In regards to your 1st and 2nd page of lightpaper (or was it onepager-divided-into-six? It's very short and not detailed), I'd like to point out that the barrier to entry of token early sale were not just the high minimum contribution or the composition of holders-and-short-term-traders. If any ICO projects from the past 4 years ever taught anyone, there is a huge risk of rugpull and scam projects, which lead to to an opinion that a project that's already --borrowing your words-- "months after an exchange listing" is safer, because reputable exchanges filter outs low quality projects, which usually has tendency to exit-scam. With this said, I didn's see any point covering this on the proposal of your project. I assume your project didn't propose any feature to fight this known issue? If so, then what's so different between you and other existing crowdfunding platforms?
To answer your question here.
There are several dimensions here that need to be addressed:
1. We're referring to the price action of projects that have already been listed on exchanges and not the security of the project itself (more on that note in a minute). As we've witnessed, most of the time upon listing, the price spikes and drops partially by hype or bot issues. Binance and other centralized exchanges are no exception. However, purchasing a token via presale or public sale (early investment) generally protects against downside risks assuming a project is legitimate. Buying early and "cheaper" for say $1.00 on a presale deal before a token is live, will always be safer than buying $20 for the same token that's already listed. Price drops to $1 you lose nothing if you bought in at the price. At $20 you lose a lot. This is from a pure pricing perspective. I don't think there is much debate on buying early.
However, that brings us to...
2. The issue of finding out which projects are real, and which ones are the next rug pull is a real concern in this market. Our platform mitigates some of this security risk for investors by including liquidity and vesting token locks directly from the team. Therefore, any project that comes through us will be direct will be locked and optimized for safety for investors, and overall trust in the ecosystem. If a project wants to pull the liquidity from the project. Good luck there.
The vetting process will be done by us a combination of ourselves and via our community. Due diligence is important and not an area we plan to skimp out on.
3. In terms of how we're different from other solutions. Our value is in providing a complete launchpad that focuses on "creating deals' as opposed to "finding them" from other launchpads. Most others providers out there focus solely on funding and limited marketing. This is simply the wrong approach. Without revealing too much (until we show our MVP) we aim to dive deeper into this vertical. Essentially, really hammering down on the processes that streamline the launch sequence, including post-launch coordination for continued support. Why?
Well, what do you think happens when a project gets purchased by investors hoping to flip or sell all of their vested tokens for the next shiny object?
That's not real value and a problem faced by some other competitor launchpads. We plan to solve this via a combination of post-launch support from our partners, and our core technology.
Hope this answers some of the questions going forward.
