Quote from: Bitnumb on January 23, 2018, 08:54:36 AM

Just because you may have registered a shady domain with the same name first doesnt mean you have the exclusive rights for the name CRED. You dont even have a working website or product.

I think you fail to understand who AnonyMint is and the scope of his project will likely overwhelm in popular usage anything this narrow project Verify will ever achieve (not unless perhaps in a very unlikely scenario Amazon decided to accept cryptocurrencies and selected Verify as their reputation service, but even I think that would be mostly hype and not enough people would buy on Amazon with cryptocurrency at this time, although that might be viable some years from now yet then one would assume Amazon would create its own reputation service). And the CRED project has been in research and development for years.

You can do what ever you want, it wont change the fact that we own the CRED name as both the project name and the token name because our project will have orders-of-magnitude more users and exposure than yours.

I was attempting to make a friendly suggestion that you consider changing your token name to REPS avoid causing confusion at the exchanges. You (and the exchanges who host you) could end up getting sued later perhaps by our users in a class action lawsuit who are pissed off that your selling them tokens (on exchanges) which are not usable for our project. Or who knows what our attorneys may advise later. So it might be best for you to bite-the-bullet and make the change sooner than later (that is if your project is serious about being around a year or two from now, but I doubt that as well). Frankly I think were probably in entirely different markets not only w.r.t. the scope and features of our respective projects, but also because Verify is likely primarily targeting speculators first before users; whereas, our CRED project is targeting users and not speculators. And there will be actual teeth behind this claim to make it provably so.

Your project is supposed to be a serious, objective reputation service for merchants. Reputation is a quality attained by widespread acceptance. So you should be using REPS and not credibility which is more informal, can vary based on localized, subjective persuasion, and associated with street cred where it fits better with our project (e.g. we will have decentralized curation/moderation wherein credibility can vary for different sets of users). Also who knows you may possibly end up doing very well with your project by piggybacking on ours, so why are you trying to make enemies? Even look at the title of this thread says, Verify - The Future of Reputation not Verify - The Future of Credibility. You can clearly see that the word credibility doesnt describe your project well. Be consistent and use a token name that matches the words you use to describe your main feature, and stop infringing our project and token name (which are consistent and well matched to our project theme).

Quote

cred·i·bil·i·ty
ˌkredəˈbilədē/
noun
the quality of being trusted and believed in.
the quality of being convincing or believable.
another term for street credibility.

Quote

rep·u·ta·tion
ˌrepyəˈtāSH(ə)
noun
the beliefs or opinions that are generally held about someone or something.
a widespread belief that someone or something has a particular habit or characteristic.

Youve been sent a friendly notice at the earliest time that we became aware of your use of our project and token name, for your token name.

Btw, are you a member of the project team or just some random supporter that we should ignore?

Quote from: Bitnumb on January 23, 2018, 08:54:36 AM

dont forget Ethereum was also an ICO.

Youre not Ethereum. Youre one of some 100s of ERC-20 token ICO metoocoins with a niche idea and whitepaper, extracting money from speculators for a common enterprise, which makes it a security subject securities regulations in the USA, Asia, and soon in Europe with MiFiDII:

Quote from: CRED.me on January 12, 2018, 05:42:35 PM

And the ICO cease & desist orders begin:

https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/12/sec-shuts-down-munchee-ico/

And the European regulator is coming:

http://archive.is/heVFi

G20 coordinated regulation coming:

Quote from: https://cointelegraph.com/news/indian-banks-suspending-bitcoin-exchange-accounts

The international mood toward Bitcoin has continued to tighten, particularly with US Treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin stating that the G20 nations will begin working together to make sure that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are properly regulated.

Theres no way were going to let you waste the CRED token name on that, given we owned it before you starting infringing and our plans are vast and have been in place for a long-time. And weve already used the CRED token name, you just arent aware of it.

Quote from: Bitnumb on January 23, 2018, 08:54:36 AM

Lol get the fuck out of here.

The gangster tone is not befitting a professional project.

Quote from: Bitnumb on January 23, 2018, 10:40:51 AM

I'm nowhere stating that CRED is Ethereum, just debunking your argument where you state that ICO-issued project will not survive in two years.

Read more carefully. I wrote ERC-20 ICO-issued, not ICO-issued.

And thats a very important distinction which is covered in detail in the linked threads I provided. ERC-20 means you can issue a pre-functional token fairly easily with nearly no open source community (at the time of the launch or within a short time thereafter) and other aspects that might make issuance instead a utility token or otherwise side-step the Howey test.

