Paypie accurately assesses credit risk by taking into account your business as a whole, such as your relations with customers for invoices awaiting payment. allowing you to continue your activity serenely.
Topic: [ANN] PayPie - Blockchain-Powered Risk Assessment - page 109. (Read 109500 times)
I read somewhere that PayPie was considering positioning itself as an alternative to the big credit risk rating agencies like Moody's and S&P. Is that still true?
Well they will probably try to get one of the big players in the game, what else would you expect if you start such a big project? Also the investors probably expect a lot and as it is the first blockchain based project based of this, they have good chances to be sooner or later one of the big companies out there.
Regarding Korea I heard that only korean based ICOs will be banned, so I can safely says that koreans can invest in PayPie...what do you think?
As far as I know only ICOs which are hosted in South Korea have been banned. How should they foreign ICOs? This is not possible.As long as paypie allows to invest from korea, everybody korean can invest, or am I wrong?
No, that is not how I look at it.
In my opinion when the government steps in, it is fixing a symptom of a flaw in the system. The system must be built in such a way that government is unnecessary. Case in point, PayPie's triple entry accounting.
In my opinion when the government steps in, it is fixing a symptom of a flaw in the system. The system must be built in such a way that government is unnecessary. Case in point, PayPie's triple entry accounting.
Some form of government intervention will always be needed. Even in paypie, without govt assistant, it's will be hard to verify the validity of info entered in the ledger in certain areas. The idea is to find that buoyant balance where the govt aids the growth of crypto without centralizing the agendas.
Government are people and people are corruptible, therefore cannot be trusted.
In my opinion, the current form of government itself - that is, rule by the people - is a trust-based system and therefore vulnerable to incompetence, fraud and mistakes. At some point in the future we will look back and wonder how we managed to live under such a deeply flawed construct.
Trusting government agencies such as the SEC only gives a false sense of security. Even if they hold no ill intent, they are not omnipotent. They stop some bad apples, but let a lot of garbage through.
How else could such a thing as the 2007-2008 credit crunch happen?
The truth is, the root of the problem is not even government. That is just a symptom too. Essentially it is a misunderstanding of humanity.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/22/5086/#6d6f032ff92f
Yes its true that the paypie team is one of the most solid and serious that I have ever see. Experimented people with great skills, its really important for investors to see a huge team, who will make the project go really far and will handle the development very well. I'm sure that paypie team will do it nicely !
I read somewhere that PayPie was considering positioning itself as an alternative to the big credit risk rating agencies like Moody's and S&P. Is that still true?
How are negotiations about the participation of Canadian and US residents in ICO?
It will be great if you resolve this issue.
It will be great if you resolve this issue.
A very good team composed of experts who have several decades of experience and have collaborated with big names such as Forbes, Ethereum, Ibm, Microsoft, Barclays or even Oracle, with a common vision and by mixing their skills they can have the power to revolutionize the market and allow worldwide companies to radiate.
I am not afraid, I just think these immediate stop of ICOs might scare some newcomers, because we are just in the beginning of the acceptance of cryptos. Some of you say it doesn't matter that South Korea bans Korean ICOs, they can still participate in foreign ones. But for a Korean who just bought his first ETH and now stumbles across ICOs and learns that they are banned in his country, why should he participate in a foreign one?
Thats true, it will scare some new comers. But you and me also had some rough first month when we started
, there is always something happening.But we all know, crypto is just in his baby shoes, this whole ICO thing will just be a small chapter in some years. We all should be glad we are now part of it and could tell our grandchildren that we were there when it all began
Most good projects, including PAYPIE - will take a place in the everyday life of each person and as a result will gain their value
I suspect that "working platform" requirement won't be limited to only Korea. I have read an article about an USA based ICO developer getting jail time for collecting money but not developing the projects.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/29/the-sec-has-charged-two-initial-coin-offerings-with-defrauding-investors/
I am surprised the SEC is on top of ICOs in contrast to similar cases on Kickstarter where the FTC and the Washington State took action.
