[ANN] SuperNET NXT asset 12071612744977229797, SUPERNET KMD assetchain in summer

[jl777]

I also have a question.  I understand that SuperNET allows users to use features of different coins, presumably coins with the best current tech.  So let's say BBR currently has the best anon tech, but what if in the future a new coin comes out with something better and joins SuperNET.  What would happen to BBR?  Would anyone have an incentive to continue using BBR's older anon tech?  Likewise, would BBR still have an incentive to continue being in SuperNET if no one uses their anon tech?  And this goes for every other feature out there too, not just anon sending. 

Once the SuperNET support is added by a coin, then not sure why they would want to stop getting revenue sharing. It is not like the SuperNET is charging the coins, rather SuperNET is revenue sharing.

Also, once people are using something and liking it, the release of new tech that is "better" doesnt mean everybody just stops using it. The network effect would keep people using it. Regardless of which specific tech is most popular, the SuperNET will presumably be offering it, so as such it represents a diversified approach as opposed to any specific component

By "revenue sharing," do you mean revenue sharing for the individual coin holders or revenue sharing for the coin developers?

currently 20% of SuperNET revenues are allocated for the coin communities, presumably they would chose to support their devs

Are UNITY holders included in this 20% of SuperNET revenues allocated for the coin communities? I am not sure since UNITY in not classified as a coin. If not, then perhaps it is best to just hold the individual coins that are already included or likely to be included in the SuperNET. I currently hold over 500 SuperNET tokens and I am trying to decided if it is best to hold UNITY or best to hold the already included or likely to be included coins.

50% of revenues go to UNITY holders

[cryptodance]

I also have a question.  I understand that SuperNET allows users to use features of different coins, presumably coins with the best current tech.  So let's say BBR currently has the best anon tech, but what if in the future a new coin comes out with something better and joins SuperNET.  What would happen to BBR?  Would anyone have an incentive to continue using BBR's older anon tech?  Likewise, would BBR still have an incentive to continue being in SuperNET if no one uses their anon tech?  And this goes for every other feature out there too, not just anon sending. 

Once the SuperNET support is added by a coin, then not sure why they would want to stop getting revenue sharing. It is not like the SuperNET is charging the coins, rather SuperNET is revenue sharing.

Also, once people are using something and liking it, the release of new tech that is "better" doesnt mean everybody just stops using it. The network effect would keep people using it. Regardless of which specific tech is most popular, the SuperNET will presumably be offering it, so as such it represents a diversified approach as opposed to any specific component

By "revenue sharing," do you mean revenue sharing for the individual coin holders or revenue sharing for the coin developers?

currently 20% of SuperNET revenues are allocated for the coin communities, presumably they would chose to support their devs

Are UNITY holders included in this 20% of SuperNET revenues allocated for the coin communities? I am not sure since UNITY in not classified as a coin. If not, then perhaps it is best to just hold the individual coins that are already included or likely to be included in the SuperNET. I currently hold over 500 SuperNET tokens and I am trying to decided if it is best to hold UNITY or best to hold the already included or likely to be included coins.

50% of revenues go to UNITY holders

Sweet!

[ChrisSommer]

If you are an EVOLVE Shareholder, you might be interested in our new project.
Please note that this new project is going to be separate from SuperNET, with a separate shareholders base and separate funding.
This new project is only sharing a small part from net profit with EVOLVE Shareholders.

Read more: https://nxtforum.org/assets-board/(ann)-reserved/msg102002/#msg102002

Thank you,
Chris

[ChrisSommer]

We will open a few part-time jobs for long-term very soon.

- we need a blog writer for our CoinExplorer.net project;
- we need a blog writer for our CoinGigs.com project;
- we need a css web designer;
- we need a SEO engineer;

Jobs will be posted on our Freelancing marketplace in few days - CryptoHire.com
Salary, terms and other aspects to be discussed



Thank you,
Chris

[Joselito_soy_minerooo]

I also have a question.  I understand that SuperNET allows users to use features of different coins, presumably coins with the best current tech.  So let's say BBR currently has the best anon tech, but what if in the future a new coin comes out with something better and joins SuperNET.  What would happen to BBR?  Would anyone have an incentive to continue using BBR's older anon tech?  Likewise, would BBR still have an incentive to continue being in SuperNET if no one uses their anon tech?  And this goes for every other feature out there too, not just anon sending. 

Once the SuperNET support is added by a coin, then not sure why they would want to stop getting revenue sharing. It is not like the SuperNET is charging the coins, rather SuperNET is revenue sharing.

