Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 99 results by ico41
Is DML scam? No exchanges, no good news from the development team 
Yes. The project is very similar to Scam. Trading volume is only 4 000 dollars per day. And the price of tokens is just terrible0.19x USD
0.25x ETH
0.26x BTC
I just did a pretty thorough analysis of this, which will appear on the next episode of my podcast, as well as on a live webinar where I use some software that I developed to organize all of the information I collected in the analysis. I believe that just because the price of a token has dropped an enormous amount (in this case over 95% of original value at the time of the ICO), I don't think it automatically means the project is a scam. The drop in price and especially the very low volume, is indeed indicative of a lack of activity around the project, but that's mainly because there was a long delay and because milestones were missed, and so the platform itself is not in a condition that much use of the token could be made at this point. This should change when the mobile app comes out. One thing that is a little troubling is that the Marketplace interface that you actually see when you sign up does not much resemble the demonstration of the marketplace that appeared in a video back in July. So they are clearly far behind in the development cycle, and so there is no reason for transactions to occur, other than to sell and buy, and very little of that is happening now that the price has fallen so far.
There is certainly valid criticism around the lack of communications, updates, and also perhaps the lack of serious development activity, but there is some evidence that they are actively developing, and I don't believe that you can really call a project a scam until the developers have exited the stage and ran away with the money. This is clearly not the case here.
If there was one criticism I would make of this project it would be that they didn't hire enough core staff after the sale. According to their own reporting, they collected around $10M. And about two months later they announced they had hired one front-end and one back-end developer. The only person who has been committing regularly to GitHub is the front-end developer. I realize that this doesn't mean the other developers are doing NOTHING -- because we all know that plenty of development is and probably needs to be private, but still - with that kind of money it would seem the hiring of more developers sooner would have been a good move. After all, this is a very ambitious project.
Finally, the other issue is that there is a pretty serious lack of customer management. Very little in the way of communication, and no real "face of the company" from a business perspective. If you look carefully at the team you will see that they are mainly technical. That's a good thing, but again with that kind of raise, they probably should have hired some forward-facing communication specialists to manage the Telegram community, and to provide lots of detailed updates. And to keep a lively interest in the project.
Pretty shortsighted and disappointing to see a lack of imagination - like a legislator/regulator who finds the whole subject too complicated and just wants to shut it all down.
Sure, there are scams, but that's not enough to justify a complete ban on everything "crypto-currency related". This means if I create some software that tracks assets - not even using a blockchain - just a regular old centralized database I can't advertise on Google because it's "related" to crypto. A LOT of things are related to crypto, which have nothing to do with scammy ICO's. Not allowed to advertise Bitcoin T-shirts? How about little foil-covered chocolate Bitcoins? Nope, sorry.
Idiotic. But that's what you do when you can't think with any kind of nuance, and the people who are in a position of making these decisions simply can't.
Sure, there are scams, but that's not enough to justify a complete ban on everything "crypto-currency related". This means if I create some software that tracks assets - not even using a blockchain - just a regular old centralized database I can't advertise on Google because it's "related" to crypto. A LOT of things are related to crypto, which have nothing to do with scammy ICO's. Not allowed to advertise Bitcoin T-shirts? How about little foil-covered chocolate Bitcoins? Nope, sorry.
Idiotic. But that's what you do when you can't think with any kind of nuance, and the people who are in a position of making these decisions simply can't.
It's not a ban on anything crypto related. It's just a ban on paid ads. You can still post any crypto stuff you want on your personal page.
That's probably true - which is good. Still, I know a lot of people who run their entire business on Google AdWords. What silly to me is that in the same policy change they are banning things like "Binary Options and synonymous products." That's a very specific sector in a very wide sector - trading. I think that makes sense - because those "binary option" trading products are 99% (or maybe even 100%) scams. But what they are doing with the crypto space is the equivalent of "Financial Trading Products and related products, including but not limited to E-mini futures trading, Stock Trading, Options Trading, Books on Trading, and every other damned thing remotely related to trading ..."
I'm just surprised that it's coming from a company that prides itself on being smart and understanding new things. Not anymore, apparently.
not a fan of google, but this would be for the best for the market
You mean banning ICO ads?
