Low reputation because of fraud/scam accusations.

[mark.space]

Hi everyone!
This is Andrew from MARK.SPACE.

Found out this topic https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3286443.msg34279208#msg34279208, raised by Pistacia.
Lauda gave negative feedback, which seriously damaged project reputation.

Guys just got it wrong, misunderstood. Look: Lauda's comment is "They were supposed to pay out 'The Whitepaper states 15 million tokens (0.5% of the overall ico pool)', yet they paid less than 1 million due to their own greed, thereby also committing fraud. Scam project, avoid this team and anything related to them." 

"Token allocation" section in our WP says that 0.5% out of total ICO pool (3 billion tokens) is allocated for all bounty events from 2018 to 2021(15 million tokens).
Which does not mean we will pay them at once! And we never stated we pay this sum at once. It's our Bounty fund, which will be used for paying bloggers, helpers, all reap media supporters till full launch of a platform in 2021.
We have 2 rounds of ICO, second one will be in 2019, so Bounty fund tokens will be spent gradually. 
Moreover, this fund will be spent on project testing and there will be another Bounty campaign for bug searching.
And even if we put some simple logic in this situation, we have got two rounds of token sale 1)2018 2)2019, why people think we should spend all fund on first round? It's just wrong position to ask all fund to be paid... It's absolutely unfair, don't you think so ?

MARK.SPACE has a lot to do, we dont need low trust because of misunderstanding !

[TheUltraElite]

MARK.SPACE has a lot to do, we dont need low trust because of misunderstanding !

If you have a "lot" to do then why are you even opening up a thread for discussion? You should be giving more time to your "important" things to do rather than worry about some petty trust issues in the forum. Moreover if you think its "misunderstanding" - why are you trying to explain your grounds?

People who are so "busy" dont bother about such things such as "reputation".

[mark.space]

MARK.SPACE has a lot to do, we dont need low trust because of misunderstanding !

If you have a "lot" to do then why are you even opening up a thread for discussion? You should be giving more time to your "important" things to do rather than worry about some petty trust issues in the forum. Moreover if you think its "misunderstanding" - why are you trying to explain your grounds?

People who are so "busy" dont bother about such things such as "reputation".

Because we don't want to leave it at this point (low reputation). Some people just didnt understand obvious thing and thus decided to accuse us.
Why are we trying to explain? We never knew we will have to explain, we are doing it for those, who didnt understand.

And we really care about our reputation

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I don't know anything about this particular project, but it's been my observation that bounty hunters--as inherently scummy as they are--generally know exactly how much they're supposed to get at the end of an ICO.  You only see mass complaints when the project developers pull some sort of shit at the end that results in them getting less than what the participants bargained for.

Was it not clear exactly what this particular batch of bounty hunters was supposed to get?  The way you wrote the time interval of 2018-2021 makes it very vague how much the current ones should be receiving. 

[audaciousbeing]

Hi everyone!
This is Andrew from MARK.SPACE.

Found out this topic https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3286443.msg34279208#msg34279208, raised by Pistacia.
Lauda gave negative feedback, which seriously damaged project reputation.

Guys just got it wrong, misunderstood. Look: Lauda's comment is "They were supposed to pay out 'The Whitepaper states 15 million tokens (0.5% of the overall ico pool)', yet they paid less than 1 million due to their own greed, thereby also committing fraud. Scam project, avoid this team and anything related to them."  

"Token allocation" section in our WP says that 0.5% out of total ICO pool (3 billion tokens) is allocated for all bounty events from 2018 to 2021(15 million tokens).
Which does not mean we will pay them at once! And we never stated we pay this sum at once. It's our Bounty fund, which will be used for paying bloggers, helpers, all reap media supporters till full launch of a platform in 2021.
We have 2 rounds of ICO, second one will be in 2019, so Bounty fund tokens will be spent gradually.  
Moreover, this fund will be spent on project testing and there will be another Bounty campaign for bug searching.
And even if we put some simple logic in this situation, we have got two rounds of token sale 1)2018 2)2019, why people think we should spend all fund on first round? It's just wrong position to ask all fund to be paid... It's absolutely unfair, don't you think so ?

MARK.SPACE has a lot to do, we dont need low trust because of misunderstanding !

The first question I would ask would be have you put forward your argument to Lauda because she does not just give a negative feedback and when that happen, only her can remove it. If yes, then the only thing you can do is to wait and focus on your project. Based on your response, it seems it might be case of misunderstanding in which you were not expressly clear in your White Paper and for someone who have participated in the campaign would have a target in mind of what he is expected to earn at the end only to be cut short because of further interpretation of the wordings he had relied upon. Also, try to quickly resolve it with your bounty participants because I am they are the one to call Lauda's attention to it.

[euphemia]

Hi i just want to express my opinion as i see others with this negative trust and comment. Well as you can see there is other bounty managers who has more bounty that is managing, but years pass by to them and even that they're trusted they still get negative trust. But they will not complain about this as their reputation they just stay calm and quiet then they continue to work and prove to them that they not worth that negative trust.