https://www.geekwire.com/2014/attorney-general-asylum-playing-cards-crowdfunded-project/
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/feds-take-first-action-against-a-failed-kickstarter-with-112k-judgment/
http://valleywag.gawker.com/it-just-got-easier-to-sue-failed-kickstarter-campaigns-1637720027
https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/29/the-sec-has-charged-two-initial-coin-offerings-with-defrauding-investors/
I am surprised the SEC is on top of ICOs in contrast to similar cases on Kickstarter where the FTC and the Washington State took action.
https://www.geekwire.com/2014/attorney-general-asylum-playing-cards-crowdfunded-project/
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/feds-take-first-action-against-a-failed-kickstarter-with-112k-judgment/
http://valleywag.gawker.com/it-just-got-easier-to-sue-failed-kickstarter-campaigns-1637720027
Its kinda a paradox that on one hand we dont want government to interfere with ICOs and cryptocurrencies and are always jumping in the air when they announce some regulations but on the other hand we welcome when governmental departments are pursuing fraud and even demand them to take action against scammers in crypto world.
No, that is not how I look at it.
In my opinion when the government steps in, it is fixing a symptom of a flaw in the system. The system must be built in such a way that government is unnecessary. Case in point, PayPie's triple entry accounting.
Some form of government intervention will always be needed. Even in paypie, without govt assistant, it's will be hard to verify the validity of info entered in the ledger in certain areas. The idea is to find that buoyant balance where the govt aids the growth of crypto without centralizing the agendas.
I heard as per new rules it is mandatory to have a working platform before the ico to show the tokens can be spendable. Would this applies to paypie also or is it out the new rule sets because of its jurisdiction area?
Are you talking about Korea based ICOs or ICOs in general? Or China based maybe? PayPie isn't based in Korea or China, I see no problems at all
I suspect that "working platform" requirement won't be limited to only Korea. I have read an article about an USA based ICO developer getting jail time for collecting money but not developing the projects.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/29/the-sec-has-charged-two-initial-coin-offerings-with-defrauding-investors/
I am surprised the SEC is on top of ICOs in contrast to similar cases on Kickstarter where the FTC and the Washington State took action.
https://www.geekwire.com/2014/attorney-general-asylum-playing-cards-crowdfunded-project/
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/feds-take-first-action-against-a-failed-kickstarter-with-112k-judgment/
http://valleywag.gawker.com/it-just-got-easier-to-sue-failed-kickstarter-campaigns-1637720027
Its kinda a paradox that on one hand we dont want government to interfere with ICOs and cryptocurrencies and are always jumping in the air when they announce some regulations but on the other hand we welcome when governmental departments are pursuing fraud and even demand them to take action against scammers in crypto world.
It all really depends on what kind of regulation. I think everybody is for government making sure ICO's don't scam people, except for the scammers
It's sure that it would be good to have a system totally decentralized, but for the moment the intervention of a centralized entity is always necessary at some point.
Not only decentralized, they also need to be trustless. For example EtherDelta is decentralized, but had some vulnerabilities that were exploited. That is because the systems weren't trustless enough. The code needs sanity checks everywhere and it has to be tested rigorously.
It's sure that it would be good to have a system totally decentralized, but for the moment the intervention of a centralized entity is always necessary at some point.
Not only decentralized, they also need to be trustless. For example EtherDelta is decentralized, but had some vulnerabilities that were exploited. That is because the systems weren't trustless enough. The code needs sanity checks everywhere and it has to be tested rigorously.
However, EtherDelta does have some elements of trustless design, such as the lack of order matching. Orders don't trigger automatically, the user has to click to execute orders manually.
It's sure that it would be good to have a system totally decentralized, but for the moment the intervention of a centralized entity is always necessary at some point.