I just dont know if google will ban ALL ICO ads, or will let some quality ones through.
I mean its understandable that google will try to defend the users from low quality ICOs with hideous banners, which are likely a scam.
Or will Google just ban any form of investments which have high risks? If it bans ICOs, it would be rightous to ban any not low risk investments.
I feel like it's very broad, but I guess we will see what happens in practice.
Here is the policy - https://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/answer/7648803?hl=en
And to quote them ...
"In addition, ads for the following will no longer be allowed to serve:
Cryptocurrencies and related content (including but not limited to initial coin offerings, cryptocurrency exchanges, cryptocurrency wallets, and cryptocurrency trading advice)"
"Including but not limited to ..." - very open-ended. I'm definitely going to test this. Maybe the easiest way would be to resell chocolate bitcoins and try take out an ad. Or design some clever shirt on TeeSpring.
I don't get the wallet part - how is creating a wallet a scam? Are all wallets scams? Not by a longshot. Very draconian and lame.
I believe that there needs to be political activism in addition to blockchain technology to push back against over-regulation. If the SEC and others are going to force every crypto project down the path of filing Reg-this and Reg-that, then they need to create a system that is more egalitarian, and support the filing process so it doesn't take a half a million dollars to file with the regulators.
It can also start at a more grassroots level, and without overt political activism. It can be economic activism, as it were. For instance, for those of us who have small businesses, we can support this movement right now by accepting one or more forms of crypto-currency for the goods and services that we provide. Bitcoin is probably the easiest, but as we all know there are some issues. There's no reason why it couldn't be any altcoin you find easy to use and convert.
Again, we will soon see the struggle of this, as regulators seek to shut down every exchange and put pressure on banks to sever that link between Fiat and Crypto. And tax authorities will aggressively pursue taxation. But as a business owner, it's worth it to me to put up with this struggle and accept the tokens - and thereby support projects that way. When I once again enter the consulting market later on this year, I'll be sure to accept a wide range of crypto for my services. I'll deal with the issues on the back end one way or another - even if it costs me a little money, it will be worth it to support the cause. I encourage everyone else to do the same.
It can also start at a more grassroots level, and without overt political activism. It can be economic activism, as it were. For instance, for those of us who have small businesses, we can support this movement right now by accepting one or more forms of crypto-currency for the goods and services that we provide. Bitcoin is probably the easiest, but as we all know there are some issues. There's no reason why it couldn't be any altcoin you find easy to use and convert.
Again, we will soon see the struggle of this, as regulators seek to shut down every exchange and put pressure on banks to sever that link between Fiat and Crypto. And tax authorities will aggressively pursue taxation. But as a business owner, it's worth it to me to put up with this struggle and accept the tokens - and thereby support projects that way. When I once again enter the consulting market later on this year, I'll be sure to accept a wide range of crypto for my services. I'll deal with the issues on the back end one way or another - even if it costs me a little money, it will be worth it to support the cause. I encourage everyone else to do the same.
I agree from a pragmatic perspective, the technology is not enough to enable decentralization to take place on a mass scale. I wish it were, but there are practical, real-world considerations that come into play. There's politics and there are regulators. It'd be great to say "well we can do it anyway no matter what they say", and strictly speaking, this is true. But it then becomes essentially "black market activity", which will not enable massive adoption. One of the best facets of the cryptocurrency "movement" is an escape from the control of traditional legacy finance, and it will be hard to do that without some industry-wide cooperative efforts.
I don't know financial regulation in every country though I am learning more than I expected. But one good thing in the United States is that we can use the framework put in place by the large financial interests against them and in furtherance of our own values. In the U.S., the financial services industry is one of the first (we have several others now) that were permitted to self-regulate. Self-regulatory organizations (SROs) are organizations that have been delegated authority by the SEC, etc. to create and enforce their own rules. A few months ago you'd see threads from me on here, Twitter, and Reddit talking about the need to promote best practices, voluntary standards to help demonstrate to regulators that some type of self-policing over the large frauds was getting organized. However, the Gemini twins wrote a blog a few weeks back calling for the creation of an SRO for the virtual currency industry, see: https://gemini.com/blog/a-proposal-for-a-self-regulatory-organization-for-the-u-s-virtual-currency-industry/.