Also, once people are using something and liking it, the release of new tech that is "better" doesnt mean everybody just stops using it. The network effect would keep people using it. Regardless of which specific tech is most popular, the SuperNET will presumably be offering it, so as such it represents a diversified approach as opposed to any specific component

By "revenue sharing," do you mean revenue sharing for the individual coin holders or revenue sharing for the coin developers?

currently 20% of SuperNET revenues are allocated for the coin communities, presumably they would chose to support their devs

Are UNITY holders included in this 20% of SuperNET revenues allocated for the coin communities? I am not sure since UNITY in not classified as a coin. If not, then perhaps it is best to just hold the individual coins that are already included or likely to be included in the SuperNET. I currently hold over 500 SuperNET tokens and I am trying to decided if it is best to hold UNITY or best to hold the already included or likely to be included coins.

50% of revenues go to UNITY holders

sry, when you say UNITY, what do you mean, exactly?
I found one asset called UNITY, maybe a Scam?

thanks

[crackfoo]

I also have a question.  I understand that SuperNET allows users to use features of different coins, presumably coins with the best current tech.  So let's say BBR currently has the best anon tech, but what if in the future a new coin comes out with something better and joins SuperNET.  What would happen to BBR?  Would anyone have an incentive to continue using BBR's older anon tech?  Likewise, would BBR still have an incentive to continue being in SuperNET if no one uses their anon tech?  And this goes for every other feature out there too, not just anon sending. 

Once the SuperNET support is added by a coin, then not sure why they would want to stop getting revenue sharing. It is not like the SuperNET is charging the coins, rather SuperNET is revenue sharing.

Also, once people are using something and liking it, the release of new tech that is "better" doesnt mean everybody just stops using it. The network effect would keep people using it. Regardless of which specific tech is most popular, the SuperNET will presumably be offering it, so as such it represents a diversified approach as opposed to any specific component

By "revenue sharing," do you mean revenue sharing for the individual coin holders or revenue sharing for the coin developers?

currently 20% of SuperNET revenues are allocated for the coin communities, presumably they would chose to support their devs

Are UNITY holders included in this 20% of SuperNET revenues allocated for the coin communities? I am not sure since UNITY in not classified as a coin. If not, then perhaps it is best to just hold the individual coins that are already included or likely to be included in the SuperNET. I currently hold over 500 SuperNET tokens and I am trying to decided if it is best to hold UNITY or best to hold the already included or likely to be included coins.

50% of revenues go to UNITY holders

sry, when you say UNITY, what do you mean, exactly?
I found one asset called UNITY, maybe a Scam?

thanks

Once the IPO is over, the TOKEN is transfered into UNITY, which will be the official tradable SuperNET coin/asset

[jl777]

I also have a question.  I understand that SuperNET allows users to use features of different coins, presumably coins with the best current tech.  So let's say BBR currently has the best anon tech, but what if in the future a new coin comes out with something better and joins SuperNET.  What would happen to BBR?  Would anyone have an incentive to continue using BBR's older anon tech?  Likewise, would BBR still have an incentive to continue being in SuperNET if no one uses their anon tech?  And this goes for every other feature out there too, not just anon sending. 

Once the SuperNET support is added by a coin, then not sure why they would want to stop getting revenue sharing. It is not like the SuperNET is charging the coins, rather SuperNET is revenue sharing.

Also, once people are using something and liking it, the release of new tech that is "better" doesnt mean everybody just stops using it. The network effect would keep people using it. Regardless of which specific tech is most popular, the SuperNET will presumably be offering it, so as such it represents a diversified approach as opposed to any specific component

By "revenue sharing," do you mean revenue sharing for the individual coin holders or revenue sharing for the coin developers?

currently 20% of SuperNET revenues are allocated for the coin communities, presumably they would chose to support their devs

Are UNITY holders included in this 20% of SuperNET revenues allocated for the coin communities? I am not sure since UNITY in not classified as a coin. If not, then perhaps it is best to just hold the individual coins that are already included or likely to be included in the SuperNET. I currently hold over 500 SuperNET tokens and I am trying to decided if it is best to hold UNITY or best to hold the already included or likely to be included coins.

