Topic: [ANN][ICO]✅✅✅ WHITELISTING NOW! Verify - The Future of Reputation ✅✅✅ - page 2. (Read 31535 times)

i don't know if they have another channel for comunications, but this btt thread seems dead. I bought some Verify tokens couple months ago hoping to have nice profit, but as far as i see no one cares about this token? It had potential, why don't you take care of your coin, team?

is there still any active development being done?

There is telegram or discord group?

I bought some CRED today. I paid only 30 cents on yobit. $ 0.15 cents cheaper than those other exchanges.  

Some actual progress been made or a pump and dump ongoing?  Sold too early in either case

Long live the only CRED. I'm excited for the future of Verify - based on the white paper it seems like there are great things to come!

Awesome! I just read your whitepaper and am really interested in this project. I want to invest but am a little leery of the current exchanges offering CRED. A Kucoin listing would be great.

Weekly Update: 26th Jan 2018

As customer development continues, we’re getting closer to an alpha release of the Verify payments platform. We’ll be sharing details in the lead up to this early released — and we’ve kicked things off with the Verify Master Plan post linked below.

We put on quite a show on the KuCoin community vote this past week, raking in 5,270 votes. Unfortunately, we ended in 4th place (so no automatic listing). We’ve yet to hear back from KuCoin on next steps — and are open to a paid listing. We’ll update the community exchange post as updates come in.

We’re still interviewing for the two technical roles we announced: a front-end developer role (details here) and a CTO. If you’re interested in applying, please reach out.

Also, this will be the last regular weekly update. We’ll start sending ad-hoc updates from now on (through our primary channels on our community page, Reddit and Medium).

The Verify Master Plan, Part 1
In keeping with our core value of transparency, we’re diving into the strategy we’ve laid out for Verify Payments. Check it out on Medium.

Reddit AMA: Mon, Jan 29
We’re running a live AMA on Reddit with Yazin Alirhayim, CEO @ Verify. Get your questions ready and post them here — I’ll be answering them live this Monday, 12pm UTC.

https://medium.com/@verify.as/weekly-update-26th-jan-2018-900abfd7e9e0

Good point, and I agree with your argument. There are two primary reasons why cryptocommerce is small:
1. Most people don't hold crypto
2. Most people that hold crypto are speculators

I'll be sharing a post soon explaining what we're doing to address these reasons.

Lol dude what is your problem. What do I even care who AnonyMint is?(besides that his name is nowhere mentioned, nor on your website which isn't live anyway)
But anyway because he an active community member doesn't mean that a project he runs out will be a succes.

And lol I'm just saying you don't have the exclusive right to CRED just because you registered the domain

And then you're also giving CRED advise on what they should do and how they should change their name, only because it benefits you.


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.

LOL you haven't owned anything, you don't even have a token. you only have a domain which isn't working. Your just pathetic, GTFO out of this topic and if you really have a problem with CRED, go to their website and contact the owner or sue them

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 won’t 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 we’re 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 doesn’t 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).


You’re not Ethereum. You’re 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:


There’s no way we’re 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 we’ve already used the CRED token name, you just aren’t aware of it.


The gangster tone is not befitting a professional project.

---

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

And that’s 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.


I’ll presume they read this thread or have been alerted by their community who do. Yet we’ll also alert them through their other channels of communication. I’ll 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 we’re not at the point right now of suing anybody nor wishing to do so. Trying to suggest amicable resolution. It’s up to them obviously how they want to respond or not at this juncture. I presume they’re only interested in the short-term extraction of speculators money and so I presume they don’t care about the long-term outcome. They probably presume they’ll be long gone by them any way. So as I said in my first post, I think the market may resolve this naturally. We’ll see…


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 don’t overlap such that users don’t get confused, typically there can be no trademark issue. Yet if our use of CRED totally dominates public awareness, yet they’re 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 aren’t going to be offering our token any way (by our design), so we wouldn’t 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 can’t use in our project. Perhaps the confusion will be minimal. I dunno. We’ll see…

Thus, I can conclude you’re also apparently ignorant of the law.


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 can’t 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. It’s a very complicated subject matter though, so we’ll 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 can’t 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 Verify’s 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. There’s other issues I see with the project concept, but I’d rather not expend my time writing it all down.


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 it’s 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.

Lol get the fuck out of here. Just because you may have registered a shady domain with the same name first doesn’t mean you have the exclusive rights for the name CRED. You don’t even have a working website or product. Anyone can register websites and hope that someone uses the same name in a few years. And than you’re even advising a name change, lol noway that’s going to happen. You’re even doubting all ICO’s lol don’t forget Ethereum was also an ICO.

Afaics, you’re infringing on our use of the CRED token name. Our plans/use of this name predates yours as best as I can determine based on the first public post from your project being early October 2017 on Medium, which didn’t even mention CRED. Your whitepaper has a reference to “Oct. 18, 2017” on page 12, so it wasn’t created before that date. Do you have any public evidence of your plans/use of the CRED name from before October? The first public mention of “CRED tokens” that I can find is on your Medium post of Nov. 8 and the OP of this ANN thread which is also dated Nov. 8.

https://www.name.com/whois-lookup/cred.cloud
https://www.namecheap.com/domains/whois/results.aspx?domain=cred.cash
https://imgur.com/a/JvmFI

I think that for a considerable duration of time it won’t really matter. Our projects have different target markets. I don’t expect an issue on the exchanges because of this (I won’t tell you why now and actually you’re use of the CRED name on exchanges is somewhat of a blessing for us). And I doubt very much that your narrow scope, ERC-20, ICO-issued project¹ will be of any serious threat in terms of name confusion to the scope of our goals/plans. But none of us can predict the future.

Yet this serves as notice that we don’t intend to stop our use of the CRED name.

To avoid confusion and dilution of brand (mostly at your detriment, if any, since CRED is the name of our project and domain name), you might want to consider changing your token name to REPS (can’t be REP as is taken by Augur). Since reputation seems to be your project’s primary function.

Other than that, best wishes for you.


¹ _{I have strong doubts about whether ICO-issued projects will survive for more than a year or two due to a sea-change in regulation on the way.}

Incase you are not aware, Vote for CRED to be listed on Kucoin! This is our chance for a better exchange. We have done well on etherdelta, but we can do better.

Hi Yazin,

I wonder what your take is on the growth of [Suspicious link removed]merce. As the whitepaper states the volume of [Suspicious link removed]merce is incredibly small. In my opinion I think that as long as cryptocurrencies and tokens stay subject to speculation, the volume of [Suspicious link removed]merce might stay small. I think Verify has great potential in a mature [Suspicious link removed]merce market. But I see the immaturity of [Suspicious link removed]merce as a obstacle right now.

What's your take on this?




 

Awesome growth on this project. I've been following it closely and it's great to see how well it has done. Keep it up!

If they have any information definitely they will share the listing and so don't worry already the price of CRED increased a lot in the market. The market cap for cred it quite good soon we can expect good price in the market.

Are you planning to make partnerships with services like Civic or THEKEY? I think it will be very useful for your project

I have see what exchange will listings CRED, so much X  . CRED is entering a crowded space and is not very visible yet. How community can help CRED to listing more exchange in future?

What you do is straightforward, good-looking and promising.
However, we should recognize that there are a lot of risks cause you don't have any product/contracts.
As far as I understood: you have charismatic and experienced StartUper from Bahrain who hired freelancers from CIS.
(If I'm not mistaken)

Please, focus more on the development, not on seeking liquidity.
Exchanges are secondary and they will come since the primary product/agreements come.

I personally go YoBit to buy some CRED!

Good luck, guys!