[ANN] ...

[CaVO32]

So far, very little information to judge the project. But, I can say that the protocol should use a newer ERC 223 or ERC 721. There is no information about the team either.

It's just another random shit token made tradable since day 1 lol, you don't know the total supply, the circulating supply, the team behind the project.
These kind of shit tokens are profitable during last year (December-January 2018) if you know how to deal with them, i mean get them FREE & dump them as fast as possible.

Crypto newbies you better stay away from any kind of project that has Ghost Team or not team at all.

Unfortunately crap tokens are now the majority. One can never be sure that everything will be transparent and clear. Many are now returning back to stock markets. That is why.

since a large percentage of the projects nowadays are crap, better be careful with your investments. meticulously study each project that you wanted to invest. once you bought their coins, there's no turning back. make the most out of it.

[jhesa10]

Do you have any bounty for.this project?

[zitoken]

FORMAL ANNOUNCEMENT May 21, 2019:

AIRDROP ZITOKEN (ZIT)
Our Telegram/ Twitter Airdrop is live.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5145463

[SirEdd]

A very good project to begin with. Awesome!

[Miiike]

I see that there were no mention about arbit anymore, the experiment failed? In fact, I felt like reading a whole different project, like you removed the entire old plan and propose something new. To be fair, I failed to recall correctly as your thread's last active discussion was around 4 months ago, but I don't think it was initially about game crowdfunding?

[jk71686]

good hard work this project will be succes hopefully do that

[shinehtet]

Proof of authentication
Bitcointalk Username: shinehtet
Telegram Username: @Shinny145483
Twitter Username: @MinMin57126648

[zitoken]

I see that there were no mention about arbit anymore, the experiment failed? In fact, I felt like reading a whole different project, like you removed the entire old plan and propose something new. To be fair, I failed to recall correctly as your thread's last active discussion was around 4 months ago, but I don't think it was initially about game crowdfunding?

Thanks for your comment. As you can see we adappated our business model for a solid product, changes are mandatory at any experiment or business on which plans are to deliver a real use case to support people and business, and this is our case.

[Miiike]

I see that there were no mention about arbit anymore, the experiment failed? In fact, I felt like reading a whole different project, like you removed the entire old plan and propose something new. To be fair, I failed to recall correctly as your thread's last active discussion was around 4 months ago, but I don't think it was initially about game crowdfunding?

Thanks for your comment. As you can see we adappated our business model for a solid product, changes are mandatory at any experiment or business on which plans are to deliver a real use case to support people and business, and this is our case.

Err... Yeah, business is everchanging, but I don't think a we-propose-an-in-game-token-that-will-also-get-dividend-from-our-untested-arbit-system to we-only-crowdfund-game-now can be considered as adapting market. It's more like developing a whole different project. The only thing that connect you with your "old project" was it's on the same sector (game) as what it become today. For all we know, the dev team (if there any team at all) might be completely different as well with the ones from beginning

[tippytoes]

I see that there were no mention about arbit anymore, the experiment failed? In fact, I felt like reading a whole different project, like you removed the entire old plan and propose something new. To be fair, I failed to recall correctly as your thread's last active discussion was around 4 months ago, but I don't think it was initially about game crowdfunding?

Thanks for your comment. As you can see we adappated our business model for a solid product, changes are mandatory at any experiment or business on which plans are to deliver a real use case to support people and business, and this is our case.

So the beta launch this quarter is not pushing thru? Based from your roadmap, you should be releasing your beta app by this time. I do agree that there are some bottlenecks along the way that will deviate you from your original plans.

[zitoken]

I see that there were no mention about arbit anymore, the experiment failed? In fact, I felt like reading a whole different project, like you removed the entire old plan and propose something new. To be fair, I failed to recall correctly as your thread's last active discussion was around 4 months ago, but I don't think it was initially about game crowdfunding?

Thanks for your comment. As you can see we adappated our business model for a solid product, changes are mandatory at any experiment or business on which plans are to deliver a real use case to support people and business, and this is our case.

Err... Yeah, business is everchanging, but I don't think a we-propose-an-in-game-token-that-will-also-get-dividend-from-our-untested-arbit-system to we-only-crowdfund-game-now can be considered as adapting market. It's more like developing a whole different project. The only thing that connect you with your "old project" was it's on the same sector (game) as what it become today. For all we know, the dev team (if there any team at all) might be completely different as well with the ones from beginning

Our main focus always it was game industry since the beginning, this means that we keep our values. As you just comment, we only tested experiments in the past.

