Quote from: ChrisSommer on September 16, 2014, 11:35:19 AM

Quote from: PondSea on September 16, 2014, 11:12:10 AM

Quote from: ChrisSommer on September 16, 2014, 09:51:49 AM

Quote from: PondSea on September 16, 2014, 09:45:06 AM

I will respond later to the posts above but I hope James rejects that offer. I will elaborate as soon as I get the kids off to bed.

You have hopes which are against investors interest.
Why are acting like this? I don't get this at all.

You elaborate? Like this? "Right now, Chris has leveraged off the supernet brand to promote his websites. Now I cannot see anything substantial apart from sites anyone could make given enough talent and a few hundred dollars."

Please, at least raise conclusive concerns, based on facts and written clearly for everybody to understand.

Thank you,
Chris

Hello Chris,

Sorry i do apologise for not elaborating earlier.

My understanding of the agreement between supernet and evolve was purely for profit sharing. Since this agreement was done you have been able to sell 1.4million assets at 0.6 NXT each meaning you received about 60BTC. This is a huge figure since your sites were not able to pull in even 10 BTC in a failed IPO previously.

The only reason why it brought such a big figure was due to people inferring incorrectly that the asset sale was endorsed by James.

Here is the current status of your sites.

http://cryptohire.com/ (You have 1 ad from 3 days ago)

http://coingigs.com/ (You have 2 ads)

http://http://coinexplorer.net/ (You have test items)

http://http://coinevolve.com/ (Under construction)

I dont think any of them are generating any revenue let alone any profits to be shared. Now i know that it will take time and that is fine but today you turn around and present a new project outside of this profit sharing agreement. This was done so you can raise more money as confirmed by yourself.

Now since James has not endorsed the new site, you are probably unable to sell the asset and you are going back to the revenue share to try to get him to agree. 100% revenue of a site generating 0 BTC is still 100% right? But then again you would have the NXT from the asset sale so it would be ok. This is why i think James should not accept the new partnership regardless of the percentage.

My questions to you would be the following:

How do you plan to generate a revenue stream? We are past the age of build a nice looking website and they will come.
How do you plan to use the 60BTC you have made by selling 35% of your revenue to actually generate revenue?
How can you use your time to produce 2 different assets when not even the first one that has been sold out is actually generating any revenue?

Thank you for pointing out legit and clear concerns.

*** How do you plan to generate a revenue stream? We are past the age of build a nice looking website and they will come?

- Main revenue stream coming from: Fixed Fees charged for our services;
- Secondary revenue stream: Paid Ads and Google AdSense;

*** How do you plan to use the 60BTC you have made by selling 35% of your revenue to actually generate revenue?

Please note that the development, hosting and other expenses are paid out of my pocket.
The whole IPO fund will go into promoting our services and paying for some part-time jobs. From my experience I know that this is the most important part.
A full detailed Budget Tracking Spreadsheet will be available as soon as we start our Promotion step. We are mainly focused on development right now, and we aim to have the main projects (CryptoHire.com, CoinGigs.com, CoinExplorer.net and TheCryptoBid.com) up and running with 0 bugs if possible by the next month.

As you can see, judging by the real potential of those projects combined with SuperNET promotion/traffic coverage, a 60 BTC IPO marketcap for 35% revenue share is a good deal.
I have not asked for crazy amounts like other IPOs, 5,10,15 million NXT for a blog or who know what.

*** How can you use your time to produce 2 different assets when not even the first one that has been sold out is actually generating any revenue?

It's way to soon to judge by those facts, since the websites are running free of charge for this first month, as clearly stated before. Even if we had 100.000 ads on our websites, there is going to be no revenue for the first month. I also know that we MUST offer our services free of charge for a period, before we can charge any fee. This is like a demo product. It's an investor job to study before investing into a business.
Only by selling Paid Ads on our website for this month, we can generate some profit, but nobody is willing to pay for an ad on a fresh website, am I right?

Chris

"Now since James has not endorsed the new site"

I want to also point out that this project not being part of SuperNET has nothing to do with James not endorsing the new website. On the contrary, James was angry with me for keeping this project out of SuperNET without consulting him first. Yes, I did a stupid rookie mistake right there, because he really is something.

"you are probably unable to sell the asset and you are going back to the revenue share to try to get him to agree."

I want to let you know that the site is going to be developed and launched anyway. It does not matter how many shares will be sold. The website is almost finished (~80%) since I bought the whole project in an almost-developed state. You can check some previews on our Asset OP on nxt forums. I'm not going to post anymore info about this project on this thread since the project is separate right now.

I'm very sorry that you see the things that way.

Chris