Quote from: sambuki on March 05, 2018, 10:46:11 AM

Quote from: Axcel-m on March 05, 2018, 09:57:08 AM

Quote from: king_of_alts on March 05, 2018, 09:52:49 AM

Quote from: jonnytracker on March 05, 2018, 08:46:38 AM

Quote from: cevap on March 05, 2018, 08:22:37 AM

Quote from: ImTotya on March 04, 2018, 07:23:01 PM

Quote from: Korsakopf on March 04, 2018, 12:40:08 PM

I think there should be either a video explaining the project in layman terms or a short whitepaper that explains the basic principles of the project. But i do believe they should keep the current whitepaper. Clearly a lot of work has gone into it and people who have enough experience and knowledge in the medical sector will be able to judge the project on all the details.

Here's their youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDOXlcfFnSTVRlkqy8kojWA There is all the necessary information about the project. Both short and long videos)

We need more reviews from trusted sources since it hard to go trough the whole white paper. They need to find a way to reach all the readers and viewers to make sure they maximize their investors base.

which are the trusted sources, most news articles are paid and they only review it

That's true. I think many people would like a video summary from a third party. Maybe some well-known ICO review channel.

But most times they are also not indipendent. They also need the information from the developers and stay in contact with them. And the effort is much to create these videos.

To find an independent party which make honest ICO's reviews will be so hard. Self research is the best way to be used in this business and we can use as more sources as possible before making the final decision.

The sooner people realise that there are no truly independent reviewers, the better. No one is immune to the allure of free money, and all a dev team needs to do is to promise some compensation to reviewers in exchange for an extra positive spin.