Quote from: manzamanna on August 19, 2017, 07:31:37 AM

Quote from: DisLedger on August 18, 2017, 12:19:21 PM

Quote from: manzamanna on August 18, 2017, 05:51:33 AM

Quote from: DisLedger on August 15, 2017, 05:17:06 PM

Quote from: manzamanna on August 15, 2017, 04:54:11 PM

Quote from: DisLedger on August 14, 2017, 12:01:00 PM

There is a cap on launch day of 15% of the token supply which is 4.5 million DCL tokens out of a supply of 30 million.
The reserve of 25.5 million tokens will still be available so customers will have enough to cover their operational demand.

So you will sell tokens directly to customers from your reserve. It implies the price will not be decided by market value.
Additionally, this poses you in a position of conflict of interests, where you may want to sell you (free) tokens in the market, just to cash.
This is clearly a pre-mined scheme, which may lead to legal consequences, unless you prove the contrary.

Your statements show a lack of understanding of token launches, business, or legal issues.

Please keep your uninformed thoughts to yourself.

Then why don't you inform us, instead of being so defensive without proving the contrary?
Please clarify what you will do with all those "premined" unsold tokens you said "will be available to customers"

There is nothing to be defensive about regarding the release of tokens over time as it is clearly articulated in the documentation. 15% of tokens are available on launch and 85% will be released from the reserve over time because we need a supply of approximately 30 million tokens (30 billion transactions).

I will not accept the labeling of the company a scheme - it is not. I will push back forcefully against your inaccurate characterization because it does nothing to aid in the analysis of DisLedger's technology or token launch. DisLedger is a respected organization that has been in business for a long time (in DLT space) and will continue to provide service to our customers for a long time.

You are attempting to cast Fear Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) on the company with vague assertions of 'legal consequences, unless you prove the contrary.' That's a ridiculous, unsupported statement, only intended to harm the company, and not a valid critique. There are actual attorneys, who are renowned in this space, working on the legal and regulatory issues related to the token launch. The attorneys will submit their analysis of the regulatory issues to document how DisLedger satisfies the requirements.

I only respond to this post to let other readers know that DisLedger is committed to transparency and abiding by applicable regulations. We like to discuss the technology and accept valid criticism of it... but in the future we won't be engaging with FUD or flame postings.

No need to be so defensive, really. I just noted that, by holding tokens in a reserve for later re-selling them directly to customers, people that bought tokens during the ICO will have no guarantees on their future value. After the ICO, you will be able to sell your reserve at a judgmental price. If (for example) you may need some liquidity for business operations (or any other possible reason), you may want to incentive to buy part of your reserve at a lower price than the ICO or the market price, this will indirectly depreciate the tokens that have been bought during the ICO. This is just an example, my concern is regarding the risks related with the reserve. Normally other ICO projects "burn" unsold tokens to protect investors from this risk and avoid "pre-mine" accusations.

I am not saying yours is a scheme, I just said that it can be seen as a "pre-mined" scheme, I am just offering you the opportunity to clarify.
Regarding the spreading of FUD, this is not the case: I would not be here asking legitimate questions, otherwise.

Lots of coins are pre-mined what's the problem with that?
If they need 30 million tokens why would they burn the unsold ones?
Investors get to buy the coins cheap then the company can sell the ones they own later so they are incentivized to keep the price high too.
Calling something a scheme is rude I can see why they don't like it.