50% of revenues go to UNITY holders

sry, when you say UNITY, what do you mean, exactly?
I found one asset called UNITY, maybe a Scam?

thanks

some scammers have issued fake UNITY assets
The asset name will be SuperNET and it will be issued by NXT-MRBN-8DFH-PFMK-A4DBM
any other asset is a fake

To trade on an exchange you need 5 letters and SuperNET does not fit into 5 letters, so its trading symbol is UNITY but it is the SuperNET asset

[jl777]

If you are an EVOLVE Shareholder, you might be interested in our new project.
Please note that this new project is going to be separate from SuperNET, with a separate shareholders base and separate funding.
This new project is only sharing a small part from net profit with EVOLVE Shareholders.

Read more: https://nxtforum.org/assets-board/(ann)-reserved/msg102002/#msg102002

Thank you,
Chris

Due to the fact that the SuperNET will not be sending any traffic to this site and there being no direct link to SuperNET in any way for coinbooking, I cannot make a recommendation to purchase this asset.

James

[PondSea]

Right now, Chris has leveraged off the supernet brand to promote his websites. Now I cannot see anything substantial apart from sites anyone could make given enough talent and a few hundred dollars.

Instead of building the user base for the current asset, he creates a new one to get more money.

How would supernet get a return for the money it has helped generate for Chris (which he could not raise in a failed ipo before) and how would the people that purchased assets at inflated prices make their money back.

I'm saying this not out of hate or anything like that, but if this venture by Chris turns sour it would help to tarnish the supernet brand which is what I care about.

[jl777]

Right now, Chris has leveraged off the supernet brand to promote his websites. Now I cannot see anything substantial apart from sites anyone could make given enough talent and a few hundred dollars.

Instead of building the user base for the current asset, he creates a new one to get more money.

How would supernet get a return for the money it has helped generate for Chris (which he could not raise in a failed ipo before) and how would the people that purchased assets at inflated prices make their money back.

I'm saying this not out of hate or anything like that, but if this venture by Chris turns sour it would help to tarnish the supernet brand which is what I care about.

I have made advices to Chris, but apparently my English was not so easy to understand for him.

The SuperNET revenue sharing deal was for the coinevolve websites and no assets were involved. It was purely a revenue sharing arrangement.

So, for people that are assuming that these assets are having any direct relation to me or SuperNET, please understand that I am not having any influence on the asset issuings that Chris is doing. I suggest we all wait for the revenues before we make any judgements.

The coinevolve sites that are doing the revenue sharing with SuperNET will likely benefit from the SuperNET userbase

James

P.S. The asset issuer is the most important factor. The second most important is the details of the asset. You need to make sure you understand who the issuer is and what exactly the asset is for.

[ChrisSommer]

Right now, Chris has leveraged off the supernet brand to promote his websites. Now I cannot see anything substantial apart from sites anyone could make given enough talent and a few hundred dollars.

Instead of building the user base for the current asset, he creates a new one to get more money.

How would supernet get a return for the money it has helped generate for Chris (which he could not raise in a failed ipo before) and how would the people that purchased assets at inflated prices make their money back.

I'm saying this not out of hate or anything like that, but if this venture by Chris turns sour it would help to tarnish the supernet brand which is what I care about.

I have made advices to Chris, but apparently my English was not so easy to understand for him.

The SuperNET revenue sharing deal was for the coinevolve websites and no assets were involved. It was purely a revenue sharing arrangement.

So, for people that are assuming that these assets are having any direct relation to me or SuperNET, please understand that I am not having any influence on the asset issuings that Chris is doing. I suggest we all wait for the revenues before we make any judgements.

The coinevolve sites that are doing the revenue sharing with SuperNET will likely benefit from the SuperNET userbase

James

P.S. The asset issuer is the most important factor. The second most important is the details of the asset. You need to make sure you understand who the issuer is and what exactly the asset is for.

Absolutely true James.

I made it very clear that this project is separate from SuperNET and it is more of a personal project.

NOTES:

- This project is developed by CoinEvolve but it is going to be separated from SuperNET;
- This project is not sharing profit with SuperNET;
- This project is only sharing 20% from Net Profit with EVOLVE and EVOLVE2 shareholders;
- This project is going to have a separate Shareholders base and separate funding;

I only posted the project in the original thread of CoinEvolve because:

- the project is developed by coinevolve team;
- the project shares 20% profit with EVOLVE and EVOLVE2 shareholders due to the fact that CoinEvolve team invests working hours into this project;

Results in, bringing more profit to CoinEvolve, bringing more revenue to EVOLVE and EVOLVE2 shareholders.

Chris

[ChrisSommer]

I can only do one thing right now, continue the development, deliver high quality services and make everybody happy.

