I see this rather a long term invest and do not plan to sell when this finally hits the exchanges. Right now the climate for ICO's is toxic and unless the SEC decides in favor of the recent filing regarding ETFs this might continue for much longer. Considering who filed this request this time I see however a realistic chance that the SEC approves it this time. Indeed there are many other opportunities, less ICOs but coins you can buy for large discounts.
It may be possible, chances are better at least as in 2017. But I'm still sceptical. Interesting read but unsure how reliable:
https://theicojournal.com/source-bitcoin-etf-nearly-certain-to-win-approval-later-this-year/Regarding the use case, I have not seen the app yet but from what I know so far it's sounds like a lot of people could benefit from it, however there were similar projects that combined Crypto Saving with AI like Daneel and they did not take off either, were trading far below ICO price last time I checked. But I see Savedroid superior compared to Daneel as they do not "borrow" their AI from IBM (Watson) and create something of their own.
I don't believe that AI will make much difference any time soon and I don't believe in the big AI-promises of small projects like Savedroid or Coinanalyst. What I believe in: Customers want an easy to use and safe entry into Crypto. That could be the fundamental brand of Savedroid. But that is highly about trust because as a user you will have to trust Savedroid with your money. And they have damaged the trust-topic very effectively. Second: The search for the perfect balance between easy to use and safe is not new. A lot of projects are working on that and in my opinion the future will be about applications and Desktop-Wallets that 1) give user control about their money and 2) are directly connected to decentralized exchanges to be cheap. That future is also not there yet, but it will come for sure.
Savedroid: Will not give users control about their money and it will be expensive. That's something I see as major problem, because I don't understand the concept of saving money while paying 15% for each action and not really owning the assets.
The stunt did hurt the brand for sure, the explanation of the CEO afterwards made sense for me, but the large majority never watched that and indeed if you do some research you find mostly sites that report about the stunt at the time and never updated their reports, which is quite normal in the press as most online media is mainly interested in clicks and dramatic headlines. On the other hand people who would have never found out about this project now are aware of it. If you do a bit more research then you will also find out quickly that it was "just" a stunt or awareness campaign.
See... the explanation can make sense to people simply because there is a lot of fraud going on in this space and it's pretty much everywhere. But at the same time it's so trivial and superficial and presumptuous to do such a PR-stunt. In my opinion it goes down to two conclusions: Those who didn't follow the whole story still think Savedroid is a scam. Others find it stupid. To me there is one big conclusion: They think superficially, they focus on bold headlines while ignoring the context. But context is everything.
The paradox is: They wanted to educate others, implying they would have understood this space. But it's just a proof that they don't understand. They are egocentric newbies to Crypto. Also this legal threat because of the study underlines that. Is it wrong to rebut the claims of this study? Of course not. Is it wrong to consider legal actions? Not necessarily. Is it wrong to communicate it that way? Absolutely, because the reactions are predictable. They have put themselves in such a weak position because they themselves have caused the "scam-shitshow". And then they communicate such a threat in public.... it will be forgotten soon but to me it shows again: They make stupid decisions, have zero sense for smart communication and under the line everything is communication.
Or take the whole top5-communication and how the story changed over time or their attempt to hype the Coinanalyst-ICO. And a lot of what they communicate... they like to put others into "wrong" and themselves into "right". A simple example: It's very usual for Yassir to say that they are open for critical arguments but that they don't listen to those who are loud but to those who come up with arguments. Truth is: They are loud themselves and they ban people with critical arguments on their Telegram channels. Or: Yassir likes to talk about the moon prices of exchanges and that they don't want to play that game. Sounds reasonable. What he doesn't say is that they've liked the "Hype-ICO-Game" and still like it (Coinanalyst). And they have given their own token a moon-price.
In my opinion: Narcissistic Hypocrits.