[Suke_Teki]

I see that there were no mention about arbit anymore, the experiment failed? In fact, I felt like reading a whole different project, like you removed the entire old plan and propose something new. To be fair, I failed to recall correctly as your thread's last active discussion was around 4 months ago, but I don't think it was initially about game crowdfunding?

Thanks for your comment. As you can see we adappated our business model for a solid product, changes are mandatory at any experiment or business on which plans are to deliver a real use case to support people and business, and this is our case.

So the beta launch this quarter is not pushing thru? Based from your roadmap, you should be releasing your beta app by this time. I do agree that there are some bottlenecks along the way that will deviate you from your original plans.

yes right, it's better that the team immediately release the Beta launch, because now we have passed the middle of Q2, besides this project has little information, even no partnership. and I suggest that if you want to gain investor trust, it is better to list your tokens in large exchanges, not FD

[judaspriest]

I see that there were no mention about arbit anymore, the experiment failed? In fact, I felt like reading a whole different project, like you removed the entire old plan and propose something new. To be fair, I failed to recall correctly as your thread's last active discussion was around 4 months ago, but I don't think it was initially about game crowdfunding?

Thanks for your comment. As you can see we adappated our business model for a solid product, changes are mandatory at any experiment or business on which plans are to deliver a real use case to support people and business, and this is our case.

So the beta launch this quarter is not pushing thru? Based from your roadmap, you should be releasing your beta app by this time. I do agree that there are some bottlenecks along the way that will deviate you from your original plans.

yes right, it's better that the team immediately release the Beta launch, because now we have passed the middle of Q2, besides this project has little information, even no partnership. and I suggest that if you want to gain investor trust, it is better to list your tokens in large exchanges, not FD

exchanger is only in the forkdelta and tokendex and has not entered a major exchanger,
but this will be a bit difficult because the listing in the market requires a large fee

[Miiike]

I see that there were no mention about arbit anymore, the experiment failed? In fact, I felt like reading a whole different project, like you removed the entire old plan and propose something new. To be fair, I failed to recall correctly as your thread's last active discussion was around 4 months ago, but I don't think it was initially about game crowdfunding?

Thanks for your comment. As you can see we adappated our business model for a solid product, changes are mandatory at any experiment or business on which plans are to deliver a real use case to support people and business, and this is our case.

Err... Yeah, business is everchanging, but I don't think a we-propose-an-in-game-token-that-will-also-get-dividend-from-our-untested-arbit-system to we-only-crowdfund-game-now can be considered as adapting market. It's more like developing a whole different project. The only thing that connect you with your "old project" was it's on the same sector (game) as what it become today. For all we know, the dev team (if there any team at all) might be completely different as well with the ones from beginning

Our main focus always it was game industry since the beginning, this means that we keep our values. As you just comment, we only tested experiments in the past.

Well, now this is a worrying answer. What'll guarantee that you will not change your business activity once more? Deeming this "funding" as another failed test and move to other plan? it'll be troublesome for investors who studied your recent plan, think it is worth investing, buy some tokens, and then you once again go under for two months and resurface with "ok, the funding is not working, now we're proposing a paid online game reviewing".

[zitoken]

I see that there were no mention about arbit anymore, the experiment failed? In fact, I felt like reading a whole different project, like you removed the entire old plan and propose something new. To be fair, I failed to recall correctly as your thread's last active discussion was around 4 months ago, but I don't think it was initially about game crowdfunding?

Thanks for your comment. As you can see we adappated our business model for a solid product, changes are mandatory at any experiment or business on which plans are to deliver a real use case to support people and business, and this is our case.

Err... Yeah, business is everchanging, but I don't think a we-propose-an-in-game-token-that-will-also-get-dividend-from-our-untested-arbit-system to we-only-crowdfund-game-now can be considered as adapting market. It's more like developing a whole different project. The only thing that connect you with your "old project" was it's on the same sector (game) as what it become today. For all we know, the dev team (if there any team at all) might be completely different as well with the ones from beginning

Our main focus always it was game industry since the beginning, this means that we keep our values. As you just comment, we only tested experiments in the past.

Well, now this is a worrying answer. What'll guarantee that you will not change your business activity once more? Deeming this "funding" as another failed test and move to other plan? it'll be troublesome for investors who studied your recent plan, think it is worth investing, buy some tokens, and then you once again go under for two months and resurface with "ok, the funding is not working, now we're proposing a paid online game reviewing".

Your points are valid, but remember this is a product based on feedback of our community and a hard work of a lot of study and research , and regarding the funding of Zitoken, team is investing their own capital to deliver the product.   

