Quote from: The Zet on December 22, 2017, 10:38:15 PM

Quote from: Goldsheik on December 22, 2017, 06:37:14 PM

I told you a week ago that this is a bad scamcoin. You didn't listen. You still won't listen because you're idiots.. I'm an actual scientist like I said in my previous posts and I'm telling you, anyone with half a brain can tell this coin is BAD.

1. This coin doesn't offer anything. It's based on the idea that we collect money to scientific projects. That's it. It's a normal benefit fund that doesn't even need to be in cryptocurrency form. Ask yourself, is this a better payment method for the future than Litecoin, Dash or Monero for example? Does it offer new functionalities like Ethereum, ARK, BAT and so many others? No.

2. Even the name is bad. The team is bad. The partnership teams are bad. Einsteinium is already the name for an element. Why choose a name that is already taken? The team doesn't even consist of scientists. The partnership teams are not scientific groups.

3. The rise from #150 to #50 was a pump and dump. Now it's going down after you guys are done funding somebody's Lamborghini.

4. The price went up partially because the devs promised "amazing news". This of course was just an attempt to make you spend more money on this coin. So easy to trick money from you. Just a few words.

I wouldn't mind responding to you since you're proven FUDster, but for the sake of other people, it would be bad if your lies remained unanswered.

1. It actually does. By your logic, none cryptocurrency shouldn't exist, since all the thing they advocate, are already in use. Why using cryptos, if we already have banks, for example?...

2. Respectfully, that is only your opinion. Nothing more. You may like coin's name, or not, but it's very egocentric to force your opinion as valid. Personally, I find science-related coin named Einsteinium, with the EMC2 ticker, quite witty. The team is excellent. Everything they've done so far was good for coins development. Why, on earth, would presence of scientist, be important at this stage of the project? I assume they (will) consult some scientist, but that is not crucial at this point. What input could a scientist have on the development of mobile wallet, for example? See my point? Imho, scientific groups shouldn't ever be "partnership team". It's fine to have the logistic support of some college, but partnership should be made with a company that would improve EMC2's position through a technical upgrade.

3/4. The rise was due to scheduled HF. Since BTC/BCH fork this August, forks became new ICO's. Hence all the hype.
I agree though, they shouldn't use "mind-blowing" description for the announcement. Being tech guy myself, I agree that announcement was huge eventually, but for regular investors, a far bigger thing would be if the Emc2 logo could be seen on the Formula 1 car (or any other fancy but easily pointless thing). All the hype was created by investors themselves. Even Djnocide commented on Telegram, that EMC2/NASA partnership logo is bad photoshop. Not to mention denial of Apple rumors...

Whoever had even remote trading experience, knew what to expect before the fork, after the fork and after the announcement. Regarding an announcement, I sold it at 13.5k. I regret only I bought little under 8k. I underestimated weak hands...

Very constructive answer and I would have to side with you on many of the points you raised.
If people do not fully understand markets they should stop trading.