So while a few months ago I was talking about standards that would be best-practices to offer to help raise the quality bar and reduce fraud, now I believe that some SROs should be created. The SEC has indicated support for this approach. That blog proposes the creation of one organization called the Virtual Currency Association (I think). I believe that there should be more than one SRO. I know that when one SRO becomes dominant in the field they end up causing consolidation and ever-increasing standards that limit the pool just as you were saying. It would be like if there was only Visa, no Mastercard. Visa would be able to charge more, change rules, etc., at will because they'd have no alternative organization to keep them in check. I've seen this with the merger that created FINRA, which is the big SRO that regulates legacy securities markets. Multiple SROs can cooperate in many ways, but it is still best to have alternatives to keep from monopolistic behavior.
I agree that compliance with the regulatory requirements should be made easy, inclusive, and inexpensive. I want innovation to keep moving the field forward, and over-regulation is one quick way to kill that. So I believe that SROs offer an answer to those challenges: controlling costs, allowing flexibility and innovation, and also enhance the stature of the industry before lawmakers, regulators, and even through education to the broader public.
So I have been seriously considering taking my plans and work for the "BTRIC Institute" part of my organization and applying those ideas towards creation of an SRO that would get established to meet all the legal requirements for recognition by the SEC and establish a framework that can be used to keep more draconian regulations in check. You must be able to reduce fraud but you do not need to make any potential token have to go through a whole SEC-1 process and create prospectus documents and all the garbage that traditional Initial Public Offerings require. The ICO as a new asset class loses much of its appeal and utility if it becomes as complicated as taking a company public. If you're going to spend that much money to raise capital, why not just list on NASDAQ or NYSE? So I believe a relaxed framework can be developed that focuses on key areas where fraud can be identified, clear technical issues reviewed (security audits, exchange businesses have procedures in place to limit losses if they're hacked, etc.).
The other side of the coin (no pun intended), is that virtual currencies I really believe are currencies and need the legal and regulatory backing as a currency. There are key differences between a currency like Bitcoin, a utility token, a security token, and unconventional cryptoassets like cryptokitties and other collectibles. Also, blockchain insurance and other crypto assets all need slightly different frameworks, but easy to comply with regulations. It is just like stocks, bonds, money, and contracts are all written on paper but are all different things. I believe an SRO can help build the case for the differentiation. The IRS should not always consider every crypto asset as a security asset, applying capital gains tax to each transaction, which they now do. That's ridiculous. An SRO that establishes a process to determine what type of cryptoasset different coins/tokens/kitties/etc. are will be in a good position to work with regulators to bring their rules in line with the realities.
I believe it's something that needs careful consideration in the immediate time-scale. SROs should get up and running in time to engage in the G20 process that's producing draft regulatory frameworks.
Best regards,
Ben
Wow - I had no idea about SRO's or any of this. I'm very interested in being a member of such an organization and I'll reach out directly to you one way or another. I have an attorney friend who might also be interested. Thanks!
I have been mining with 1 GPU for about two months and it's profitable when I crunch the numbers, about a whopping $8 - $9 a month.
Best advice I can give you is think long term; it's a slow grind. Now's not the time to invest any money into it. I already had a gaming PC with a GTX 1060 6 Gig card that I barely use so it's just the cost of electricity for me. Find a coin you like and mine it; plan on holding it for several months or longer and hopefully the value will go up and you can make some $$$.
Best advice I can give you is think long term; it's a slow grind. Now's not the time to invest any money into it. I already had a gaming PC with a GTX 1060 6 Gig card that I barely use so it's just the cost of electricity for me. Find a coin you like and mine it; plan on holding it for several months or longer and hopefully the value will go up and you can make some $$$.
This is probably the best strategy to earn something with one GPU. Mine new coins with low difficulty and hope they would be worth something in the long run.
I very much agree with this. My experience with RVN has borne that out. Each week when I did my research for ICO's I would look at a lot of coins/releases (not all ICO's - RVN wasn't), and a few months ago I came across RVN and pointed a 3-card (1070 TI) at it and was lucky enough to be getting hundreds of coins per hour. This didn't last too long, but I was able to amass a halfway-decent number of them, which I will hold onto because I happen to believe in the coin itself and the community around it.
