Topic: [ANN][ICO] Bitcoin Growth Bot, Lending Platform​ 2.0​ [DECEMBER TOKEN SALE] - page 16. (Read 7854 times)

I don't think the bonus it's too much. Seriously I have seen some ICOs offering more than 100% of bonus at the presale. I am more worried with the lack of information this project has. What will you do for guarantee the safety of the bot? It makes more sense to sell the bot than preparing a whole ICO process to do such a thing like this. I am sorry for my sincerity, but this looks like one more way to raise a lot of funds without a working product. There are no news here.

Yea its easy to create waves token but it doesn't mean its a scam but it is easy way to scam people without much technical knowledge

Is ERC20 token creation much harder?

Nothing wrong with using a service to build on top of it. Of course we still don't know if Jordan can deliver or not. But if he scams us all, at least we know who did it:)

where smat contract addres
or where dekstop wallet if youre coin use POS coin, not token coin

I was concerned about refferals, makes no sence to me that you get rewarded just by someone signing in on the platform. Someone could eazly make 1000 fake gmail accounts and sign in from different IPs, and than what, u will be rewarded with 15k tokens? You guys see this as fair? Only logic solution is that your refferals have to purchase token. I also think that purchase of tokens should be limited per account, 500$ max. There are more than anough interesents to buy out all tokens from presale. Makin possibility that some whale jump in and buy 20% or more tokens is not good for the project.

I have no doubt demand for Nucleus coin will skyrocket  with this CEO as long there is a functioning platform.


Polling on ERC20 Vs Waves is pointless, everyone is for ERC20. Just create ERC20 tokens, i haven't heard anyone flavouring Waves apart from its so easy to create token

I agree with didi-man here. Waves seems great for a fast bootstrap, but if you want something a bit more flexible, with greater adoption and more developed I think Ethereum is the way to go. Not to mention that Waves has not even implemented their smart contracts.

Do you really need 7-8 people in a team, i m thinking all other platforms have maybe 2-4 people max, you wanna as fewer people as possible, too many moving parts leads to failures.

I'm not sure I agree. Depending on the complexity of the platform 2-4 people is definitely not enough. But I'm not sure which platforms you are talking about here. I do agree that most of the work can be outsourced so no need for a big full time team.

Do devs have to physically be in SF area, can you work with people from around the world? Yes i guess but its risky

It does not have to be risky. If a person is only creating the design of the platform, there is pretty much zero risk in what he is doing and he definitely does not to be working from San Fran.
Same thing with a smart contract's developer (if Jordan decides to take this route).

IMO this type of project is best run with trusted group of people you have known for a while, employing 10 random strangers can lead to disasters, any of these guys can potentially  steal coins, btc, algos, personal data and run off starting his own biz.

It is all about how much access you give to people. Of course the most sensitive parts could either be hard coded and managed by smart contracts, eliminating the need of trust all together, done by multiple people (like using a multi sig. account to access large funds) or just by one person. But then the whole community needs to trust one person and the whole point of this type of tech is so that we don't need to trust anyone.

In other words, I guess it all depends on what is the final goal of the platform. If the main idea is just to make the trading bot's trades transparent then maybe all this is over kill. Then maybe the best is to just:
- Create a waves token that will be used on the platform.
- Develop the platform in a centralized way (like Bitconnect)
- Have users register to that platform and enable them to lend and claim NCL tokens from that platform.
- Let users trade the tokens in Waves' decentralized exchange.

I think that later on, the community (the ones who have stake in the system) can start putting their heads together and through some sort of liquid democracy decide how the platform can add value to its eco-system. A little bit like Dash style. But I guess we could do that later, once there is plenty of cash to be spent in more development.

Hmmms! Exactly what I was thinking.

The user agreement is extremely pushing away from USA and yet, everything about this dude shows him residing inside USA! Seems strange, unless he plans to live in Japan during the launch ICO. lol

The site is a complete rip of BITCONNECT with only the text edited in what likely is photoshop.

. . . . On to the next . . . .

Nucleus coin founder Jordan Lindsey, quick search comes up with interesting results

Sound like he is a typical trading Forex guru, lot of negative reviews and questionable 5 start reviews.

Since he was so unsuccessful at Forex what make him so sure he can deliver 1% daily return in crypto?

He sensed opportunity for some quick buck


DYOR




http://www.forexpeacearmy.com/forex-reviews/387/www.jcls-forex.com?per-page=50&sort=rating


http://www.forexpeacearmy.com/community/threads/jcls-forex-com-jordan-lindsey.1194/


http://www.tradebinaryoptionsrobot.com/blog-aggressive-gains-review-a-scam-by-jordan-lindsey


Skills

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jordanlindsey

Technical Analysis Currency FX trading Trading Trading Strategies Trading Systems BrokerageDerivatives Electronic TradingInvestment StrategiesFinancial MarketsFX OptionsEmerging MarketsHedgingForeign ExchangeEquitiesBloombergOptionsPortfolio ManagementAsset ManagementETFsAlternative InvestmentsHedge FundsBondsCapital MarketsInvestmentsFixed IncomeCommodityProprietary TradingEquity TradingEquity DerivativesInvestment BankingForeign Exchange (FX) OptionsFX Trading

The crowdsale terms allow for a possible migration of tokens to another protocol such as ERC-20 if needed. In which case replacement tokens would be generated on the new protocol if doing so is necessary or useful to the operation of the ecosystem.

I am open to that if it is needed and useful for building a better platform.


After all, we will all have a stake in this system.

Any ideas that we come up with here that I believe will benefit the project will be polled in front of those who have participated in the project. Since they have interest it is best and fair.

1 - Is the ICO being too rushed?

The ICO can be pushed back if those who have participated believe it to be in the best interest. I am happy to have those who have reserved tokens as they have real interest in the project.

2 - Should the token be an ERC20 token?

If it could benefit the project I am all for it. I do need details on how and why

3 - Should the ICO happen through a smart contract instead of Waves?

I believe if ideas/points 1 & 2 are adapted then absolutely.

4 - I'm sure solidity developers and others would love to work on this project and get paid in NCL tokens alone, that being said, isn't it better to build the platform first and then go for the ICO?

The token value of the ICO would definitely be higher and it would see greater adaption. I very much like that idea. It needs to be polled in front of those with interest (holding tokens). I can do that this week.

In my opinion, the most important aspect of the ICO is for the platform to get enough tokens sold so the trading bot can start bringing daily returns. This way more people will want to join in and purchase NCL and more value the token will have. Classic Bitconnect style.

The pre-sale will raise enough to fund the bot with profits from the bot going towards purchasing NCL creating DEMAND for the token aside from outside interest. This is key for appreciation.

Thank you for the all of the interest and insight.

didi-man, cicnos - please keep going with me and I am happy to work with you.



  

Is it too late to switch to ERC20 since some people already purchased Waves tokens


Jordan needs some assistance, can we see bot in action at least so we can build team around it

After all, we will all have a stake in this system.

At this moment it seems that there are a few concerns regarding the ICO.

1 - Is the ICO being too rushed?
2 - Should the token be an ERC20 token?
3 - Should the ICO happen through a smart contract instead of Waves?
4 - I'm sure solidity developers and others would love to work on this project and get paid in NCL tokens alone, that being said, isn't it better to build the platform first and then go for the ICO?

In my opinion, the most important aspect of the ICO is for the platform to get enough tokens sold so the trading bot can start bringing daily returns. This way more people will want to join in and purchase NCL and more value the token will have. Classic Bitconnect style.

Thoughts?