Who still gives a damn about SEC. They are becoming increasingly irrelevant. Investment funds have started investing in crypto regardless.

What is the purchase process for the forward? Unlike the ICO there is near zero explanation. We don't even know if the purchase will require using the Lykke wallet and what payment methods are accepted.

Price already 60% higher after a meager 300k have been raised. 60%! This is ludicrous. That's the kind of multiplier you get at the end of a very successfull and widely advertized ICO after a month and millions invested, not less than two weeks in with almost no capital raised. I heard of this ICO for the first time today and am already turned off right from the start: the ICO price has already eaten most of the profit ICO investors could expect to make. It's simply not worth the risk anymore. If this finds bag holders buyers at this price, color me surprised.

With an impressive volume of ... $34

Make Voxelus great again? Good luck

Whatever happened to the equity conversion round?

Drugs are not cheap. It will take a lot keep the stuff coming until the project is complete.

This. Or make a deal with Mihai Alisie to merge Synereo and Akasha. Or hell even make a deal with Steem. Anything but the underdog strategy of caving in and giving half of the funds to Greg with almost no strings attached. This would be the lamest business move I have ever seen.

Again seconding that fully. Synereo made an error of judgement by hiring Greg. This happens, and although I have a significant amount of skin in the game, I don't hold them responsible for the error. On the other hand, I expect Synereo to act professionally now that Greg has gone rogue and cut off the ties clean and net like any serious and self-respecting company would do in similar circumstances.

I second that. Vlad is supporting his friend Greg and hoping to add R-chain to the Ethereum ecosystem. We don't need Greg for that. If Synereo determines that the way forward is to extend and embrace Ethereum, we can enlist directly the help of the Ethereum foundation and pay them to create for us a custom fork. Or we could ask Consensys or Eris or EtherCamp or just hire goddamn Gavin Wood and pay him whatever he asks. With the ludicrous USD 2M+ that Greg is asking, we have an embarrassing choice of options all cheaper, better, and more professional than Greg. I don't even understand why Greg's name is still even being talked about.

AMP doesn't need Greg. Greg is that guy with an oversized ego who makes grand claims about what he can do, fails to deliver, and ruins the team spirit by acting as an unmanageable arrogant prick. This is the kind of guy you often see posing as a rock star but ending up being the first person getting fired in large companies because in spite of their actual intelligence and knowledge which landed them the job in first place, they turn out to be so toxic that they become a liability. I have known quite a few of these types in my career and it never ended well. What you want is humble but hardworking seasoned developers, not attention seeking rock star drama queens. In current economic climate, good developers are one dime a dozen.

This. Don't make the same mistake as Ripple did when they let rogue founder Jed McCaleb leave with his share of the premine. Ripple price has never recovered. They had to bring the matter to court and have a long and messy legal battle to reach an agreement restraining his sale rate. Even today the ongoing selling by Jed is still a major hindrance to price appreciation.

Ripple let McCaleb run with his cut of the premine because they thought it would be messy to fork and have all exchanges switch to a new asset. They were also concerned that Jed would have a legal edge against them by claiming he was wronged.

In the case of Synereo it is easy to avoid the situation. Just create a new Omni asset and have all exchanges switch asset just like Tau/Agoras did when they got hacked. Greg can still enjoy his worthless and meaningless tokens after that so he won't have much leverage claiming he was wronged. He still got his share of the profits of the product he failed to deliver.

Either way don't let Greg enjoy a founder cut of whatever Synereo does after his departure. None of his work is usable in the end. His net contribution is negative: a huge waste of time and investor confidence.

Synereo has to make a move here and distance itself asap from its rogue founder if it wishes to retain its credibility.

Having failed to deliver a functional Special-K framework after all this time, IMO Greg is hardly in a position of force even if he poses as if it was the case. I'm calling it bluff. Why are people even listening to him at all? No one is irreplaceable. In any normal company he'd have been fired for lack of performance, not to mention putting the company's reputation in jeopardy by putting on the public place internal disputes and acting like a total jerk slinging mud publicly to the company's CEO. Sorry but I really don't see how he gets to walk away with half of investors money and create his own company with it.

I'm also puzzled about why would Synereo would want to use R-chain and finds itself in a unidirectional relationship where it would be entirely dependant on Greg's good will and effective (so far unproven) ability to actually deliver on his promise this time around on time and budget.

With the kind of money Greg is asking, why not go directly with a real blockchain company? I'm sure companies like Consensys, Cryptonomex or Eris would be very happy to take the challenge, and they can even hire Greg if they think they would be able to manage him. Plus Synereo would get to keep the intellectual property of the framework it contracted them to develop.

And even going fully Greg's (alleged) vision of "giving the technology to the world", a new framework and entity don't even make sense. Greg has been working with the Ethereum Foundation on Casper. Casper is all about scalability. If Synereo is to turn philantropic and spend its investor money on furthering technology for the common good, then the right thing to do is to donate the money to the Ethereum Fundation and have them add the features we need in Casper / Ethereum 2.0 or even create a completely new fork of Ethereum with functional capabilities. I'm sure Vitalik would be glad to oblige. And unlike Greg, the Ethereum Fundation has a track record of delivering on its promises. Hell, they even manage to work with Greg!

Dor, don't rush a deal with Greg. He is bluffing. With USD 4M+ in hand, you have many more options than him.

Is this an endorsement?

Golem ICO starting on 11 Nov. Golem endeavors to create a distributed computing platform similar to Zennet on Ethereum. Any opinion on the relative worth of this project?

You are dreaming. Bounties just create noise and make the thread an embarassing display of greed just like you get when throwing bread crumbs to a bunch of hungry pigeons. Everybody in the crypto sphere can speak english and the rare who don't just don't frequent Bitcointalk. Nobody needs stuff translated in tens of irrelevant languages. I am glad OP didn't give in to these pesky translation bounties requests.

Customers didn't purchase genesis mining contracts to stand on the sidelines on launch day and watch everyone else partake in early mining. They didn't purchase genesis mining contracts just to get their money back two weeks later. The reason they purchased genesis mining contracts is to take part to early days zcash mining. Delivering on that promise is your first and foremost responsibility. Harshrate upgrades are nice, but that shouldn't get in the way of you delivering what customers paid for, that is to say launch-day cloud mining.

Anyway, time will tell. I'm looking forward to seeing you mining along ZeroPond and Toom.im on 28 Oct. If that doesn't happen and the reason given is that your software miner doesn't meet the promised hashrate after you pumped it 6x from your own initiative, we will know what that means. You have a potential enormous business being the largest and older zcash cloud miner around. Don't disappoint us.

You could upgrade customers hashrate on launch day once you know exactly how much you are able to offer. Nobody asks you to make new, larger promises every week while keeping that clause that allows you to put all customers on hold for up to two weeks and miss out on the most profitable portion of the contract.

You have upgraded the hashrate 3x and then 2x following further optimization. This is not consistent with the disclaimer that warns that, should you not meet the promised hashrate, you reserve the right to delay or cancel the effective contract start date. Obviously if each time your mining software meets your hashrate commitment, you increase that commitment, you will always be in a situation of not being able to deliver on that commitment, which means that the contracts you are selling are not launch-day contracts but mid-november contracts. That's not what your customers want. Your customers want to mine on launch day whether it rains or snows. Further hashrate improvements are welcome, but shouldn't get in the way of timely contract start.

@Genesis-Mining: do you have a functional GPU miner for zcash? The zcash mining contracts purchase page still mentions that the contract execution is conditional to you getting a GPU miner within two weeks of launch. We are now one week away from launch, and your competitors all reportedly have a GPU miner.