Quote from: toknormal on December 09, 2014, 12:11:41 PM

[1] - expressed the IPO as a marketcap instead of a price in the main announcement. This is a more honest expression of the valuation because price is meaningless without taking into account coin supply. It's also what lets investors immediately compare the IPO alongside equivalent marketcap coins which are currently trading

There always was a market cap. They sold it all and would burn any coins they didn't. If there was no such limit we'd probably be looking at a much bigger ico.

Quote

[3] - had something working that investors could evaluate before investing (hence mitigating the accusations of "vapourware" IPO)

Fair, but then again, apart from a few (I think acceptable and expectable) issues they've got a working wallet with smart contracts. Not really much of a surprise there because Blackhalo is working beautifully as well.

Quote

[4] - been transparent about IPO interim and final capital holders, who they are and given blockchain addresses which could be audited and let investors verify the integrity of the custody chain of capital which they are supplying the project

That would indeed improve the transparency. And you're right that investors usually possess over this information. This kind of information is rare public knowledge however. I don't think anyone else, including you, would expose himself to this level of transparency. Especially not with so many copy cats and competitors prowling about. You'd basically be running a charity then.

Quote

[5] - launched the IPO at a half million cap at the most (in the absence of any significant completed development work).One of the main problems for this project is that it still has it "all to do". It's jam tomorrow as far as deliverables is concerned but jam today as far as investors money goes.

But the first milestone reward is much less than that so far.

Quote

It's somewhat of a step in the right direction to have phased releases of the capital upon completion of certain development milestones, but it's far from being an escrow situation. For a start, what happens if those milestones are not reached - is capital returned to investors ? I doubt it. Do investors have any input over the arbitration of marginal achievements ? No.

I think this is your most interesting point. After all, you don't want to rely on the middle-man in your pursuit to get rid of him. This is the main role of escows in the financial sector. The problem though is that a small startup doesn't really posses over this kind of liquidity.

Maybe in the future we're going to see mass smart contracts where investors and startups are engaged in escrows over these milestones. I just can't see how it can be done today.