Bitmark
melvster:
Nathan and many others maintain that an IPO would have been easy to pull off.
But I have my doubts because
- there was and is nothing special about the coin compared with coingen, like there is with monero or any other number of coins, which have features
- there was no website, and still is no website, when this coin was in the top 100 it was the *only* coin without a website
- there was no evidence of any marking code at all, and still isnt, compared with say supernet which has tons of code
There was an extremely interested article on marking. Yes, for sure. But how much is an article worth? How much is a blog post worth?
The marking implemention poloniex did in 1-2 days has value, and so is being listed on the exchange, and the constant altruistic mining.
But if polo pull the plug on things, it's pretty much over, isnt it?
melvster:
Quote from: kennyP on April 09, 2015, 01:12:20 PM
Quote from: johndec2 on April 09, 2015, 09:29:01 AM
Quote from: melvster on April 08, 2015, 10:37:21 AM
The good news is that Nathan knows this was wrong, is prepared to face the consequences and most importantly wants to put things right. I really hope that can happen, and is not just another 'ill do it at the weekend'. I hope it's taken seriously this time, and I think everyone wants to believe.
The track record you posted does not inspire confidence that he will actually "finally" do the right thing. It also explains the large dump on Polo today. I hope I'm wrong but you have painted him a serial liar and conman.
Nathan seems to have sufficient skills and experience to make BTM a success, and that's more than most coin communities can say. The history of alt coin development has usually involved anon devs with modest skills and experience at best.
Agree on this part. No doubt in my mind he's a capable developer. This could be a great project if he decides to put his mind to it, while the opportunity is still there.
Este Nuno:
Quote from: melvster on April 09, 2015, 04:42:07 PM
Nathan and many others maintain that an IPO would have been easy to pull off.
But I have my doubts because
- there was and is nothing special about the coin compared with coingen, like there is with monero or any other number of coins, which have features
- there was no website, and still is no website, when this coin was in the top 100 it was the *only* coin without a website
- there was no evidence of any marking code at all, and still isnt, compared with say supernet which has tons of code
There was an extremely interested article on marking. Yes, for sure. But how much is an article worth? How much is a blog post worth?
The marking implemention poloniex did in 1-2 days has value, and so is being listed on the exchange, and the constant altruistic mining.
But if polo pull the plug on things, it's pretty much over, isnt it?
We definitely could have done an IPO back then which would have raised significant funds. It probably should have been done.
VIA did a 600+ BTC IPO right at the same time with exactly the same starting point as BTM, an scrypt client updated to the latest Bitcoin release. Even raising 1/6th of what VIA raised and it would have been a completely different situation. Multiple people were requesting an IPO and pledging BTC.
Syscoin did a 1500 BTC IPO and they couldn't get a blockchain working for weeks. It was a much different time and people were more than willing to invest upfront in projects that they felt had potential.
Mark wasn't interested in any sort of IPO or other coins at all. I even suggested that we launch a pfennig fork as a side project that we can use to develop new technologies on which could eventually be folded back in to BTM after they proved stable(this was probably in July or early Aug). But Mark didn't think it was fair to create any thing other than Bitmark as he thought people would lose money on it in the long run, and he didn't want to be involved in anything like that.
melvster:
Maybe there were certainly people throwing money at some projects.
But it's easier said than done. Just saying with no remarkable features, no website and no track record, it would have been hard in a competitive space.
Let's be clear. Funding wasnt the problem. Didnt Nathan say he had enough money to fund this project for one whole year at the start?
There was a ton of funding on top of that, from dozens of people, $1000s (perhaps $10000s) or more, in personal donations, developer loans, donations to the foundation, resources donated to the project, mining, investors in BTM, or just was simply went missing when no one was looking.
There's no evidence that an ICO would have done anything other than increase the losses.
coinsolidation:
Melvster, it's a bad enough situation already, without you constantly try to make it appear even worse still and inferring that's it's just the tip of the iceberg. Este, kenny, thank you.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page