a worst case scenario it would not need that many sellers to push the price down significantly with low volume - and of course that would lead into the scenario that many other ICO-Investors, maybe even a majority, would want to sell their tokens back to the company. The market maker fund will hold 45% of the raised funds to cover potential paybacks - that may even turn out to be as not enough while it wouldn't make sense to lock more money since it's purpose is to be used in favor of the project of course. That buy-back-model is interesting, it involves some psychological momentum as "floor-support", but if it should be traded at low volume and with low liquidity, the market could dry up especially because of the long time frames until the only real incentive may kick in: Dividends.

[JanuaryN]

Welcome to the Blockshipping GSCP. Our Token Sale is LIVE.

To contribute, please register at https://ccc.blockshipping.io
KYC guide: https://www.blockshipping.io/kyc/
How to create an Ethereum wallet and purchase CCC tokens: https://www.blockshipping.io/how-to-install-ethereum-wallet-and-purchase-ccc/

[zenmonk1]

With a very strong ratings ,this project is all set to disrupt shipping container industry.One of the best projects to invest in!👍

[alvena]

Blockshipping is one of the few projects that take care of the information that bounty hunters re-arrange. Constantly live twitter and FB and many interesting articles on the Medium. Many companies make 1 post per week and require reposts of 4 pieces, not understanding the absurdity of the situation or not caring about their own marketing.
Here all the megad.

[scolary23]

...
With other words: It seems to me as if the future token price on exchanges will have something like a "natural cap" because a rising price would decrease the dividend-incentive. The other way may also be true of course.. if it goes down hard, it would become much more interesting.

However, in this conclusion I see a passive lever, regulation of the volatility.
It will begin to grow, which will not be interesting, for buying, and vice versa, with a decrease in prices, interest in buying will grow.

[obsbtc]

Thank you everyone for the positive feedback! Feel free to join discussion at https://t.me/blockshipping

[tempus]

...
With other words: It seems to me as if the future token price on exchanges will have something like a "natural cap" because a rising price would decrease the dividend-incentive. The other way may also be true of course.. if it goes down hard, it would become much more interesting.

However, in this conclusion I see a passive lever, regulation of the volatility.
It will begin to grow, which will not be interesting, for buying, and vice versa, with a decrease in prices, interest in buying will grow.

Yes, it's an interesting concept. But the main question whenever I try to find out if to do an Investment is: What do I buy, how to understand it's purpose and potential?

And in this case to me everything looked good first. But: The only purpose out of Investor-perspective is to receive dividends, while the token is no share. It does not represent ownership. There will be no dividends until the business gets traction, which is years away. And if that happens at all is a big unknown since nothing is a safe bet. But even if everything would go as planned - incentives for the "psychological market" are missing and a rising price of the token would make it's dividend-purpose less attractive.

The main problem is the time-frame. What I believe may happen: The token will hit an exchange, maybe or even probably not a big one. I doubt that the team will pay millions to get this on one of the top-exchanges and they also don't need that since the token is not needed for their platform. Once it can be traded, those who do research and check the numbers may come to conclusions like me: Why pay money for something now to MAYBE get some dividends in years and to what price? Since the dividend-purpose becomes less attractive if the price should rise while dividends are still years away there is a contradiction on the "psychological market - side"... speculation on the token price. Therefore there is the risk that the token will just dry up on exchanges long before the business gets traction. And if it really will get traction and generate profit: Unknown for a long time.


Binance as opposite example: BNB is deeply connected to the platform and they use 20% of their profit every 3 months to buy back BNB and destroy it and they are developing a decentralized exchange what will add more functionality. Result: It's a token that already is used because of it's functionality and the burning is like an indirect dividend, because the total supply decreases.

Factom: Also if a customer buys Entry Credits (also fixed in price) with Fiat, FCT is burned because of the conversion-transaction (FCT becomes EC) in the background. The market can speculate on high usage and would even be able to do so if Factom as company should not make profit, because the platform is not private.

NEO: You can buy NEO and it generates GAS. All of those tokens have "speculative potential". And as a Blockchain NEO can not go bankrupt.

The CCC-token misses the psychological momentum for the market. It may have that in future, once it becomes clearer if the business model will work out and/or if they add functionality. But until that happens the risk is too high for me.

