Search content
Sort by
Showing 8 of 8 results by Hibrabase
Re: [SavAct][2019] A decentralized form of buyer protection and content financing
Several questions have arisen. You are also welcome to contact us in our telegram group to get a quicker answer. We have also answered many questions in our FAQ, please have a look there.
Which advantages does SavAct have compared to other decentralized voting systems:
SavAct forces the host of a voting to stick with the result, otherwise most voters might invalidate their transactions. Content creators can use these votings to fund themselves with the help of their supporters. The votings can be shared independent of the platform, for example as texts, images, or masks in video streams. You can find more information in chapter 2.2 of the White Paper.
Regarding the Proof of Concept:
It uses a prescriptive analogy model. This means that similar mechanisms of interaction are compared. The relationship between invalidation and negative evaluation was explained in the section "Relative frequency 𝑷 in comparison". Both actions have absolutely no advantages for the buyer and only serve to punish the seller. Thus, they are both performed for the same motivations. In addition, a couple of worst-case assumptions were introduced in the study, making it very unlikely that the resulting costs would be underestimated. We have linked the almost 2000 analyzed sellers, how they were selected and their data here. So everyone can check for themselves that the analysis is valid.
Regarding the wallets:
If there are any problems, please check if you meet the system requirements. If something still doesn't work, please let us know and describe your problem in detail.
When the token or coin is online, the wallet will be updated to be able to handle them. We also want to cover as many systems as possible and there will certainly be a browser-plugin, but currently we are working on the programming on the blockchain.
Regarding to getting the token and coin:
We want to build up some reach, partnerships and push the programming before we announce the sale. Furthermore, we are planning different projects which will grant access to the coin SavAct, but currently other tasks have priority.
Regarding to our team:
We don't know why some people make up such a groundless accusation. Well, our team consists exclusively out of real people. This can be easily seen by a short google research, in LinkedIn and Facebook are also some registered. On some listing pages our team members are even verified by KYC. If there are further possibilities to verify our team members, please let us know.
Furthermore, we are searching for more team members, for that we want to publish some job offer in the near future.
There were some questions about Kevin Tuncer, his social media channels and his previous Kickstarter project.
Kevin Tuncer is CEO of SavAct and has submitted the trademark application and patents through a patent attorney Rüdiger Spies. Kevin was already a lecturer in Rapid Prototyping and sometimes publishes some articles on his private social media channels, but mostly in German.
At the time during his master studies he had worked on some open source projects and started a Kickstarter campaign. He had developed a computer- and app-controlled camera track, but the founding was not sufficient in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the Kickstarter campaign was stopped before the deadline, so no founder lost money. The project was then made available open source and now everyone can enrich themselves free of charge. See here on Kickstarter and here on GitHub.
Regarding to Fabian Kahlert:
Fabian as computer science master worked on a blockchain at the FIT (Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology) in cooperation with the RWTH (Technical University in Germany). Until the end of this year we are planning to upload more programming code.
How we came to the problem of buyer protection with crypto currencies:
Many fake vendors on the Internet accept crypto currencies because of the identity veiling, you can find many reports about it online. Some of the members of our team have also been scammed when paying with crypto currencies. Therefore, we recognized the need for a mechanism to prevent fraud while maintaining the benefits of crypto currencies. This means that the whole transaction process must be completely decentralized and without the influence of third parties. SavAct offers these features.
Regarding the payment process with SavAct:
The seller should not ship the goods until the buyer has sent the coins, of course with a deadline. Within this deadline, the seller should ensure that the buyer receives the goods. If the buyer does not receive the goods, the seller can extend the deadline or return the coins. How exactly this can look like with an offered product was described in chapter 2.1 of the white paper section "Example 1: The use of the Coin SavAct in online trading". Ultimately, the risk of fraud is significantly reduced as fraud does not pay off for any party.
Which advantages does SavAct have compared to other decentralized voting systems:
SavAct forces the host of a voting to stick with the result, otherwise most voters might invalidate their transactions. Content creators can use these votings to fund themselves with the help of their supporters. The votings can be shared independent of the platform, for example as texts, images, or masks in video streams. You can find more information in chapter 2.2 of the White Paper.
