Quote from: o0o0 on June 20, 2016, 01:02:51 AM

Quote from: korvas128 on June 20, 2016, 12:50:27 AM

Quote from: o0o0 on June 19, 2016, 11:40:44 PM

Quote from: Phildo on June 19, 2016, 11:17:47 PM

I think korvas is trying to say that 33% of purchases made from a game tied into ION is worth more than 100% of the purchases if the game wasn't tied into ION, and I have no idea why he would think that.

Why would an established ion user/believer make purchases in this game, wouldn't they want to get $10 worth of ION for $10 instead of $3.33?

I think this is incorrect. Korvas is trying to say that
- on the app store alone you might get 70% of the price but
- being through ionomy you make more because more exposure more people to drive sales. He's therefore saying that ion based projects will make 3 times as much at least for bulk purchasers.

However this is pure speculation from korvas as the ion team nor him have stated how they actually drive that traffic. This is pure hogwash as they haven't shown a model for such a thing. Their community is small so i don't think 1-100 downloads added if all people download will drive it.

Ion owners don't want to spend money on the games... they want to increase their ion price through OTHERS paying for the game stuff.

Korvas... how is it that ion is driving this 3 x exposure and customers? Is that what you are saying on your margin stuff? That devs will want to do that as it gives them 3x as many downloads?

So how is that ionomy is going to force a dev to pay them? Run all apps through their dev account so they get paid then pay the sub dev? This angle would be sketchy as you rely on ionomy paying you and would have to forfeit your source to them to upload.

An honesty system where dev pays ionomy?

Since ionomy is sub selling are they going to pay all the relevant taxes on behalf of the dev? Is this going to run through the current not public company? Each change opens just so many more questions up and i still believe the shills aren't doing true due dilligence like mr coins says he was. But hey they have and won't share with others cause they want more people to blindly invest rather than share their due dilligence that shows how good it is right?

Your both right it's speculation. Unless your a BTC day trader isn't all crypto investment today speculation. Like I've always said I'm not here to encourage investment you guys know why I post.

Not enough info for you to do due diligence.... don't invest. The business model sucks..... don't invest

Data for due diligence is not rocket science, If you don't have enough data it's cause they don't need your money.

Incorrect and you should know that... If you don't have enough data its cause they don't need your money,... thats a lie all companies want your money. Are you saying Garza didn't need peoples money? He gave no info where possible. Its because he had no data.... Its possible if no data is provided then there is no chance to make it look bad and hence more of a chance to get people on their own speculations.

On your first point i'd like you to clarify.. Team ion and ionomy give no real information so are you saying that people shouldn't invest?

On your first point i'd like you to clarify.. Team ion and ionomy give no real information so are you saying that people shouldn't invest?

No that's what your saying not me, I'm saying if you don't have enough data to make an informed decision your happy with then don't invest, there's no rush. Gravity is not that far from release and that I think will cover some of your points about a viable business model.