Quote from: maritimo123 on November 26, 2017, 12:38:03 PM

Quote from: panorama on November 26, 2017, 03:07:21 AM

Quote from: maritimo123 on November 25, 2017, 04:28:37 AM

Quote from: mandibleclaw on November 23, 2017, 06:18:44 PM

So new roadmap is out, what do you think? Let's be honest, I was expeting those dates, a company can't set up legal and liquidity things in just a couple of month. I can surely wait, better if they take time to make things right

True. Timing is normal.

And let's not forget they initially had planned for 8 MM USD budget and they cut to 3MM USD to benefit the token holders with that extra USD 5 Million.

I have not seen any other ICO company doing the same and I see some people here being unreasonable.

LOL. They cut their budget because they were basically forced to. Aside from the pressure put on them to address the issue, if they didn't do anything, they would have had an $8 million budget and only $3 million to invest. That's obviously not good economics.

Plus, they've either been unwilling or unable to show the breakdown behind the $3 million budget. They provided detail when it was $8 million, so not sure why it's not provided with the updated budget.

To their credit, Melissa messaged me privately to ask what they could do to help show me they are a capable team and I outlined a couple of the specific issues I have. We've actually messaged about things like this before, so I know she's trying...I just don't know if the team behind her is good enough.

Also, the Telegram group has started banning people who ask questions, including myself. I know I've been critical of the team, but I take pride in making sure everything I say is based on fact. It's not a good sign that they are banning people who ask questions.

Well, you mention they were forced to cut their budget by USD 5 Million but imho, they were not, and they could just have followed what they said in their whitepaper... they just chose the best economics for us token holders, not for them. That just is a huge sign of good faith for me.

Also, they did not ban anyone they just shut down the group as they explained and I am glad they did. Too much spam, phising and whining like it happened in the Slack groups.

I didn't mean that they were literally forced. They could have technically left it as-is, but spending $8 million on a platform that has $3 million to invest would have been unreasonable. My point was that not hitting their soft cap "forced" them to do something.

I give them credit for addressing the problem, but I think it's something most companies would have done as well. I'm fairly sure they wouldn't have cut their budget so significantly if they had raised what they expected.