So if the team has enough money to buy into their own ICO, then why do they need the ICO in the first place? Isn't the biggest part here, raising enough BTC to pay for the development of the software in the first place?
I thought they were pinching pennies here. Is there any open documentation relating to how much money they spent buying into their own ICO?
I mean, they set a minimum of what? $300000 in BTC value? If they had all this money to buy their own ICO, surely they could have lowered this needed 300000 to further development on their project!
Where's the open ledger showing their funds?
don't you see: the more they buy into their own ico the better for them because: impression of more demand and more coins for them since they get the spent bitcoins back in the end - it's
their ico after all. Does the penny drop?
Ipo/ico in crypto easiest (and undetectable if you're not fully dumb) large scale opportunity to scam with next to no risk of getting caught in the entire human history.
People who send their coins to such presales must be retarded tbh.
Developing something costs Pizza and rent for a flat. You don't need 300k for developement. Are they actually hiring Stephen Hawking or what? For 300k dev fund you could let a team of professors and astronauts work it out.
I get that, but why offer people an unfinished product due to lack of funding, that they promise to finish? Technically speaking, it sounds like they're selling them something with zero value, as the product is unfinished and unusable, under the impression that it will be finished when they can pay for development.
If they can pay for the development already, then why are we selling people something that is not a finished product, and not even in a usable state, giving the impression that the only reason the product isn't finished is because they don't have enough money, and then saying that they need your money so they can put money aside to buy their own token?
I'm just not seeing it, it's not adding up.
I mean, what's stopping them from buying the entire $300000 minimum of the ITO in the first place, so they don't have to refund people, to secure all extra money of an unsuspecting buyer which might have been $300000 anyways?
Im just looking for a transparent ledger is all.
Regardless of the actual cost of development, I'd expect the ledger to show the spending for that as well, because even if it costs only a few thousand to finish the software, they can put the difference toward further improving the product, maybe even propose a 'bonus' for getting it done on time and exceeding expectations?
It looks like we're skipping right to the 'bonus' and cutting out everything inbetween, but I don't have a transparent ledger to verify that.
Why else host an ITO?
What if something happens, and it becomes impossible to finish this? Wouldn't they have wanted to protect people in case something catastrophic happens and it doesn't get done, especially if they already have the funding to do it themselves?
If they can already make the cheese, then why am I still being milked?