If they would say: All unsold tokens will be burned - that would add incentive for the ICO in case it will not bring in the max cap. But they don't plan to do that.

[TheRedCanary]

...
With other words: It seems to me as if the future token price on exchanges will have something like a "natural cap" because a rising price would decrease the dividend-incentive. The other way may also be true of course.. if it goes down hard, it would become much more interesting.

However, in this conclusion I see a passive lever, regulation of the volatility.
It will begin to grow, which will not be interesting, for buying, and vice versa, with a decrease in prices, interest in buying will grow.

Yes, it's an interesting concept. But the main question whenever I try to find out if to do an Investment is: What do I buy, how to understand it's purpose and potential?

And in this case to me everything looked good first. But: The only purpose out of Investor-perspective is to receive dividends, while the token is no share. It does not represent ownership. There will be no dividends until the business gets traction, which is years away. And if that happens at all is a big unknown since nothing is a safe bet. But even if everything would go as planned - incentives for the "psychological market" are missing and a rising price of the token would make it's dividend-purpose less attractive.

The main problem is the time-frame. What I believe may happen: The token will hit an exchange, maybe or even probably not a big one. I doubt that the team will pay millions to get this on one of the top-exchanges and they also don't need that since the token is not needed for their platform. Once it can be traded, those who do research and check the numbers may come to conclusions like me: Why pay money for something now to MAYBE get some dividends in years and to what price? Since the dividend-purpose becomes less attractive if the price should rise while dividends are still years away there is a contradiction on the "psychological market - side"... speculation on the token price. Therefore there is the risk that the token will just dry up on exchanges long before the business gets traction. And if it really will get traction and generate profit: Unknown for a long time.


Binance as opposite example: BNB is deeply connected to the platform and they use 20% of their profit every 3 months to buy back BNB and destroy it and they are developing a decentralized exchange what will add more functionality. Result: It's a token that already is used because of it's functionality and the burning is like an indirect dividend, because the total supply decreases.

Factom: Also if a customer buys Entry Credits (also fixed in price) with Fiat, FCT is burned because of the conversion-transaction (FCT becomes EC) in the background. The market can speculate on high usage and would even be able to do so if Factom as company should not make profit, because the platform is not private.

NEO: You can buy NEO and it generates GAS. All of those tokens have "speculative potential". And as a Blockchain NEO can not go bankrupt.

The CCC-token misses the psychological momentum for the market. It may have that in future, once it becomes clearer if the business model will work out and/or if they add functionality. But until that happens the risk is too high for me.

If they would say: All unsold tokens will be burned - that would add incentive for the ICO in case it will not bring in the max cap. But they don't plan to do that.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, thanks for sharing.

[mexi.db]

Scandinavian Launch to track Shipping via Blockchain
https://hype.codes/scandinavian-launch-track-shipping-blockchain

[nedjuly]

Shipping Industry is something that will always be in demand. And since the blockchain is quietly implemented everywhere, then this project can also be quite successful

[obsbtc]

Shipping Industry is something that will always be in demand. And since the blockchain is quietly implemented everywhere, then this project can also be quite successful

Thank you very much for the support!

[scolary23]

Wait.
And what do you say about tokens that will not be sold. This question was raised above. If you burn them, then it will be safer for the holders. If not, then what.

[obsbtc]

Wait.
And what do you say about tokens that will not be sold. This question was raised above. If you burn them, then it will be safer for the holders. If not, then what.

What would you like to know in specific regarding this? We know, as per the Whitepaper page 34, that:

Any CCC not sold or claimed during the ICO (pre-sale and public sale) will be allocated to GSCP and used to pay out the revenue share

[evitasari]

It seems like the public sale is still a long time to start, hopefully all goes smoothly in accordance with his plan and beharap teams involved will give the best for this project.

[mexi.db]

It seems like the public sale is still a long time to start, hopefully all goes smoothly in accordance with his plan and beharap teams involved will give the best for this project.

The token sale has begun already.
To contribute, please register at https://ccc.blockshipping.io
KYC guide: https://www.blockshipping.io/kyc/
How to create an Ethereum wallet and purchase CCC tokens: https://www.blockshipping.io/how-to-install-ethereum-wallet-and-purchase-ccc/

[obsbtc]

Interested in discussing Blockshipping? You can do so on Telegram! https://t.me/blockshipping