Topic: [ANN][ICO]CREDITS - New Blockchain for financial industry [HARDCAP REACHED!] - page 115. (Read 37727 times)

Registration for new participants in all bounty campaigns is closed

Appeals of current bounty members are accepted here, in form:

https://goo.gl/SnJTte

Still on the fence with this ICO.  like the transparency at least so far.

I wonder if this is the "BIG" project, which Suppoman on YouTube is touting as his new "superstar" ICO, and which he demands payment for revealing early to his "special audience."  I enjoy his entertaining style, but his ethics leave me shaking my head sometimes. He's already rich from the space, he claims, so why make poorer people pay to follow his special treats? 

We know he likes platforms immensely, and he said today, and the day before that, and before that it's an ICO that will launch in "days," so if you look at what's coming out in just days, there are no other protocols or large platforms that I can see. Someone tell me if I'm wrong.

Does anyone know what other ICO's are launching that fit the criteria of an EOS, or an IOTA, NEO, or "Ethereum killer."  I can find nothing buy Credits in the launch window he is using.

Devs, honestly I don't understand for what you announced an alpha before the ico. I know that the building of such huge and scaleable system is a very difficult business and I was agreed with your previous roadmap and trust you. and I'm sure that you could reach your not big hard cap even without early alpha. I understand that you wanted to proof your concept and work, but you could do it after Zico, and now we all have not very good situation when you have postponed your Zico already 2 times...not good I think. But in any case, I am in!

Not true, there has been no new legislation. The existing law is the problem, because to invite the public at large, you must have a prototype or a working product.  Apparently they don't, or won't by the ICO, so they had to change the rules out of FEAR of existing law, not some hearing that doesn't amount to anything, but theoretical law.  Perhaps in Russia they have to fear "hearings," alone, but in America, they hold hearings for no good reason, at all.

Credits is a mixed bag for me. A few positives, a few red flags. I'm passing on the ICO, but will keep watching the project mostly out of curiosity.

The team's experience is decent. The developers look pretty competent. The main founder left the project in May 2017. The current CEO comes from a marketing background. Again, the current CEO comes from a marketing background.

They have been doing the roadshow tour, so that's good. Adds legitimacy and work ethic.

The project is in the blockchain ICO sector, which is defnitely the trendiest ICO sector to be in. Always going to get fans being in that ICO sector.

The advisors are average. 1 or 2 semi-credentialed people. Then a few of the typical mid-20's self proclaimed "ICO Advisors". All the advisors are real, verifiable people though.

The ICO reviews that the team has posted haven't really come from anyone credible yet. Sure it's still early, but one of the reviews, for example, comes from a guy whose website was created 2 weeks ago and the forum section there has exactly 1 user signed up (the founder himself).

The Columbia Blockchain Lab released a one sentence statement reading "Upon review of Credits' technical paper by Columbia Blockchain Labs Head of Technical Research, the Credits project has been deemed technically viable". There's no article or summary of their findings, just that one sentence statement.

Upon further examination, the Columbia Blockchain Lab was founded by four current 20-21 year undergrads at the school, and the two "Head of Technical Research" people are 23 years old who graduated Columbia in 2017 and who don't have all that much experience. That's not to say they're not smart -- they both do appear to be fairly intelligent on their Linkedin profiles -- but they're young and unproven.

In contrast, the UCLA Blockchain Lab?s founders include respected crypto people like Erick Miller (founder of Coincircle), another guy whose 10 year marketing industry exec and current instructor at UCLA, and the main contact person the UCLA Blockchain Lab is an accomplished professor at the school. So nothing against Columbia, it's just not exactly a hotbed of blockchain activity compared to other schools.

The founders' tokens are locked for a year, so that's good.

Reports are that the pre-ICO investors' tokens are NOT locked, and that they 70-80% bonuses/discounts. Now that's fine and all, except for the fact that ICO investors are receiving no bonuses/discounts. So what is the point of investing in the ICO if there's no bonus and the inevitable short-term dump will occur after it hits exchanges, meaning you can just buy in for cheaper then before the price goes back up?

I?m passing on the ICO, but will keep tabs on the project mostly from a curiosity standpoint.

The Alpha-version release

We are developing a serious product that demands a big amount of resources. The current team working on the project includes about 90 employees including 50 technical staff. The platform must be at most secure and implemented in accordance with specified technical characteristics - public decentralized blockchain, smart contracts and internal cryptocurrency.

Due to unexpected technical difficulties we have to postpone Alpha-version release of the  platform, which affects the ICO dates.

Starting from February 17 everyone will be able to test the Alpha-version of the platform. That’s why the ICO dates will be slightly changed.

Whitelist

Whitelist will be closed on February 15, 6pm UTC

ICO dates
Round 1 - Feb 17, one day for collecting funds from strategic partners. Total amount approx. 10%

Round 2 - Feb 18-20, two days for collecting funds from all wallets registered and approved in whitelist. Individual cap for round 2 will be determined after closing the whitelist.  Round 3 will take place if hard cap isn’t collected in Round 2.

Round 3 - Feb 20, the start of public ICO with individual cap about 1eth.

Token Distribution

We made initial planning of token distribution in October 2017. At this point we have to make slight corrections since there appeared some important issues which we haven’t taken into account previously.

Operation - 10% - locked for 1 year for next operation
Operation - 10% - locked for 2 year for next operation
Bounty - 2%
Bug bounty - 2%
Founders and team - 15% - locked for 1 years
Advisors - 2% - locked for 6 month
Marketing - 1%. Some tokens we spent for Pre-ICO and ICO promotion
ICO - 55%
Market making - 3%

Escrow

To involve all ICO participants in escrow we have decided to create a new escrow scheme.