Chris

[ChrisSommer]

Right now, Chris has leveraged off the supernet brand to promote his websites. Now I cannot see anything substantial apart from sites anyone could make given enough talent and a few hundred dollars.

Instead of building the user base for the current asset, he creates a new one to get more money.

How would supernet get a return for the money it has helped generate for Chris (which he could not raise in a failed ipo before) and how would the people that purchased assets at inflated prices make their money back.

I'm saying this not out of hate or anything like that, but if this venture by Chris turns sour it would help to tarnish the supernet brand which is what I care about.

I'm very sorry that you feel this way PondSea but I truly believe that is not fair to talk like this until you know for sure what I can deliver or not.
Yes, I create the new asset to get more money, but not for me, for the project.

I fully dedicate my time to those projects, working full time.
Have you tried doing so with any project? Not sleeping enough, not eating well, just working full time on a project.

You should try that some day, I bet it's gonna be a lot harder for you to speak like that after the experience.

How would supernet get a return? By having me here full time working to deliver the expected services.

True, I would have not raised the funds without the SuperNET partnership, and I'm truly thankful to James and his project.

"and how would the people that purchased assets at inflated prices make their money back." Please, if you go out there and buy an asset at inflated prices, that's not my fault at all. You should do your research before buying an asset, you should know how much that service backing up that asset is going to be valued at in the future. Please don't be like that, it's not fair at all.

"I'm saying this not out of hate or anything like that, but if this venture by Chris turns sour it would help to tarnish the supernet brand which is what I care about." I don't believe this at all

Thank you,
Chris

[Cryptourologist]

Right now, Chris has leveraged off the supernet brand to promote his websites. Now I cannot see anything substantial apart from sites anyone could make given enough talent and a few hundred dollars.

Instead of building the user base for the current asset, he creates a new one to get more money.

How would supernet get a return for the money it has helped generate for Chris (which he could not raise in a failed ipo before) and how would the people that purchased assets at inflated prices make their money back.

I'm saying this not out of hate or anything like that, but if this venture by Chris turns sour it would help to tarnish the supernet brand which is what I care about.

Concern troll detected... It only takes to 2 seconds to find the keywords.

[visual111]

Right now, Chris has leveraged off the supernet brand to promote his websites. Now I cannot see anything substantial apart from sites anyone could make given enough talent and a few hundred dollars.

Instead of building the user base for the current asset, he creates a new one to get more money.

How would supernet get a return for the money it has helped generate for Chris (which he could not raise in a failed ipo before) and how would the people that purchased assets at inflated prices make their money back.

I'm saying this not out of hate or anything like that, but if this venture by Chris turns sour it would help to tarnish the supernet brand which is what I care about.

Concern troll detected... It only takes to 2 seconds to find the keywords.

people have such a loose concept of words like "troll" and "fud"; they have become meaningless


it's good to see people making critical posts. if nobody posted their concerns with projects here, this place would deteriorate into scam city quickly. developers need to be put on the spot more

[sparta_cuss]

Right now, Chris has leveraged off the supernet brand to promote his websites. Now I cannot see anything substantial apart from sites anyone could make given enough talent and a few hundred dollars.

Instead of building the user base for the current asset, he creates a new one to get more money.

How would supernet get a return for the money it has helped generate for Chris (which he could not raise in a failed ipo before) and how would the people that purchased assets at inflated prices make their money back.

I'm saying this not out of hate or anything like that, but if this venture by Chris turns sour it would help to tarnish the supernet brand which is what I care about.

Concern troll detected... It only takes to 2 seconds to find the keywords.

people have such a loose concept of words like "troll" and "fud"; they have become meaningless


it's good to see people making critical posts. if nobody posted their concerns with projects here, this place would deteriorate into scam city quickly. developers need to be put on the spot more

Amen.
We risk becoming a cult where everyone is afraid to say anything critical, and everyone else is focused on outing the naysayers.

[AliMan]

So we're heading another week before closing the ICO?
I heard we're at 5100BTC....

[allwelder]

some scammers have issued fake UNITY assets
The asset name will be SuperNET and it will be issued by NXT-MRBN-8DFH-PFMK-A4DBM
any other asset is a fake

To trade on an exchange you need 5 letters and SuperNET does not fit into 5 letters, so its trading symbol is UNITY but it is the SuperNET asset

Thanks for clarification.

[13Darko]

So we're heading another week before closing the ICO?

Ye, can you clarify plz when it's going to be closed?

[victorteoh]

When is the official last date of the ICO? Since 2 -4 weeks is very vague