Quote from: drawingthesun on May 03, 2017, 07:58:28 AM

Quote from: snowboard789 on May 03, 2017, 07:21:31 AM

Some basic questions:

1) On github the main developer is 1 and only 1, zack with some few lines of code from the project leader. Projects that have 1 coder and 10 marketing/advisores etc fail IMO. How is this scalable?

2) When someone participated in the first ICO phase he paid 1ETH=30$ for 1000 ae tokens. Now he will pay 1ETH=85$ for 800 ae tokens.

This is not 1000->800 but really 0.03 -> 0.10 difference or put it another way getting 3 times less ae tokens for your money.

Since ae mainnet is not live, this creates a paradox of a coin tripling its market value *before launch* just because another coin used for the ICO increased in price.

For sure this can't be right with economic analysis.

Perhaps, however as you know most people invest and count gains against the big boys, BTC and ETH.

If AE were to change it so the second round got a better ETH deal, I think there would be a big problem with that.

Am I talking my book? Sure, but that is what everyone does.

Honestly I never actually invested that much, but if they turned around and said the second round got a better ETH deal, I would ask for a refund.

Why? Because people invested in round one already knowing the details for round two, in fact everyone did, that was already on the ICO page, what the ETH price for round two is going to be.

So it would be a major f**k you to the investors to go back on their word.

My argument holds for BTC and USD. You mean that people will be satisfied that they "lost" money in BTC and USD but are OK in terms of ETH only?

That would make die hard fans of eth and this project is actually another eth implementation so it creates and even bigger paradox