Quote from: Bitnumb on January 23, 2018, 10:40:51 AM

go to their website and contact the owner or sue them

Ill presume they read this thread or have been alerted by their community who do. Yet well also alert them through their other channels of communication. Ill also presume their attorneys are capable of understanding the implications of investing heavily in a token name which is later subjecting the principals of the project to potential liability. As I said, our post here was only to serve notice that we will not stop of our use of the CRED name for both our project and token. And suggesting this could possibly lead to problems for them in the future, which they might wish to avoid. And suggesting that REPS is better fit to their theme of reputation. Obviously were not at the point right now of suing anybody nor wishing to do so. Trying to suggest amicable resolution. Its up to them obviously how they want to respond or not at this juncture. I presume theyre only interested in the short-term extraction of speculators money and so I presume they dont care about the long-term outcome. They probably presume theyll be long gone by them any way. So as I said in my first post, I think the market may resolve this naturally. Well see

Quote from: Bitnumb on January 23, 2018, 03:52:45 PM

Lol youre pathetic. Im just saying that because registrering a domain doesnt mean you have the exclusive right for a name first.

The first thing we do before deciding if a name can be ours to use, is to see if we can register the major domains and see if there we any recent registrations for the applicable domains which would indicate some other project may be using the same name. Because being aware of potential future conflicts ahead of time is important for planning and decisions. If they had done this, maybe they would have decided to use REPS from the start instead.

Additionally the issue here for trademark law (copyright is the not the correct law for name protection) is establishing preponderance of public awareness for a particular target market. If our target markets dont overlap such that users dont get confused, typically there can be no trademark issue. Yet if our use of CRED totally dominates public awareness, yet theyre selling CRED tokens to our confused users on exchanges, then they would be the infringing party regardless of the dispute about who claimed the name first. So that is why I suggested that if they intend to still be on the exchanges 1 2 years from now, they might want to contemplate the implications and consider whether a change now to REPS might be a better strategy. If they instead wait too long, maybe some other project grabs REPS, then they could get squeezed by our more popular adoption and having not a good alternative to switch to if trademark lawsuits come later due to exchanges confusion. The exchanges within our legal reach arent going to be offering our token any way (by our design), so we wouldnt care if they were listed as CRED on exchanges except for the conflict will be, if any, that if our users are mistakenly assuming they can buy our tokens on exchanges and then getting pissed off at Verify for selling our users something they cant use in our project. Perhaps the confusion will be minimal. I dunno. Well see

Thus, I can conclude youre also apparently ignorant of the law.

Quote from: Bitnumb on January 23, 2018, 03:52:45 PM

Just saying, get the fuck out of the CRED topic, bringing a negative vibe. And if you really have a problem with CRED then normally a smart person would contact the owner itself, not via a forum lol. Ask them directly or sue them directly.

We have hereby provided notice officially in the most popular forum for altcoin announcements and discussion. This is a necessary action so that a date of first public notice is established.

Since 2015, AnonyMint has been quite negative on ICO-issued projects that violate securities and/or FinCEN/AML regulations. A forum is for speaking openly about analyses. The regulators have begun to take actions all over the world on ICOs and this will increase. They cant shutdown every exchange in every third world country, but they can go after the principals of the projects who reside in G20 countries for example. IMO a huge clawback and crypto winter is coming for those projects which flaunted the law, even if they had legal counsel advising them that they could side-step based on some invalid theory or jurisdictional arbitrage. Its a very complicated subject matter though, so well have to see what transpires on that front. Nevertheless, I presume 99% of the ERC-20 token offerings are get rick quick scams for the insiders.

But moreover, I can basically assume this project is BS because they have a fundamental hen-egg problem with scaling. They cant scale merchant adoption of reputation services by being a (one of eventually dozens of) 3rd party(ies) to the decentralized ledger trying to aggregate customers and merchants. Rather the reputation problem needs to be solved by the officially sanctioned decentralized ledger protocol itself for a popular decentralized ledger. So that economic reality further weighs into the consideration of whether Verifys token is truly a utility token and not a speculative security. OTOH, they appear to have some capable people on the team, so it may not be all a mirage, but I still think they'll fail to scale it. Theres other issues I see with the project concept, but Id rather not expend my time writing it all down.

Quote from: Bitnumb on January 23, 2018, 03:52:45 PM

And by the way, im not working for CRED in any matter. I dont even have CRED lol. Im just following the project because i see its true potential. But found it very funny to see such dumb people on the internet thinking they know everything.

Yeah like you think you know everything:

https://gist.github.com/shelby3/e0c36e24344efba2d1f0d650cd94f1c7

When CRED launches its correct solution to the above issue of how to scale decentralized which Bitcoin, Ethereum, EOS, Iota and all others have not and will not be able to solve, do you even grasp that its on an entire other level than this niche reputation project Verify.

Note Bitnumb is apparently just a troll with a gangster attitude and not a representative of the Verify project, so he has been put on Ignore.

CRED.me

Posts

Merits