Quote from: Alexandr Korelko on July 31, 2017, 11:40:05 AM

Quote from: ChronoLogic on July 31, 2017, 09:51:15 AM

Quote from: Alexandr Korelko on July 30, 2017, 11:09:13 PM

Quote from: ChronoLogic on July 30, 2017, 02:03:22 PM

ICO contributors get both.

The ETH address you contributed from becomes one of 3,333 TimeMints (similar to Masternodes) that is able to create new DAY tokens through the passage of time.

On day zero, you will initially receive 24 DAY tokens per ETH. After day zero your TimeMint starts minting additional DAY tokens everyday.

In the whitepaper, the minimum needed to set up a TimeTX contract is 8,888 DAY. This means you need something like a 200 ETH investment to sell your TimeMint at the end of the first chrono era (if you just let the DAY generate more of itself) and 300+ to be able to sell it early on, even for the 1% mints. In practice, since the Mint presumably isn't mining anything while it's in the contract (as your DAY that you were mining with just got locked) it's even worse. There's also no real way to check whether anyone has a mint for sale in the first place (I guess people will wind up posting in here? meh) so it's extremely illiquid.

It's an interesting concept but I strongly recommend revising this point.

Additionally, to be blunt, the use cases in the white paper are anemic. The WP describes a token designed to be as hoarded as humanly possible, but there's nothing to spend it on and anyone without a Mint (remember, they're effectively not tradeable) has no reason to accept it. Investors are dependent on the company to eventually launch a platform that may, one day, do something with those tokens. "We'll find a lot of use cases later" is not good enough to send 88 ETH off and get back an asset it will take 300 more to ever trade.

The team's pedigree is beyond solid and the token itself is unique, so I'm puzzled why this ICO had to be now and not two weeks of use case brainstorming / development later, because there must be something better to shoot for than this.

Hi Alex, thank you for your interest in ChronoLogic, your feedback is valuable.

The fact that TimeMint addresses are themselves tradable creates a secondary market. Exiting out of a TimeMint is an option of the DAY token, rather than a core feature. It is premature to analyze that the market will be illiquid or liquid.

You can put in as little as 1ETH during the ICO. You don't necessarily need to pay 88ETH, that was the minimum price for some of the TimeMints still available during the pre-sale.

ChronoLogic expands the use of time on the blockchain, there is a certain level of serendipity that must be taken into consideration for early stage blockchain projects like this one. Being able to explain practical use-cases is important, but we are not here to foresee how the market will evolve, we believe all the different angles empowered people will come out with will be inspiring.

We envision people and businesses being able to create their time tokens with several different logic elements to measure, record, trade, buy and sell time-based activities. There is a lot that can be done with time on the blockchain and we want to expand what is possible right now. We're inspired by connecting the fundamental features of time with the blockchain.

The DAY token is itself a good example of what can be done with time on the blockchain: pegging time to minting or staking a usage or store or value token.

Hi,

As is clear from the WP, a TimeMint is only really valuable during the first 3-4 eras. All Mints will mine >75% of their tokens within the first 6 months and 90%+ within the first 12 months. As such, there is very little point to selling a Mint after 6 months; the market will never have any significant time to develop. Furthermore, if you put the Mint (and/or the tokens used to power it) up for sale in a 2 week auction you waste 12% of its output, and, of course, it takes 300 ETH to sell -any- of them, including the ones the ICO participants pay 1-10 ETH for. With this limitation, even if they weren't already mining less than the pre-sale versions, it is virtually impossible for any of the Mints bought by small-cap buyers to ever be sold. The bigger ones might be tradeable if there was a site or a UI set up somewhere to do that, but I don't see that shown here.

Meanwhile, DAYs are designed to be hoarded as their only use case in the real world right now is to be used to stake more of themselves. After those 6-12 months, the wells will run dry. Then what? You haven't outlined a reason why anyone not connected to a Mint will want one. The team wants to develop other proof of time use cases but that may well have nothing to do with DAY at all.

"We are not here to foresee how the market will evolve" is not good enough for an ICO that requires this much to get off the ground. You want to raise 20 million dollars. The token idea is unique and worth pursuing but given the limited amount of time it's worth anything in this implementation, this isn't the way to go about it. If I thought you were scamming on purpose I wouldn't bother making either of these posts, so take this as a sincere request - please go back to the drawing board for a little bit and look for a way to make this work for buyers.

Hi everyone. So, to put it simply, after 12 months, almost no new DAY tokens will be produced by any Mint, right? And After 24 months production of new tokens will be stopped totally. This will make Mint value go to zero, and total amount of DAY to be static in practice. Why not sharing a fixed amount with ICO members from the beginning? Any advantage of this (much complicated) way you propose? Can't see anyone.

spartakkus

Posts

Merits