How would you have run things better? I mean, this is a genuine question.
I would have..
[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
[2] - not mentioned stuff like Alibaba without fully qualifying what the nature of those associations were
[3] - had something working that investors could evaluate before investing (hence mitigating the accusations of "vapourware" IPO)
[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
[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. 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.
If the whole IPO was indeed bought by 3rd party investors it means that north of half a million dollars of investor's money has gone up in smoke. That's no mean sum of money and investors have taken this loss, not developers or other project stakeholders.
Given that fact, I think there is some basis for the FUD which I think would have been mitigated if some of the items above had been paid more attention.
GIVE ME A GOOD REASON FOR BUY HUGE THIS COIN.....BITBAY