As we previously announced 20% of collected funds will be kept in a special wallet. They will be locked until 50% of our ERC 20 tokens are exchanged to internal coin of our platform. New platform with its own cryptocurrency is a confirmation that obligations for developments of the platform are fulfilled.

Attention
Thank you for your consideration. Please be patient, attentive and beware of scammers. There has recently appeared a big amount of individuals using CREDITS name for their fraudulent activities.

---------------------------------------------

Crying babies, as you can see nothing bad was happened. Just be patient and you will rewarded for it by earning huge X's to your invested ETH. Good Luck for ALL!!!

I think their communication is the problem, not the resolve of the team. We all are guilty of making promises that we can't keep for various reasons.

The team has, after all, been on the road all over the place with this. If it was a total fraud, the proof of concept would have been laughed off the stage long before now. It wasn't, however.

All these projects are gambles, even EOS. They're a gamble for who can get out of the gate the fastest, and be secure, while providing a solid platform. No easy task, but it's worth dreaming about.

Crypto-Kitties was a hilarious failure of Ethereum's Platform, depending upon how much you invested in digital cats.  I can think of no greater fraud than telling me I have to pay to breed my own cats.  

Until my crypto-kitties start secretly breeding amongst themselves, without anyone's permission, I'll be looking for an Ethereum Killer!

CREDITS team has an important update about Alpha-version release, whitelist, ICO dates and details. Please follow the link to get the full update.
https://credits.com/en/Home/New_Ins/2275

US citizens are not banned, they just should pass through KYC, and then they can participate!

Only useless if you want to put money into something that doesn’t exist and has fake partnerships with weird/dodgy companies

At this point, it's too late. No time to review source code, no time to reasonably test out the software. If the ICO is tomorrow, this is already a HUGE red flag.

Then they should delay their ICO by a few weeks, to give people time to verify, not ban everyone the day before.

Alpha will come before ico, im sure of it, and US citizens were banned by their legislation not by Credits

The SEC hearing on Tuesday was an unprecedented dilemma. It requires ALL ICOs to be considered a security. This is horrible for not just Credits but every single citizen who wishes to participate in ICOs that live in the US. Regardless, these obstacles will be over come in the future with the implementation of decenttralized ICO's from projects like KMD. There's no stopping crypto.

I don't chime in often. But this ICO stinks to high heaven, IMO.

Why no alpha?

How could you possibly achieve 1,000,000 transactions per second? Even DAGS like IOTA and nano are not boasting anywhere near that. Stellar is theorized to handle 10k TX per second.

Constant delays on alpha release, then banning all US based token buyers the day before the ICO? The strategy doesn't make sense. I don't know why they decided to ban US users right before, maybe they are worried about legal backlash? Whatever the reason, it shows they don't know which way is up.

All confidence is lost on this one.

Yea..........I know...... That's what I'm saying.....

I think that's a great thing to do and I think you have good intentions, but you're just doing it wrong, wait for ICO to be executed* with a failed alpha then toot your horn.

Look, whether you like me or not or think I'm credible or not, we will find out soon enough what the deal is with this ICO. I felt the need to show people what I saw, since it looks very bad, and in an atmosphere of ICO's running away with the funds right and left, I don't think we can tolerate this behavior. I do appreciate the feedback and will try more mature in my next ICO review

-----------------------------

Stop crying like a babies) I believe that everything will be okay. Yesterday it was only a Telegram account hacked, it means nothing, it could happen with every of us. But you just like a bots without brain started posting shit, be smarter or go away from crypto)

•I have plenty of Facebook pages myself and guess what? I never had an issue of hundreds of fake profiles following them....

Cool did you run a bounty? Foul play is obviously expected.


•I'm sorry if this made you doubt my credibility (no I'm not), I didn't get the full story as I was r-e-m-o-v-e-d from the group as soon as I asked them a few tough questions about the ICO and the product.

Yeah, that was the effin point........... If you dont know what you are talking about just be quiet. (Your child like boisterous behavior is what caused the ban in my opinion)


•30% active users is healthy and normal - Take a look at Ethereumproject or NEO_Blockchain or any other project you find reputable" - point taken although this wasn't exactly the main argument.

Okay then. - even though invalidating the social media ties was like 65% of your article.

•"There are missing links in some websites and completely obscured motives for some of these partners (keep in mind these projects are still fairly new)" - these arnt projects, these are jokes or outright scams. you can't call a website with a few pictures, no product, no team, and no credible info a "partner". sorry, it just doesn't work that way...

There are linkedin links and there is some information regarding these websites, but more or less - i agree to an extent - it looks sloppy. Like I stated earlier this is probably the only semi credible part of your statement.

•"juvenile demeanor" - that's me, nice to meet you

Aw, How cute, nice to meet you too.

•Things do change, but comparing this to Amazon, really? I liked the comparison to Mt. Gox better... usually ICO sites remain consistent with their idea, here it just looks like CREDITS is pilling on logos and websites with no substance to give them back some credibility they are clearly missing.

Yeah, you aren't understanding my point if you are comparing Amazon to these websites in a literal sense. To add, these websites weren't ICO's before, the subject of their project remain consistent since being public as an ICO.

•If the team had a shred of integrity they would delay the ICO by another 2 weeks, release the alpha and a github to let us see what exactly of their claims are real, and then let people invest while knowing a little more about what they're getting in to. .  

This is where we can both agree, I completely understand that and only time will tell at this point.