[...] it was obviously under advertised [...]
This is brilliant.
But you should not leave us laughing without providing your definition of "under advertised".
Let me guess:
- Under advertised = I missed an opportunity for trading profits.
- Balanced advertised = I made small profit.
- Perfectly advertised = I made huge profit.
Was the turnaround of Apple also under advertised? Was Nokia maybe over advertised?
Keep'em coming
Keep laughing whilst the majority of the board keeps considering it a poorly advertised ICO compared to the other large ICO's on this board.
Let's compare apples with apples.
Why don't you spend some time comparing IOTA's ico with ethereum, lisk, waves, maid, etc rather than trying divert to other pointless comparisons.
Remember this LISK has 16x IOTA's development budget. They can hire a far superior team, they can create a far superior product. Lisk is like 30M cap. The unrealistic figures thrown around the iota insider ico scam are ridiculous.
Is lisk better than IOTA? who can say but at least they gave a far better opportunity for everyone to invest as did ethereum. I did not invest in ethereum and yet I can not say it looks like an insider scam ICO because of the POW phase. Hinting I am ONLY calling iota out for being an insider ico scam because i did not invest is not a valid claim.
Release it. Let's see it tested in the wild. Let's see how secure it is and what the pros and cons are. If it is even useful and if it is secure then hopefully someone else just clones it and conducts a fairer initial distribution.
Man, didn't know that Waves and Maid had ICOs - must have been totally under advertised.
Probably they hid it from me on purpose.
Honestly I've never heard of most coins on Poloniex - totally under advertised stuff. Mean.
Try harder and please finally show us your whitepaper "how to advertise correctly".