Regarding the Proof of Concept:
It uses a prescriptive analogy model. This means that similar mechanisms of interaction are compared. The relationship between invalidation and negative evaluation was explained in the section "Relative frequency 𝑷 in comparison". Both actions have absolutely no advantages for the buyer and only serve to punish the seller. Thus, they are both performed for the same motivations. In addition, a couple of worst-case assumptions were introduced in the study, making it very unlikely that the resulting costs would be underestimated. We have linked the almost 2000 analyzed sellers, how they were selected and their data here. So everyone can check for themselves that the analysis is valid.
Regarding the wallets:
If there are any problems, please check if you meet the system requirements. If something still doesn't work, please let us know and describe your problem in detail.
When the token or coin is online, the wallet will be updated to be able to handle them. We also want to cover as many systems as possible and there will certainly be a browser-plugin, but currently we are working on the programming on the blockchain.
Regarding to getting the token and coin:
We want to build up some reach, partnerships and push the programming before we announce the sale. Furthermore, we are planning different projects which will grant access to the coin SavAct, but currently other tasks have priority.
Regarding to our team:
We don't know why some people make up such a groundless accusation. Well, our team consists exclusively out of real people. This can be easily seen by a short google research, in LinkedIn and Facebook are also some registered. On some listing pages our team members are even verified by KYC. If there are further possibilities to verify our team members, please let us know.
Furthermore, we are searching for more team members, for that we want to publish some job offer in the near future.
There were some questions about Kevin Tuncer, his social media channels and his previous Kickstarter project.
Kevin Tuncer is CEO of SavAct and has submitted the trademark application and patents through a patent attorney Rüdiger Spies. Kevin was already a lecturer in Rapid Prototyping and sometimes publishes some articles on his private social media channels, but mostly in German.
At the time during his master studies he had worked on some open source projects and started a Kickstarter campaign. He had developed a computer- and app-controlled camera track, but the founding was not sufficient in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the Kickstarter campaign was stopped before the deadline, so no founder lost money. The project was then made available open source and now everyone can enrich themselves free of charge. See here on Kickstarter and here on GitHub.
Regarding to Fabian Kahlert:
Fabian as computer science master worked on a blockchain at the FIT (Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology) in cooperation with the RWTH (Technical University in Germany). Until the end of this year we are planning to upload more programming code.
How we came to the problem of buyer protection with crypto currencies:
Many fake vendors on the Internet accept crypto currencies because of the identity veiling, you can find many reports about it online. Some of the members of our team have also been scammed when paying with crypto currencies. Therefore, we recognized the need for a mechanism to prevent fraud while maintaining the benefits of crypto currencies. This means that the whole transaction process must be completely decentralized and without the influence of third parties. SavAct offers these features.
Regarding the payment process with SavAct:
The seller should not ship the goods until the buyer has sent the coins, of course with a deadline. Within this deadline, the seller should ensure that the buyer receives the goods. If the buyer does not receive the goods, the seller can extend the deadline or return the coins. How exactly this can look like with an offered product was described in chapter 2.1 of the white paper section "Example 1: The use of the Coin SavAct in online trading". Ultimately, the risk of fraud is significantly reduced as fraud does not pay off for any party.
The whole Proof of Concept assumes that buyers and merchants on ebay behave identically in the same way as in darkweb markets. This is clearly not true. Disregarding this and the nonrepresentative dataset, the conclusions described in the Proof of Concept are simply invalid. Regarding the speed of development of the project there can be no doubt, that you have listed more members in the whitepaper than people that are actually working on the project. Looking at the slow progress I wouldnt be surprised if most of the members have no relation to the project itself. Kevin Tuncer didnt get sufficient funding for the kickstarter campain and the first ICO. Anyhow, either your "members" did really get scammed online, which indicates that they ignored the ratings of merchants, or they are lying to sell their product. Either way they do not seem to be thrustworhy and why should they be, they disregard the fact that decentralized escrow services do exist and work quite well. In the end, the risk of fraud by using savact seems to be even higher, because both buyer and merchant can loose the funds and the goods, leaving empty handed.
Re: [SavAct][2019] A decentralized form of buyer protection and content financing
Why pay for the vote? It is necessary ? and what benefits will users receive from voting?
Users vote on the direction of bloggers. That is, for the material that he will publish in the future. They can also vote for the lack of advertising, which will positively affect the development of the blog.
