..In conclusion, a sceptic might think that this is just a very well organised scam. You could have set up a really nice website, put together a business plan for an idea which is actually really good, paid for a subscription to OmniSport and got your logo on their website, and made a bunch of claims which can't really be proven until the start of the 2017/18 football season.
With regards to your other questions, they all seem to relate to transparency & more in depth information about the team involved. I think many of those questions are valid.
However there is clearly an enormous amount of work and money that has gone into the project so far in terms of website, wallet, platform and other development. So I'm personally satisfied it's very unlikely to be a scam.
I would be interested to hear people's thoughts on how much work and money has actually gone in to what we are able to see so far.
It is possible that time and money has been invested to get this project to a stage where it
LOOKS like it has everything ready for the start of the season in 3 months. Here is what we currently have:
A nice looking front-end website.
A database of players etc which has been used and tested by a few hundred of the members here.
Counterparty wallet and XFC integration
Subscription to OmniSport to provide a news ticker
On the basis of the above, 150 million XFC are being sold.
If we assume a very low rate of 1 XFC = $0.02 USD then this ICO will net $3 million USD.
If you were an elaborate scammer then how much would you be willing to spend on preparing a nice-looking shell for a potential return of $3 million? $50k? $100k? more?
+
Maybe I've drastically underestimated how much money it would cost to do what has been done so far. Maybe I've got my figures wrong and my argument makes no sense.
Either way, I would welcome comments from members who have the knowledge and experience of what it takes to get a project to the stage that FootballCoin is currently at.
I have seen a wide range of crypto ICO's since 2013, most legitimate projects have very little to show at the initial fundraising round, other than a whitepaper, it's also not that unusual for a certain amount of anonymity. Scams often have even less to show & appear out of nowhere with what is often just a copy of a product that has recently been successful.
While MonacoCard isn't a scam, that's a good example of how a scam would look. TKN raises $15 million in <30 minutes and then a few weeks later, with less than one days notice, MonacoCard comes along with very similar product and presentations that could have been created in a few days, bombards the market with ICO advertising, thinking they should at least be able to raise a few million dollars given TKN's results, which they have.
While the relative anonymity may be indicative of legal concerns/caution of some sort, such as licensing/restrictive covenants/laws surrounding crypto ICOs
XFC is probably in the top 5% in terms of level of development, quality of website,content and concept. Add in the fact that they've spent two months engaging with the community and getting people to participate in the games, they're clearly attempting to create a genuine product and bootstrap it imo.
Thank you for taking the time to respond. You make some good points about other ICO's.
Do you think the platform in its current state would be able to handle an influx of 10's of thousands of new users (or more) and be able to work properly?