Quote from: peterauthorship on August 27, 2017, 06:18:08 PM

Quote from: cryptomipher on August 27, 2017, 06:12:09 PM

Just stumbled on this... and Something is off with this ICO.

The address Authorship wants people to send ETH to is: 0x3aae4da9A22d518996031791D3Bd61f45DEf6aC7

However, that address is NOT a contract address, it's a straight up wallet address:

https://etherscan.io/address/0x3aae4da9a22d518996031791d3bd61f45def6ac7

please explain!

Hi,
This was posted a few pages ago, here is the explanation:

About the ICO address, yes, it's not a contract address and this is something many ICOs use instead of a contract. The reasons are various, but for our particular case:

-unlike ICOs that have an infinite supply of issued tokens, we don't. We have a fixed supply volume of 100M tokens.

-some ICOs have a predetermined token price. We don't. 1 ETH = 2000 ATS minimum, but it can get higher than this based on the total amount raised. (please look on out page to see how it gets calculated)

-besides ETH, we also accept credit card and wire deposits. A contract could not handle that.

-a smart contract could have not handled our referral bounty campaign. The free ATS tokens have to be distributed manually.

-right about the time when we were deciding if we should go with a contract or an address and how things should be, there were a few instance of exploited contracts and we wanted to make sure we don't risk it. An address poses no such security risks.

PS: Our ATS tokens contract source code is verified on etherscain.io as well.

Regards,
Peter

Honestly, none of the reasons you mentioned qualify. In fact they prove the contrary, the reason a Smart Contract is CREATED, is to make sure:
- fixed supply volume is respected!
- the price value changing
- It is true a Smart Contract is only for ETH, however that is definetly not an excuse not to have a Smart Contract. I would rather use ETH on a publicly available smart contract than an Address!
- Yes a Smart Contract can allocate for bounties... (seriously?)
- An address (mostly probably no even a multi-sig address) is the worst possible trust you can have.

I call this ICO a SCAM!

The reply from the owner of that address makes the matter clearer.