I suspect that "working platform" requirement won't be limited to only Korea. I have read an article about an USA based ICO developer getting jail time for collecting money but not developing the projects.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/29/the-sec-has-charged-two-initial-coin-offerings-with-defrauding-investors/
I am surprised the SEC is on top of ICOs in contrast to similar cases on Kickstarter where the FTC and the Washington State took action.
https://www.geekwire.com/2014/attorney-general-asylum-playing-cards-crowdfunded-project/
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/feds-take-first-action-against-a-failed-kickstarter-with-112k-judgment/
http://valleywag.gawker.com/it-just-got-easier-to-sue-failed-kickstarter-campaigns-1637720027
https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/29/the-sec-has-charged-two-initial-coin-offerings-with-defrauding-investors/
I am surprised the SEC is on top of ICOs in contrast to similar cases on Kickstarter where the FTC and the Washington State took action.
https://www.geekwire.com/2014/attorney-general-asylum-playing-cards-crowdfunded-project/
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/feds-take-first-action-against-a-failed-kickstarter-with-112k-judgment/
http://valleywag.gawker.com/it-just-got-easier-to-sue-failed-kickstarter-campaigns-1637720027
Its kinda a paradox that on one hand we dont want government to interfere with ICOs and cryptocurrencies and are always jumping in the air when they announce some regulations but on the other hand we welcome when governmental departments are pursuing fraud and even demand them to take action against scammers in crypto world.
No, that is not how I look at it.
In my opinion when the government steps in, it is fixing a symptom of a flaw in the system. The system must be built in such a way that government is unnecessary. Case in point, PayPie's triple entry accounting.
I heard as per new rules it is mandatory to have a working platform before the ico to show the tokens can be spendable. Would this applies to paypie also or is it out the new rule sets because of its jurisdiction area?
Are you talking about Korea based ICOs or ICOs in general? Or China based maybe? PayPie isn't based in Korea or China, I see no problems at all
That's right!
I would also like to know where these new rules are stated, to which country they apply, etc. If it's not just a rumour or hearsay someone can provide perhaps a source.
Then these are no impact on PayPie.
I am more concerned about the PayPie team's planning of the project and the current advance of PayPie.
If this is true , it would significantly decrease the number of ICO's on the market. Having a working product is no easy feat.
There are no official new rules for ALL ico's. Maybe just some new laws in Korea and China. But still a lot of other countries
It can make uncertainty. If Korea and China ban, others will follow?
It's a delicate market, everything is affecting bitcoin price and ico contributions. This kind of news is toxic for us.
Of course it should concern us when a country like South Korea decides to ban local ICOs. Btw. Switzerland is investigating ICOs, too. Maybe they'll make some regulations as well?
It's naive to think that these news don't have an effect at all to the success of an ICO.
I am not afraid, I just think these immediate stop of ICOs might scare some newcomers, because we are just in the beginning of the acceptance of cryptos. Some of you say it doesn't matter that South Korea bans Korean ICOs, they can still participate in foreign ones. But for a Korean who just bought his first ETH and now stumbles across ICOs and learns that they are banned in his country, why should he participate in a foreign one?
I heard as per new rules it is mandatory to have a working platform before the ico to show the tokens can be spendable. Would this applies to paypie also or is it out the new rule sets because of its jurisdiction area?
Are you talking about Korea based ICOs or ICOs in general? Or China based maybe? PayPie isn't based in Korea or China, I see no problems at all
I suspect that "working platform" requirement won't be limited to only Korea. I have read an article about an USA based ICO developer getting jail time for collecting money but not developing the projects.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/29/the-sec-has-charged-two-initial-coin-offerings-with-defrauding-investors/
I am surprised the SEC is on top of ICOs in contrast to similar cases on Kickstarter where the FTC and the Washington State took action.
https://www.geekwire.com/2014/attorney-general-asylum-playing-cards-crowdfunded-project/
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/feds-take-first-action-against-a-failed-kickstarter-with-112k-judgment/
http://valleywag.gawker.com/it-just-got-easier-to-sue-failed-kickstarter-campaigns-1637720027
Its kinda a paradox that on one hand we dont want government to interfere with ICOs and cryptocurrencies and are always jumping in the air when they announce some regulations but on the other hand we welcome when governmental departments are pursuing fraud and even demand them to take action against scammers in crypto world.