And this could definitely be a strategy. Examine every new announcement in the ALT thread, plus look around elsewhere (Twitter is where RVN was actually announced in October of 2017 - I wish I had been paying attention then!) and then point your card/rig at it early and see what happens. When it starts to fall off, find another one. Doing it this way spreads the potential around a bit, such that if, say, 20% of the coins you mine over a given year go somewhere, then those 20% might be worth it. If you stick to just one, then there's much less chance of getting a decent ROI.
Anyway, that's one approach. I'm sure there are plenty of others.
Problem with this issue is that many people are using GPU mining only and are not capable of buying ASIC miners. Too expensive for the average joe to purchase those ASICS miners. Greed drives the powerful so that the weak will lose. Don't let it happen. Continue with the GPU mining.
I have a small GPU rig - 3 1070 TI's and it's a great little rig and does a very stable job of running 24/7. I understand about profitability and how important that is, but I do think it's worth it to mine at break-even if you believe in the long-term viability of a coin. For instance, I believe in RVN so even though I'm not really making much money, or any maybe, I'm enjoying the mining because I believe in the coin. If you think of how much we spend daily on things like Starbucks, or maybe cigarettes, or any number of a hundred other habits, mining at a small loss doesn't sound like a completely stupid idea, especially if you give up one of those habits. SBUX costs around $3-5 a day or more. I'll just say that I would rather "lose" that money mining than have nothing at the end of the year but 360 memories of a latte.
One thing that I find kind of interesting is that the ASIC/GPU price is narrowing. The 1080 TI's on NewEgg are still around $900, but on Craigslist I'm seeing S9's for as little as $1,700 (in Los Angeles area) and I don't really think they are ALL scams. Seems like an ASIC S9 might be a better long-term investment than two 1080's ... if you believe in the Long Term value of the coins that S9's can mine, that is.
⭐ Merited by funsponge (1)
I think that one way to approach this issue might be a public, volunteer-based registry that matches public Bitcoin addresses to identities. 100% optional, of course. You or your business would self-identify one or more public bitcoin addresses and provide some information about who you are. This would serve as a record of companies and individuals who were transparent and perhaps might be considered more trustworthy to do business with under certain narrow conditions.
Of course, it's not for everyone, and there are clearly some privacy issues , precisely because of the transparency of the blockchain. However, I see that in some narrow use cases it would make sense. If your company did a specific portion of business using crypto-currency, and you were unfazed by a public record of your transactions, and in fact some aspect of your business needed to be 100% transparent between both parties, then I could see this being used. And, of course, if a blockchain itself was used to hold the registry data, then the record would be more or less permanent.
Just a thought - I'm sure there are plenty of privacy advocates would be horrified - but remember, I'm talking about a very narrow, completely transparent use case.
Of course, it's not for everyone, and there are clearly some privacy issues , precisely because of the transparency of the blockchain. However, I see that in some narrow use cases it would make sense. If your company did a specific portion of business using crypto-currency, and you were unfazed by a public record of your transactions, and in fact some aspect of your business needed to be 100% transparent between both parties, then I could see this being used. And, of course, if a blockchain itself was used to hold the registry data, then the record would be more or less permanent.
Just a thought - I'm sure there are plenty of privacy advocates would be horrified - but remember, I'm talking about a very narrow, completely transparent use case.
Pretty shortsighted and disappointing to see a lack of imagination - like a legislator/regulator who finds the whole subject too complicated and just wants to shut it all down.
Sure, there are scams, but that's not enough to justify a complete ban on everything "crypto-currency related". This means if I create some software that tracks assets - not even using a blockchain - just a regular old centralized database I can't advertise on Google because it's "related" to crypto. A LOT of things are related to crypto, which have nothing to do with scammy ICO's. Not allowed to advertise Bitcoin T-shirts? How about little foil-covered chocolate Bitcoins? Nope, sorry.
Idiotic. But that's what you do when you can't think with any kind of nuance, and the people who are in a position of making these decisions simply can't.
