Quote from: holydarkness on March 22, 2019, 11:25:53 AM

Quote from: conicoin on March 21, 2019, 08:55:20 AM

Quote from: holydarkness on March 12, 2019, 09:16:01 PM

Quote from: conicoin on March 12, 2019, 07:14:27 PM

Quote from: holydarkness on March 08, 2019, 02:40:11 PM

Regarding third party NDA, yes it is unlikely indeed, but it doesn't mean it's impossible. There still will some probability it'll happen. So what'll be your solution?

And regarding privacy, it's actually not a point that I asked, but your explanation sparked a curiosity on my mind, suppose a project require their investors to do kyc in the middle of their ICO, where they were not asking this at thr stsrt, will the investor allowed to leave with all their funds?

As we have explained before, If during the ICO integration our partner is forced to introduce any additional privacy rules, we will carry out the necessary changes to the list of commitments, inform our clients of the update and in case of NDA breach come up with some other kind of actions verification. After all, the investor should be notified by the ICO team of integration with our platform and act accordingly.

Based on your second question, you have not quite grasped the idea of our project. Let us go through once again. If our Clients face any kind of condition that does not meet their expectations/acceptance criteria(being that a newly introduced KYC, that they for some reason want to avoid, or any other reason), they are free to withdraw the invested money and un-hold the purchased tokens.

To avoid confusion and focusing more on the topic, I'd like to keep the second topic away for now and discuss more on the first one. If I may give an example,

ABCoin is a breakthrough project on medical sector that try to achieve healthier life. They requested ICO from your service, and managed to collect 30% of their hard-cap from the ICO. However, at the same time, private investors also interested on their project, amd fund them with something worth 65% of the hard-cap. And as project goes by during the funding, ABCoin developed so much that now they have an elixir for immortality. However, this needs to be kept hidden as the private investors don't want each of their competitors to know they're on the lead of something. Thus, an NDA where they may not give updates about their development or even date of token unlock until the product is finalized, even to your team. Which lead us to a situation where:

1. iCO investors only know that the softcap is reached and project should be successful, but their token is still locked until god-know-when.
2. ABCoin can only give "please wait for update, we will announce once available.
3. Your team only got a slightly better info about update as in "we're in the middle of something big with big companies. Please wait."

On this situation, without knowing that ABCoin is in the middle of something big, and there already 1 year passed since their presale event, most people will assume it is a scam, even your team will mostly think it is, due to the long stretch and intense silence, although in fact, it was not and it was truly a big project. Yet the stretch made ICO investors demand to declare the project as scam and their funds liquidated.

Interesting example. We think that this situation is highly unlikely, but for the sake of mental experiment, let's discuss it.

In case when the ICO project has some secret breakthrough technology in stock and the interest of a Big Secret Investor or simply needs to start KYC, we will merely stay consistent in our solution - we openly transfer this message to the Clients. Then there are 2 scenarios: the Client can either go through the KYC process as expected by the Big Secret Investor and the ICO team or return their money. We think, that this is the fairest way in this case because it rests with our Client to decide what to do.

If during or before the integration period a widely known Company invests money in the project, a logical step would be to disclose the name of this Company. The name of the Company and its relation to the project will in itself be a guarantee of project teams intentions and commitments.

In case if the Company investing into the ICO project is not widely-known or its name is irrelevant for the overall reputation of the project (Secret Affiliate Company) and at the same time we have the "conspiracy" scenario going on, we are not sure that this kind of project is worth the risk. Judge for yourself: no information on the project, no commitments, unknown deadlines. This project would be both useless and be a blow to our reputation.

On the other hand, if we get in touch with the Big Secret investor, we might as well offer them our services and sign the NDA on our side. All three sides would benefit from this arrangement: the ICO team receives a guarantee of timely payment for the work done, the Investing Company has a backup plan in case something goes wrong, we receive an opportunity to build up our reputation.

Uhh... Actually, I'd like to leave the KYC case for now to be revisited later at a separate and different case. The case I'm currently discussing about is a project that's funded by 2 sources: by crypto-investors (namely, us, the user of your service) and by real-world investor (which ends up funding at a larger proportion).

With this established, the story developed to a situation where the real world investors demanded a complete secrecy, where development is limited for their consumption only, for the sake of protecting secret from competitor, which leaves the crypto investors (and indirectly, your platform too) in the dark for a really long time.

The interesting part is, this is actually a real story. I don't feel comfortable disclosing the name, for the fear of being considered as bad mouthing, but there is this project that stretched their token release for perhaps 8-9 months from ICO, and leave their crypto investors in dark because they're binded by NDA of real-world investors. Maybe you have an idea of what project I talked about as some crypto reviewer(s) declare them as one of the longest ICO. If I'm not mistaken, their project began in early 2018, ICO concluded on mid 2018, and here in Q1 2019, token release just happened one month ago, and they're not on any CEX yet.To be fair, it seems they deliver a really big project, given the indication of which "companies" are involved with them

In our case this problem will be solved by the following scenario. As you have mentioned crypto-investors knew that the ICO has some investment from a real-world investor. This fact can be the reason to believe in the project, if the real-word investor has a Big name", if it does not, crypto-investors are free to decide whether or not they want to have tokens of a company that does not wish to disclose information about it's performance and keep the option to return their funds if it's needed