Re: [ANN][CrowdSale Ended]🌟🌟🌟🌟 NVO Decentralized Exchange | MultiWallet 🌟🌟🌟🌟
It's nice to see the forum getting along so well 
I also remain skeptical about being able to replicate SAFENET with Safenet10.0 it is a 10+ year project and still in development for a reason. Now admittedly I don't understand the coding and network side of hows its built so there maybe there is some way it can be done that I'm not aware of. I would make the project open source through github; otherwise it does come off as brash and arrogant to raise millions for a promised project built on the network essentially saying "Hey we trust this network enough to build our project on it" then turn around and say "Wait nevermind the project is too disorganized and cluttered to build our project on it so we're going to build the project on our own network." That sounds both very unrealistic and makes the team look disorganized on top of it because now the roadmap and details have changed and that in turn makes NVO look like a pipe dream to investors. I would offer either a refund to those that want it as the terms of the roadmap have changed by a huge degree and open source the projects if you haven't already to show you are as serious can be to bring this project to life.
I also remain skeptical about being able to replicate SAFENET with Safenet10.0 it is a 10+ year project and still in development for a reason. Now admittedly I don't understand the coding and network side of hows its built so there maybe there is some way it can be done that I'm not aware of. I would make the project open source through github; otherwise it does come off as brash and arrogant to raise millions for a promised project built on the network essentially saying "Hey we trust this network enough to build our project on it" then turn around and say "Wait nevermind the project is too disorganized and cluttered to build our project on it so we're going to build the project on our own network." That sounds both very unrealistic and makes the team look disorganized on top of it because now the roadmap and details have changed and that in turn makes NVO look like a pipe dream to investors. I would offer either a refund to those that want it as the terms of the roadmap have changed by a huge degree and open source the projects if you haven't already to show you are as serious can be to bring this project to life.I sort of agree. Refunds must be facilitated upon request if the investors lose trust in the devs and their approach.
However, this is just the first month after the ico ended and devs changing their mind about the base of the platform is alarming, it is not a step backwards. What is alarming indeed is the fact that this comes out within the first month after ico ended. I would lave hoped that the NVO devs had close contact with the SAFE team and knew what they're getting themselves into before announcing "Hey, - I"VE GOT THIS" sort of attitude.
I really wonder how this will turn out...
There is a missunderstanding here, no one received a refund demand, Ton sent private messages to all the users who wanted to be refunded, no one answered, however we received a message from Jabba saying that people want to be refunded, while he haven't invested. It means that it is just a way to destabilize NVO and its investors.
Secondly, the roadmap haven't changed, even on the website. It is normal to have problems at the begining as we started to work, we demanded an architecture which is normal but we have been unable to find it.
As soon as we finish to stabilize the global architecture we will push it on github, it is not a problem.
Architecture ==> Requirements ==> Skills ==> Recruitments ==> Estimated delivery time ==> Roadmap ==> This is how does it works.
This is why i asked the safe architecture, but they don't have it, which caused some issues. From the side of NVO without maidsafe, the architecture is already made, you may have seen on the screen, you should have an idea about the features of the wallet, which means there was an architecture, requirements, skills.
Now for the validator, i said that i will use blockstream tech, as element lets you use a sidechain who's purpose is to record trading informations to let people trade offline in a decentralized storage. I am working on this architecture, how to fully decentralize it, how not to keep controle over it. This is why i asked for a maidsafe architecture, the safe launcher have been replaced by safe browser, forked from https://github.com/beakerbrowser/beaker , i know about the next developments related to browsers as they want to change the way we use APIs and websockets, browsers want to implement the usage of P2P technologies and use them instead. My problematic here is that i don't want to get access to the private keys, this is why i talk about a decentralized exhcange, no one should have access to any information.
I am not interested by self-encryption, i want to kepp nothing on the user-side, i checked it, and it is not what i was looking for, this is why i asked an architecture to know the full features, where will it go.
It is totally legitimate to ask for such a document. I asked for this document as would have helped me to bring developers for maidsafe in order to work on the issues, the unfinished code, and what haven't started yet.
Meanwhile, as i haven't got the document, i have a second project with personal working on it, i found solutions there and though it would be helpful, it is legitimate too, it would bring a fresh air in the project, but it went in a drama.
I never said that we won't use maidsafe, as i can't help them, can't offer a technology, i can just wait, i said that in 4 months if they are not ready we will have to check for a different technology, and it have been said during the crowdsale.