Sure, there are scams, but that's not enough to justify a complete ban on everything "crypto-currency related". This means if I create some software that tracks assets - not even using a blockchain - just a regular old centralized database I can't advertise on Google because it's "related" to crypto. A LOT of things are related to crypto, which have nothing to do with scammy ICO's. Not allowed to advertise Bitcoin T-shirts? How about little foil-covered chocolate Bitcoins? Nope, sorry.
Idiotic. But that's what you do when you can't think with any kind of nuance, and the people who are in a position of making these decisions simply can't.
I think that if the SEC actually approves this, it would be a good development simply because it provides some access to the concept of crypto to those who would otherwise not have the ability to participate directly. And I'm not sure I see the concern of the SEC, since, as the article says, most of the concerns are addressed. When Jay Clayton spoke in front of congress last month, he mentioned custody as a problem. But I don't see how custody is a problem when you have complete transparency on the blockchain.
Unfortunately, the way the SEC seems to have been behaving lately, it seems unlikely to approve this in the near term. I think that they would argue that liquidity is a problem because of the exchanges, and they are simultaneously showing signs of aggressively pursuing the exchanges to exacerbate that problem.
So while I like the advice he has given the SEC, I hope it doesn't fall on deaf ears.
Unfortunately, the way the SEC seems to have been behaving lately, it seems unlikely to approve this in the near term. I think that they would argue that liquidity is a problem because of the exchanges, and they are simultaneously showing signs of aggressively pursuing the exchanges to exacerbate that problem.
So while I like the advice he has given the SEC, I hope it doesn't fall on deaf ears.
I agree that it is an eternal struggle. And I also agree with Ben that Bitcoin proved that it could be possible and paved the way for wider use cases.
But the technology itself, I'm afraid, may not be enough, because centralized power structures will not go down easily. You can already see it with the coming force of regulation. While I agree that the regulators have a point that some people are getting scammed (or should I say 'letting themselves get scammed', since most scams are pretty obvious), and that it's important to enforce certain regulations to help prevent theft and fraud, I believe that the approach, for instance, of "Every Token is a Security" looks very much to me like a thin veneer over the dark purpose of once again consolidating power. I say this because with that approach, you greatly reduce the number of people "qualified" to participate and support projects that seek to disrupt. In this model, only those with a lot of money will be allowed to support and participate. Granted, you get some level of distribution and decentralization, but it's limited to people who have made over $200,000 per year for the last three years, or some such thing.
I believe that there needs to be political activism in addition to blockchain technology to push back against over-regulation. If the SEC and others are going to force every crypto project down the path of filing Reg-this and Reg-that, then they need to create a system that is more egalitarian, and support the filing process so it doesn't take a half a million dollars to file with the regulators.
It can also start at a more grassroots level, and without overt political activism. It can be economic activism, as it were. For instance, for those of us who have small businesses, we can support this movement right now by accepting one or more forms of crypto-currency for the goods and services that we provide. Bitcoin is probably the easiest, but as we all know there are some issues. There's no reason why it couldn't be any altcoin you find easy to use and convert.
Again, we will soon see the struggle of this, as regulators seek to shut down every exchange and put pressure on banks to sever that link between Fiat and Crypto. And tax authorities will aggressively pursue taxation. But as a business owner, it's worth it to me to put up with this struggle and accept the tokens - and thereby support projects that way. When I once again enter the consulting market later on this year, I'll be sure to accept a wide range of crypto for my services. I'll deal with the issues on the back end one way or another - even if it costs me a little money, it will be worth it to support the cause. I encourage everyone else to do the same.
But the technology itself, I'm afraid, may not be enough, because centralized power structures will not go down easily. You can already see it with the coming force of regulation. While I agree that the regulators have a point that some people are getting scammed (or should I say 'letting themselves get scammed', since most scams are pretty obvious), and that it's important to enforce certain regulations to help prevent theft and fraud, I believe that the approach, for instance, of "Every Token is a Security" looks very much to me like a thin veneer over the dark purpose of once again consolidating power. I say this because with that approach, you greatly reduce the number of people "qualified" to participate and support projects that seek to disrupt. In this model, only those with a lot of money will be allowed to support and participate. Granted, you get some level of distribution and decentralization, but it's limited to people who have made over $200,000 per year for the last three years, or some such thing.
I believe that there needs to be political activism in addition to blockchain technology to push back against over-regulation. If the SEC and others are going to force every crypto project down the path of filing Reg-this and Reg-that, then they need to create a system that is more egalitarian, and support the filing process so it doesn't take a half a million dollars to file with the regulators.
It can also start at a more grassroots level, and without overt political activism. It can be economic activism, as it were. For instance, for those of us who have small businesses, we can support this movement right now by accepting one or more forms of crypto-currency for the goods and services that we provide. Bitcoin is probably the easiest, but as we all know there are some issues. There's no reason why it couldn't be any altcoin you find easy to use and convert.
Again, we will soon see the struggle of this, as regulators seek to shut down every exchange and put pressure on banks to sever that link between Fiat and Crypto. And tax authorities will aggressively pursue taxation. But as a business owner, it's worth it to me to put up with this struggle and accept the tokens - and thereby support projects that way. When I once again enter the consulting market later on this year, I'll be sure to accept a wide range of crypto for my services. I'll deal with the issues on the back end one way or another - even if it costs me a little money, it will be worth it to support the cause. I encourage everyone else to do the same.
I'm not sure if it's so much about data distribution as it is about computing. The current tools for compiling/rendering for something like Unreal - like "IncrediBuild" are designed to be used on a single machine. So the trick there would be to use multiple nodes to form virtual machines and then apply this to a grid computing system. There was a paper about the concept of distributed virtual machines back in the 90's at Cornell. More lately, there's been some more research, such as here - https://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.06005.pdf.
The closest thing I can see to this would be the Golem project which seeks to disrupt "rendering farms" which may seem to apply to your problem. Here's a decent article that explains how Golem is specifically used instead of such a farm - https://blog.golemproject.net/why-should-render-farms-be-afraid-of-golem-3dd1b9e70f47.
The closest thing I can see to this would be the Golem project which seeks to disrupt "rendering farms" which may seem to apply to your problem. Here's a decent article that explains how Golem is specifically used instead of such a farm - https://blog.golemproject.net/why-should-render-farms-be-afraid-of-golem-3dd1b9e70f47.
Why even bother to mine with a few minres and earn a couple of dollars a day. Mining is only worth it if you can build a big farm with a lot of capital. Most of you guys are better off working a regular job and just buying crypto.
False..!
I used to mine some LTC back in 2013..with 3 Radeon 280x .. mined 2 LTC/day for a few months.. So i was getting 4-5$ per day..
Look how much this worth right now...
Ya but the point is you could of spent the time you used on mining to work other jobs or make more cash and buy way more than 2 litecoins a day back then. So it kind of makes mining pointless for small timers.
Some people mine because they like to tinker with machinery. Like a hobby. It's interesting. Yeah, we can all go get jobs, cash our paychecks and buy coins. Wow. How interesting is that? Not very.
Mining is a project, and if you like to work on computers, it's cool. It's also good experience for young people, because it's similar to building servers. If you use Linux, you get to learn an operating system that lots of people don't know much about.
It's like saying to the small family farmer - "Why are you bothering to raise animals on your ten acres of land? You could go get a job in a factory, make twice as much money and then go visit a petting zoo and visit animals. It sure seems pointless for you to raise your kids on this tiny farm when there's all these amazing companies that own millions of acres of land and feed millions of people. Companies like Monsanto. Why bother, when there is Monsanto feeding all of us?"
You see how kind of dumb and lifeless this argument starts to sound?
Here's a useful and sort of sad site ...
http://deadcoins.com/
I think a cool project might be to research some of them that say "Data Missing. Add it!"
And then there is the Parody category. Hilarious.
But I think it needs updating. Probably too many dead coins to even try to keep up!
http://deadcoins.com/
I think a cool project might be to research some of them that say "Data Missing. Add it!"
And then there is the Parody category. Hilarious.
But I think it needs updating. Probably too many dead coins to even try to keep up!
Re: Does it prevent you from participating in ICO if u'r US citizen?
I can understand the frustration - I have felt it myself, especially when reading a really compelling whitepaper, doing a bunch of analysis and then deciding that the project is cool and legit, then joining the Telegram / Discord channel and then finding out that U.S. Citizens are not permitted to invest. Yes, you can use VPN and all kinds of clever tactics, but I really doubt it's worth it.
Instead, do the research and you will see that in fact many project release their tokens, they are accepted by an exchange, and then, during the time it takes the team to execute their plan, interest in the token subsides, and the price actually goes down from the ICO. This happens a lot. Then it just sort of sits there until some announcement, or event causes it to come to live. Look at the many of the charts on Coinmarketcap and you will see evidence of this.
Also, when a coin is starting out and just getting listed on some exchanges, there is very often an arbitrage in price between exchanges. An example is ATLANT, which about a week ago was training below it's ICO release price, but on two exchanges with very slim volume and very different prices. On IDEX, it was trading about twice the price against ETH as it was on OKEX against Bitcoin (measured in USD).
So I wouldn't fret too much about "missing out" on an ICO when a little patience and monitoring might lead to more profit than if you did manage to participate in the ICO.
Instead, do the research and you will see that in fact many project release their tokens, they are accepted by an exchange, and then, during the time it takes the team to execute their plan, interest in the token subsides, and the price actually goes down from the ICO. This happens a lot. Then it just sort of sits there until some announcement, or event causes it to come to live. Look at the many of the charts on Coinmarketcap and you will see evidence of this.
Also, when a coin is starting out and just getting listed on some exchanges, there is very often an arbitrage in price between exchanges. An example is ATLANT, which about a week ago was training below it's ICO release price, but on two exchanges with very slim volume and very different prices. On IDEX, it was trading about twice the price against ETH as it was on OKEX against Bitcoin (measured in USD).
So I wouldn't fret too much about "missing out" on an ICO when a little patience and monitoring might lead to more profit than if you did manage to participate in the ICO.
It seems that only a new developer community can save a coin
I guess that's one way to save a coin. But is it the only way? For the last ten years or so I have been involved in software development projects, and one thing I have learned is that it's a mistake to become dependent on any single developer, or even dependent on a business sense on software developers in general. Software developers are awesome - they can spin gold from straw - but there is a lot more to the success of a software technology project than code.
In the case of Sparks, which doesn't seem to have any particular or special characteristics that DASH doesn't have, the only way this project will truly be successful is if people start using the coin to transact with each other, or if people, attracted to the ROI at about 400% (lot better than a fiat savings account, I would say!), start snapping up and running master nodes. Or both.
Do the masternodes work? According to the Discord channel, looks like they seem to, aside from the typical burps and hiccups and end-user issues (like this exchange:
Someone: "PRE_ENABLE. Nothing happens guide said after 30 min it would switch to ENABLE now EXPIRED"
Someone Else: "Okay I got it. I made a mistake with the config file. Now it works. @Someone check under config: external ip and if your masterkey is correct"
Someone: "@Someone Else Work nowwww thanks" )
Typical stuff, right? Far as I can tell the wallet works.
OK, folks, so the wallet works, the masternodes work, so how is it that the project itself is dead?
It seems to me that very often the measure of the success of a project is tied entirely to the price of the coin - or, even worse, to whether the person who is posting their opinion is making money with their participation in the project. If the price drops, if people start to sell, if the developer is silent on Discord for a week it's PANIC and SCAM and worse.
What is the reason to actually buy coins and invest in a project? Is the only reason to make money? I believe that if the only reason you are in the crypto space is to make money then you will sometimes -- maybe oftentimes - be disappointed.
Are there true scams? Plenty. Is SPARKS one of them? I have no idea. But in terms of the argument I'm making and the concept I'm discussing, it doesn't matter whether SPARKS is a scam or not - what I am saying applies to every single crypto currency asset, whether it's from the dead coin list or whether it's BitCoin.
I think that participating in an airdrop with a micro-payment (like .001 ETH) is not a bad idea, since it's such a low investment/risk, and those coins, once you have them in your wallet, aren't going anyway - who knows what will happen in the future? You really don't know - I'm sure that 99% of the ICO's nowadays will end up nowhere, but all it takes is one DASH, so I think the spaghetti against the wall approach works in this case.
And traditional airdrops (which do not carry a cost) are also a good idea, I think, if you have the time to participate.
