The reason why we are asking for as much as we are is because of the sheer amount of work going into creation and application. If I was just looking to make a few BTC then we'd be doing what everyone else is right now. make a clone, launch, dump, abandon, rinse & repeat. I know you don't know me from the next guy, but this is most definitely not just a rough outline of the project with tall tales creating false hope. Client will be fully functional at release date to show that everything we said is possible, and we will also be creating some real world examples after that to give some idea that what we say can be built is true.
I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. There are some here who vouch for you and believe you to be an honest guy. I'm not doubting them or you but even you say in the ANN that you are not a developer. You are taking on a community manager role. It is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that your good reputation is being used by the developers to pull off a scam. People will literally stab each other in the back for that kind of money, so surely there are developers out there who wouldn't hesitate to destroy your reputation and burn a bridge for it. There is also the possibility that all the developers have good intentions, but are simply not technically capable enough to pull off everything promised. A fully functional client at release date does nothing to encourage investment in the ICO, as it will be closed by then. If you guys have something to show or any original code, why not show it now instead of us doing the same old, same old "throw your BTC in the pot and cross your fingers" game?
In an ideal world, everyone here would be honest and large projects like this could be anonymously funded. Developers, investors, and crypto enthusiasts would all be happy campers. The facts remain that we live in the real world, where the altcoin scene has been ravaged by scam after scam after scam. In the current climate, 4000 BTC of funding to anonymous developers? Not a chance a hell it's happening. Not trying to piss on the project, I'm just telling it like it is. If a project requires more than a few hundred BTC of funding, developers have to be prepared to prove their real world identities and even then finding the funding can be tough. Ironically, lowering the target amount of funding might net you guys more BTC in the end, as the size of this ICO is going to turn off many who otherwise would have been interested.
Ok, I'm confused. You say 100% ICO then you say Scrypt mining as a merge mineable coin only?
I believe the intention is that the mining reward will come from people using the services. So the initial 4 billion will be constantly recycled from initial ICO holders, to buyers who use services, to miners, and then back to market.