It is no paradox if you consider that those people just want the best for them: no regulations, no supervision, unless they are scammed. This is hardly feasible...
I heard as per new rules it is mandatory to have a working platform before the ico to show the tokens can be spendable. Would this applies to paypie also or is it out the new rule sets because of its jurisdiction area?
Are you talking about Korea based ICOs or ICOs in general? Or China based maybe? PayPie isn't based in Korea or China, I see no problems at all
I suspect that "working platform" requirement won't be limited to only Korea. I have read an article about an USA based ICO developer getting jail time for collecting money but not developing the projects.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/29/the-sec-has-charged-two-initial-coin-offerings-with-defrauding-investors/
I am surprised the SEC is on top of ICOs in contrast to similar cases on Kickstarter where the FTC and the Washington State took action.
https://www.geekwire.com/2014/attorney-general-asylum-playing-cards-crowdfunded-project/
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/feds-take-first-action-against-a-failed-kickstarter-with-112k-judgment/
http://valleywag.gawker.com/it-just-got-easier-to-sue-failed-kickstarter-campaigns-1637720027
Its kinda a paradox that on one hand we dont want government to interfere with ICOs and cryptocurrencies and are always jumping in the air when they announce some regulations but on the other hand we welcome when governmental departments are pursuing fraud and even demand them to take action against scammers in crypto world.
I heard as per new rules it is mandatory to have a working platform before the ico to show the tokens can be spendable. Would this applies to paypie also or is it out the new rule sets because of its jurisdiction area?
Are you talking about Korea based ICOs or ICOs in general? Or China based maybe? PayPie isn't based in Korea or China, I see no problems at all
That's right!
I would also like to know where these new rules are stated, to which country they apply, etc. If it's not just a rumour or hearsay someone can provide perhaps a source.
Then these are no impact on PayPie.
I am more concerned about the PayPie team's planning of the project and the current advance of PayPie.
If this is true , it would significantly decrease the number of ICO's on the market. Having a working product is no easy feat.
There are no official new rules for ALL ico's. Maybe just some new laws in Korea and China. But still a lot of other countries
It can make uncertainty. If Korea and China ban, others will follow?
It's a delicate market, everything is affecting bitcoin price and ico contributions. This kind of news is toxic for us.
Of course it should concern us when a country like South Korea decides to ban local ICOs. Btw. Switzerland is investigating ICOs, too. Maybe they'll make some regulations as well?
It's naive to think that these news don't have an effect at all to the success of an ICO.
I am not afraid, I just think these immediate stop of ICOs might scare some newcomers, because we are just in the beginning of the acceptance of cryptos. Some of you say it doesn't matter that South Korea bans Korean ICOs, they can still participate in foreign ones. But for a Korean who just bought his first ETH and now stumbles across ICOs and learns that they are banned in his country, why should he participate in a foreign one?
I am not afraid, I just think these immediate stop of ICOs might scare some newcomers, because we are just in the beginning of the acceptance of cryptos. Some of you say it doesn't matter that South Korea bans Korean ICOs, they can still participate in foreign ones. But for a Korean who just bought his first ETH and now stumbles across ICOs and learns that they are banned in his country, why should he participate in a foreign one?
Thats true, it will scare some new comers. But you and me also had some rough first month when we started
, there is always something happening.But we all know, crypto is just in his baby shoes, this whole ICO thing will just be a small chapter in some years. We all should be glad we are now part of it and could tell our grandchildren that we were there when it all began
Jump to: