Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 795 results by whale123
Re: COINDASH - Future of trading - Token Sale 17th July 2017
To summarize
1. There are two groups of people here. One is people who invested in the white contract (through white list, because they were selected from the community, or because the got the ICO address from someone else). Second group is people who got scammed (because they trusted the Slackbot and send on the wrong address or because they have used wrong address provided by hacker on the hacked webiste, without even checking if it is contract address and not wallet address).
2. Yes, devs had poor security of both Slack and website. But scammed people didn't even check when they are sending the funds.
3. Devs decided to be kind enough to send free tokens even to those people who were vistims of the scams (I understand only the website scam, not the Slack scam, but who knows). Also the people who sent the ETH to the right address might have an option to send their tokens back and get refunded (probably only some people will use this possibility, the rest will not).
Situation is really simple. This mess could be fixed in matter of hours. Scammed people would be grateful that despite they deserved nothing for their mistake of not checking where they are sengidn, they would be sending token anyway. And white list people who sent the coins to the right address would feel secure that if they want they can keep the coins or return them (preferably for a limited time). Devs can either destroy those coins or issue another round of sale, whichever they prefer. Everyone is happy, confidence in project rises. Of course some trolls are trying to make a chaos here. And devs for unknown reason are not communicating with the community instead of simply implement the above solution, which is the only fair and natural solution here. Let's hope they will fix this ASAP and we can move on to actual development of the project.
1. There are two groups of people here. One is people who invested in the white contract (through white list, because they were selected from the community, or because the got the ICO address from someone else). Second group is people who got scammed (because they trusted the Slackbot and send on the wrong address or because they have used wrong address provided by hacker on the hacked webiste, without even checking if it is contract address and not wallet address).
2. Yes, devs had poor security of both Slack and website. But scammed people didn't even check when they are sending the funds.
3. Devs decided to be kind enough to send free tokens even to those people who were vistims of the scams (I understand only the website scam, not the Slack scam, but who knows). Also the people who sent the ETH to the right address might have an option to send their tokens back and get refunded (probably only some people will use this possibility, the rest will not).
Situation is really simple. This mess could be fixed in matter of hours. Scammed people would be grateful that despite they deserved nothing for their mistake of not checking where they are sengidn, they would be sending token anyway. And white list people who sent the coins to the right address would feel secure that if they want they can keep the coins or return them (preferably for a limited time). Devs can either destroy those coins or issue another round of sale, whichever they prefer. Everyone is happy, confidence in project rises. Of course some trolls are trying to make a chaos here. And devs for unknown reason are not communicating with the community instead of simply implement the above solution, which is the only fair and natural solution here. Let's hope they will fix this ASAP and we can move on to actual development of the project.
Re: COINDASH - Future of trading - Token Sale 17th July 2017
Post ETA on the white list refund contract and provide the community with that option before the project gets ripped apart. Seriously despite of what happened many people want to hold your token but you are not helping by making the situation worse and angrying those who deserve refund. This is harming everyone, Also your loyal holders.
Re: [ANN] Bancor | Protocol for Smart-tokens, solving the liquidity problem
This has one of the most profitable bounty programs in the history of crypto. The translations only would give you up to 390 000 USD to split between about twenty countries giving about 20 000 USD bounties per head if the max cap is reached!
Re: [ANN] Bancor | Protocol for Smart-tokens, solving the liquidity problem
You can see the code here, according to this there is no specific block it will start, they will start it at the given time. Also one hour earlier is additional presale for those who decided to bought for 2,5 USD instead of 3,6 USD from Bitcoinsuisse and then normal ICO starts
https://etherscan.io/address/0xbbc79794599b19274850492394004087cbf89710#code
https://etherscan.io/address/0xbbc79794599b19274850492394004087cbf89710#code
Aragon thread is here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1950027.msg19376510#msg19376510
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1950027.msg19376510#msg19376510
Re: [ANN] Bancor | Protocol for Smart-tokens, solving the liquidity problem
Just a reminder that you can forecast on Wings platform how much will Bancor collect in the crowdfunding. There is up to 250 000 USD worth of Bancor token and ETH to be given away to Wings holders. Get some Bancor for free just for using Wings.
Re: [ANN] Bancor | Protocol for Smart-tokens, solving the liquidity problem
I think we need to use big red letters for the devs to actually answer this question.
Why have you decided on capping the ICO at 260 million dollars?
It is right there in the contract. And it is too high. Since you are selling only 50% coins in that presale, that would make the market cap of Bancor at 520 million dollars. You can arbitralily chose the hard cap and set it to 50 million or 150 million, so why do you want to set it at exactly 250 million dollars and not lower despite the community asks you to do so? Many people were rising this question and the team denies to answer it. Why do you want 260 million dollars? And if you don't wan't that much, why do you avoid capping the ICO lower?
Why have you decided on capping the ICO at 260 million dollars?
It is right there in the contract. And it is too high. Since you are selling only 50% coins in that presale, that would make the market cap of Bancor at 520 million dollars. You can arbitralily chose the hard cap and set it to 50 million or 150 million, so why do you want to set it at exactly 250 million dollars and not lower despite the community asks you to do so? Many people were rising this question and the team denies to answer it. Why do you want 260 million dollars? And if you don't wan't that much, why do you avoid capping the ICO lower?
Are you kidding me? Have you read the tons of statements in the thread here that the contract on github is only a draft and that the real contract code is hidden because of the hidden cap? There are comments in the contract that say that the cap value provided will be changed and is temporarily. Read the thread before posting in that font size.
You are confusing hidden cap and hard cap.
Recent blog post on bancor.network indeed confirms that the hard cap in the contract will be 1 million ether (about 260 million USD).
Re: [ANN] æternity blockchain ∞ GET AE TOKEN ∞ [PoS x PoW | Smart Contracts]
Some members of the team are well known and solid. Not sure why this should launch as Ethereum's token though instead of simply waiting for the mainnet to launch, like Ethereum did.