[Miiike]

Well, now this is a worrying answer. What'll guarantee that you will not change your business activity once more? Deeming this "funding" as another failed test and move to other plan? it'll be troublesome for investors who studied your recent plan, think it is worth investing, buy some tokens, and then you once again go under for two months and resurface with "ok, the funding is not working, now we're proposing a paid online game reviewing".

Your points are valid, but remember this is a product based on feedback of our community and a hard work of a lot of study and research , and regarding the funding of Zitoken, team is investing their own capital to deliver the product.  

Interesting, you imply that the change happen as a result of community's feedback, thus their request. Can you please tell us on what platform does this request and feedback occurred? Your bitcointalk thread were quiet for months prior to the change, your telegram is far even more concerning, created on January (and unless you deleted every chat prior) only active from the past few days, which is post-change, and topic is about airdrop.

Even more interesting, you mentioned that study and research also took a role on the change. While this is a positive thing for projects to grow, exception can always be made for project that took a whole different new course (and worse, happen before the previous idea even implemented), because we can infer that (because the concept is completely different from previous one) the previous one are not well thought, studied, or researched. Because, if you did your research and study, or even a simple thorough thought, then the change will be around tweaking the project instead of completely change them.

And about team, I'm glad you mentioned it, who are the team anyway? I don't see them anywhere.

[zitoken]

Well, now this is a worrying answer. What'll guarantee that you will not change your business activity once more? Deeming this "funding" as another failed test and move to other plan? it'll be troublesome for investors who studied your recent plan, think it is worth investing, buy some tokens, and then you once again go under for two months and resurface with "ok, the funding is not working, now we're proposing a paid online game reviewing".

Your points are valid, but remember this is a product based on feedback of our community and a hard work of a lot of study and research , and regarding the funding of Zitoken, team is investing their own capital to deliver the product.  

Interesting, you imply that the change happen as a result of community's feedback, thus their request. Can you please tell us on what platform does this request and feedback occurred? Your bitcointalk thread were quiet for months prior to the change, your telegram is far even more concerning, created on January (and unless you deleted every chat prior) only active from the past few days, which is post-change, and topic is about airdrop.

Even more interesting, you mentioned that study and research also took a role on the change. While this is a positive thing for projects to grow, exception can always be made for project that took a whole different new course (and worse, happen before the previous idea even implemented), because we can infer that (because the concept is completely different from previous one) the previous one are not well thought, studied, or researched. Because, if you did your research and study, or even a simple thorough thought, then the change will be around tweaking the project instead of completely change them.

And about team, I'm glad you mentioned it, who are the team anyway? I don't see them anywhere.

Dear Miiike, Thanks for your feedback. Well, experiments are only experiments, not officials produtcs, and what we are announcing here is an official product indeed. 

Regarding the team, we'll be glad if you check it out our whitepaper or website and look for "Team" , all members mencioned makes part of our businness, we are still small, but we'll be hiring new members in other stages of our business.

[Miiike]

Well, now this is a worrying answer. What'll guarantee that you will not change your business activity once more? Deeming this "funding" as another failed test and move to other plan? it'll be troublesome for investors who studied your recent plan, think it is worth investing, buy some tokens, and then you once again go under for two months and resurface with "ok, the funding is not working, now we're proposing a paid online game reviewing".

Your points are valid, but remember this is a product based on feedback of our community and a hard work of a lot of study and research , and regarding the funding of Zitoken, team is investing their own capital to deliver the product.  

Interesting, you imply that the change happen as a result of community's feedback, thus their request. Can you please tell us on what platform does this request and feedback occurred? Your bitcointalk thread were quiet for months prior to the change, your telegram is far even more concerning, created on January (and unless you deleted every chat prior) only active from the past few days, which is post-change, and topic is about airdrop.

Even more interesting, you mentioned that study and research also took a role on the change. While this is a positive thing for projects to grow, exception can always be made for project that took a whole different new course (and worse, happen before the previous idea even implemented), because we can infer that (because the concept is completely different from previous one) the previous one are not well thought, studied, or researched. Because, if you did your research and study, or even a simple thorough thought, then the change will be around tweaking the project instead of completely change them.

And about team, I'm glad you mentioned it, who are the team anyway? I don't see them anywhere.

Dear Miiike, Thanks for your feedback. Well, experiments are only experiments, not officials produtcs, and what we are announcing here is an official product indeed. 

Regarding the team, we'll be glad if you check it out our whitepaper or website and look for "Team" , all members mencioned makes part of our businness, we are still small, but we'll be hiring new members in other stages of our business.

