Quote from: Jepli on December 02, 2018, 11:22:49 PM

Quote from: Jarvis Edge on December 02, 2018, 06:17:20 PM

Quote from: Rigorous on December 02, 2018, 04:21:49 PM

Quote from: Jarvis Edge on December 02, 2018, 02:35:36 PM

Quote from: pynetx on December 02, 2018, 01:27:19 PM

What's the point of having an ICO if the token is already on the exchange?

We do not plan to list the token before it can distribute value. We do not want to do the same "mistake" as other ICO: listing your token without any product or utility. This is what caused the -99% performance of most of the 2017/2018 ICO tokens.

I think pynetx means: who is going to buy tokens through the ICO if they can get them cheaper on the secondary market?

- ICO price is higher than market price: nobody buys ICO tokens
- ICO price is lower than market price: tokens will be dumped on the market until below ICO price

In both cases: supply increases, therefore market price goes down.

It is true, and I regret it because for us it is more important that the token is bought during the ICO; buying the token after does not help the project, in the best case it increases the liquidity of the token.

But, we have another strategy :

> first, we do not list the token right after the ICO, we will wait to make a good launch, to increase the demand in the token. Listing a token without product and without traction is basically throwing away the value of the toke; hence we will list the token only on our exchange, and few month after our products are live.

> then, buying the token during the ICO gives way more advantages: it gives you a special status, so you get more revenue, more commissions, as example, at the moment we plan on giving back 25% of our revenue to token holders : 20% to every token holders, 4% only share among ICO participants and 1% shared only between private sale participant (202 persons will basically share 1% of the revenue). We are studying the possibility to keep the 25% but to change the allocation to benefit more people supporting the project. Therefore, it is more interesting to participate in the ICO rather than after. It is normal to give more value and reward to the people who makes it possible.

ICO were made to support a project, not to speculate.

Its good to know that you've already have a plan to mitigate events where in token price could be unhealthy and I share your resolve in protecting the interest of the project's stake holders as it could have an overall positive effect to the project itself.

Yes! And the interests of contributors!

A lot of very good project have listed their token way before their product launch. As a result they lost 90 to 95%... so they would need to make +900% to +1900% in order to be at break even... Worst, most of these ICOs will launch a product where the token is finally not really needed... they will try to invent new token economic to try to give some utility to the token, without thinking that the velocity will never allow the token to rise, and at the end, investors will lose while the company is making money.

I think a lot of ICOs, to calm down their contributors, will then decide to switch to a security token to redistribute their real revenue, that they will mainly make in Fiat...

This is not the case for every utility token of course; some of them are very important, and are at the heart of the project, they are an incentive to maintain the code or to reward masternode as example.

So protecting the money of our contributors is as important as making the project works. And the best way to protect it is to not list the token before it gets traction.