When you are saying you are worried - I think you should stop worrying about it and accept that 99% will end up being worthless. And go for it - broaden and do as many as look halfway decent, and play the odds.
And traditional airdrops (which do not carry a cost) are also a good idea, I think, if you have the time to participate.
When you are saying you are worried - I think you should stop worrying about it and accept that 99% will end up being worthless. And go for it - broaden and do as many as look halfway decent, and play the odds.
I agree that whitepapers are a good source for information, because in order to write a whitepaper that will be used to prove the worthiness of an investment in an ICO, quite a lot of research has to be done, and the pressure is on for accuracy.
Hackernoon and Medium often have good articles.
One of my favorite sources for serious reading about blockchain technology, however is Google Scholar. This is because academia is a good source of ideas for applications of blockchain because they are often unbiased and funded by research institutions. You can find some interesting papers there, such as the HoneyBadger BFT project - many, many others. The writing is also a little more serious and useful from a technical perspective in my opinion.
Articles I don't like are these little clickbait articles on many of the "crypto" sites which turn out to be thinly researched and created from a specific point of view or thinly disguised advertisements. For those, if I can't resist and and end up on one of those articles, it's not a total waste because you can scroll down to the comments, which are often better than the article!
Hackernoon and Medium often have good articles.
One of my favorite sources for serious reading about blockchain technology, however is Google Scholar. This is because academia is a good source of ideas for applications of blockchain because they are often unbiased and funded by research institutions. You can find some interesting papers there, such as the HoneyBadger BFT project - many, many others. The writing is also a little more serious and useful from a technical perspective in my opinion.
Articles I don't like are these little clickbait articles on many of the "crypto" sites which turn out to be thinly researched and created from a specific point of view or thinly disguised advertisements. For those, if I can't resist and and end up on one of those articles, it's not a total waste because you can scroll down to the comments, which are often better than the article!
Re: How are looking for legit ICO to invest or how to avoid scam ICO?
I think it's absolutely key to join the Telegram and Discord channels after reading the whitepaper and ask questions and see what you get for answers.
Also, what is your reason for investing in an ICO? This is important, because if it's to make money in the short term you may have a completely different strategy than if you are planning to hold in the long term. I have seen a lot of coins that actually drop in value when they hit the exchange for the first time - naturally, if people who have the tokens from the ICO want to cash out, as it were.
If you wish to avoid scams, there are some decent groups out there that are actually devoted to ferreting out those scams - ConcourseQ is one of them. That's a good Telegram channel. One technique I learned in one of the investigative groups was using IMGUR to look up "Team Member" photos. Scammers usually use fake photos on their team shots and that's one way to reveal an outright scam. I found a scam on Craiglist trying to sell fake Bitminer s9's using IMGUR where their "CEO" was an image that was ripped off from an Instagram account of a surfer from Santa Cruz.
Also, common sense. The Plexcoin scam (the guy did jail time for it, so yeah, it's a scam) featured a whitepaper that flat-out refused to reveal the identities of the team members with some ridiculous excuse. Not sure who would have invested the $12M that that project managed to collect before their assets were frozen, but don't be one of those investors!
Also, what is your reason for investing in an ICO? This is important, because if it's to make money in the short term you may have a completely different strategy than if you are planning to hold in the long term. I have seen a lot of coins that actually drop in value when they hit the exchange for the first time - naturally, if people who have the tokens from the ICO want to cash out, as it were.
If you wish to avoid scams, there are some decent groups out there that are actually devoted to ferreting out those scams - ConcourseQ is one of them. That's a good Telegram channel. One technique I learned in one of the investigative groups was using IMGUR to look up "Team Member" photos. Scammers usually use fake photos on their team shots and that's one way to reveal an outright scam. I found a scam on Craiglist trying to sell fake Bitminer s9's using IMGUR where their "CEO" was an image that was ripped off from an Instagram account of a surfer from Santa Cruz.
Also, common sense. The Plexcoin scam (the guy did jail time for it, so yeah, it's a scam) featured a whitepaper that flat-out refused to reveal the identities of the team members with some ridiculous excuse. Not sure who would have invested the $12M that that project managed to collect before their assets were frozen, but don't be one of those investors!