Initially you said that this project is based on community's feedback, which we can concur that the project's change is due to their request, but there were no evidence of such request, given your medias are all inactive for months before. You also said that the product is based on hard work of a lot of studies and research, which I'll be fair if we agree that the total "reconstruction" happen as a result of poor judgment on previous model (which should allow us to ask why such poor judgment happen in spite of the "hard work" of studies and research or question your competence) or that it happens because you didn't do your self acclaimed hard work of studies and research at all (which should entitle us to ask about team seriousness of the project, thus credibility).

It's also interesting to highlight how you state that experiments are just experiments, and not official product, (because) what you announce here is an official product. Now you became ambiguous. Previous model were explained here, as it used to be announced here, and because it is implied that experiments were not announced here, your statement should lead to a conclusion that the said model is an official product, yet it was totally deconstructed as if it was a failed experiment. There were not even a clear and official info about why the change. You don't even announce the change, you simply went under and resurface with whole different project, and pretend nothing happened previously.

[zitoken]

Well, now this is a worrying answer. What'll guarantee that you will not change your business activity once more? Deeming this "funding" as another failed test and move to other plan? it'll be troublesome for investors who studied your recent plan, think it is worth investing, buy some tokens, and then you once again go under for two months and resurface with "ok, the funding is not working, now we're proposing a paid online game reviewing".

Your points are valid, but remember this is a product based on feedback of our community and a hard work of a lot of study and research , and regarding the funding of Zitoken, team is investing their own capital to deliver the product.  

Interesting, you imply that the change happen as a result of community's feedback, thus their request. Can you please tell us on what platform does this request and feedback occurred? Your bitcointalk thread were quiet for months prior to the change, your telegram is far even more concerning, created on January (and unless you deleted every chat prior) only active from the past few days, which is post-change, and topic is about airdrop.

Even more interesting, you mentioned that study and research also took a role on the change. While this is a positive thing for projects to grow, exception can always be made for project that took a whole different new course (and worse, happen before the previous idea even implemented), because we can infer that (because the concept is completely different from previous one) the previous one are not well thought, studied, or researched. Because, if you did your research and study, or even a simple thorough thought, then the change will be around tweaking the project instead of completely change them.

And about team, I'm glad you mentioned it, who are the team anyway? I don't see them anywhere.

Dear Miiike, Thanks for your feedback. Well, experiments are only experiments, not officials produtcs, and what we are announcing here is an official product indeed. 

Regarding the team, we'll be glad if you check it out our whitepaper or website and look for "Team" , all members mencioned makes part of our businness, we are still small, but we'll be hiring new members in other stages of our business.

Initially you said that this project is based on community's feedback, which we can concur that the project's change is due to their request, but there were no evidence of such request, given your medias are all inactive for months before. You also said that the product is based on hard work of a lot of studies and research, which I'll be fair if we agree that the total "reconstruction" happen as a result of poor judgment on previous model (which should allow us to ask why such poor judgment happen in spite of the "hard work" of studies and research or question your competence) or that it happens because you didn't do your self acclaimed hard work of studies and research at all (which should entitle us to ask about team seriousness of the project, thus credibility).

It's also interesting to highlight how you state that experiments are just experiments, and not official product, (because) what you announce here is an official product. Now you became ambiguous. Previous model were explained here, as it used to be announced here, and because it is implied that experiments were not announced here, your statement should lead to a conclusion that the said model is an official product, yet it was totally deconstructed as if it was a failed experiment. There were not even a clear and official info about why the change. You don't even announce the change, you simply went under and resurface with whole different project, and pretend nothing happened previously.

You are most welcome to give your feedback on our project. Regarding clear information about change, our team had been talking to a wide range of people and consumers  interested specially on blockchain games on geek events.

We realised that previous model it was not attending pains of the market based in this informations , the main difficult of game developers is to get support for their games and to be conneceted with games lovers.

So we decided to change it for an innovator and pioneer model, on which support this niche.

[Miiike]

You are most welcome to give your feedback on our project. Regarding clear information about change, our team had been talking to a wide range of people and consumers  interested specially on blockchain games on geek events.

We realised that previous model it was not attending pains of the market based in this informations , the main difficult of game developers is to get support for their games and to be conneceted with games lovers.

So we decided to change it for an innovator and pioneer model, on which support this niche.

Well ok, which blockchain game event was this? I can't find your project being mentioned on any event, perhaps you can give an evidence in form of your team's nametag on said event(s)?

And I shall assume as the community had decided that this is the best suited model, this is the final and it will not be replaced with other projects anymore?