Savact transactions will be done only after the deadline. Therefore a vote can be carried out by using EVERY voting system and the creators can be paid after performing an action with EVERY existing crypto. Savact doesnt introduce anything new, but rather an old mechanism. Savact also acts like ratings dont exist on tradingsites (to make their system falsely plausible), which indicates that they either didnt research well enough or implementing some kind of scam.
Re: [SavAct][2019] A decentralized form of buyer protection and content financing
Can SavAct cryptocurrency be used for retail points of sale of goods?
Sadly not, because in the end there is a risk that the merchant wont get paid.Why do you think that SAVACT cryptocurrency will be able to effectively deal with Internet scammers?
What is the customer protection algorithm?
The algorithm and description of the probability of loss of funds are described in White Paper https://savact.com/wp_en.pdf
Why do you think that SAVACT cryptocurrency will be able to effectively deal with Internet scammers?
What is the customer protection algorithm?
As far as I understand, if the seller did not send the purchased goods, then SAVACT cryptocurrency can return to the buyers account
Why do you think that SAVACT cryptocurrency will be able to effectively deal with Internet scammers?
What is the customer protection algorithm?
As far as I understand, if the seller did not send the purchased goods, then SAVACT cryptocurrency can return to the buyers account
Apparently, the participants in the transaction make a guarantee amount in SavAct coins.
Therefore, fraud is not beneficial for the parties to the transaction
That is, if the online store did not send the goods, then the buyer will receive his money back?
Is this algorithm described in the technical documentation?
Where can I see links to the social accounts of your team members?
I want to be sure of the professionalism of your team
The whitepaper does list a team, but social media tells otherwise. None of them do really seem to have any real relationship to savact.I want to be sure of the professionalism of your team
What is the reason for delaying the start of the sale of coins?
Are you developing a new concept for your project?
This seems to be not their first failed project. There was another canceled kickstarter project back in january 2018Are you developing a new concept for your project?
Re: [SavAct][2019] A decentralized form of buyer protection and content financing
Voting will save us from unnecessary advertising. We can support the blogger financially and he will not monetize his videos
In this case, the community can at its own expense improve the quality of the material published by bloggers.
I like your idea
Since savact doesnt provide the funding before a voting action because of this deadline, the funding of voting results can be done after the vote with any other crypto. There is no difference whether one pays before or after the voting action, since in both cases the transaction takes place after the voting action. I´d personally choose the latter, because its simpler and there is no threat of losing the funds if the vote action is not performed. Why would one ever choose to throw their funds away, if they can fund someone later riskfree? So when looking at vote funding, savact seems to be obsolete.
Re: [SavAct][2019] A decentralized form of buyer protection and content financing
Since whiteweb and darkweb markets are in essence not the same, you cannot simply conclude from one to another. I´m quite surprized you even tried that and build a theory around it, which because of its missing logic is worthless. The very low risk of the seller because of the increased trust when using your currency, is just an assumption, sadly not proven in the PoC and disregarding the fact that illegitimate cancellation of transactions would leave the seller with empty hands and thus in disadvantage compared to escrow services. I guess that lack of reasoning may be one of the causes you missed out on your ICO in the first place.
Re: [SavAct][2019] A decentralized form of buyer protection and content financing
After you sold goods and shipped them to the customer, the customer can just destroy your funds with no reason or control at all (very bad for an anonymized market). As a seller you just have to trust the buyer. Savact worte in their PoC that this literally wont happen often, but derived that conclusion from an absolutely unrelated dataset using ebay customers 
, which is worthless. Apparently they already had an ICO, which I can only guess failed because they are not revealing any numbers. Smelly fishy, so its a no for me, DYOR
, which is worthless. Apparently they already had an ICO, which I can only guess failed because they are not revealing any numbers. Smelly fishy, so its a no for me, DYORRe: [SavAct][2019] A decentralized form of buyer protection and content financing
The basic idea of making trading safer is good at first, the realization of it by them isn't thought through. Coins that were send can be eradicated even if the merchant is legit and they boldly clain that won't happen. Can't image any merchant accepting such payments. That concept is not great at all and there is little information in their whitepaper about anything. Honestly, the proof of concept is nonsense.