Topic: [ANN][INCNT] Incent Loyalty | Waves Token | Traded on Bittrex - page 45. (Read 491352 times)

Quote from: Markov on April 28, 2017, 04:06:51 PM

That's fine to pay people in Incent, it is normal practice however the norm is to lock-up those shares/tokens to avoid an instant dump. It is irresponsible to investors not to consider it and the excuse of this being crypto is just an excuse.
You are asking for investors but you are not looking in their best interest and not being transparent about it.

When a coin (in this case Incent) is promised to be bought off the market because of an event or anything, something is off. I'm glad I bought at 10k and sold it at 19k just before the beginning of ICO, and washed my hands off this. I had similar experiences with colored coins back in 2014 and I guess my instincts kicked in.

That is the business model. There's nothing untoward about that. It's a perfectly valid approach and lots of businesses use it. In fact it's becoming the norm in crypto due to the regulatory problems involved with issuing dividends. Just because you got burned with colored coins doesn't mean 'something is off'.

Re: locking Incent for partners - as I said, that's problematic. I guess we could have done for the team, though (unsurprisingly) no one from the team has sold. For the PR company, a lock-up period would have been a dealbreaker. Incent is a crypto startup, a high-risk company in a high-risk sector. Who's to guarantee that the Incent would be worth anything at the end of the lock-up period? We might be confident, but they have bills to pay.
That's not to say we aren't very disappointed in the course of action they took.

All market deals should be done at arms length and in a free market spirit. If someone is paid in Incent and they dump it is perfectly fine. Some others that want the coins will buy those at a lower rate. At some point the circle will complete itself and those that wanted to dump have dumped and those that want to buy have bought. This is how new floors are formed and needs at least one cycle to get to the new floor. Everyone has his or her price and there will also be lesser or greater sells along the way. Unless there is a hack of a holders wallet or some other material event, dumps should become less over time and as adoption grows holders will become more distributed and at some point the resistance level will be broken where it becomes difficult for one holder to dump the price in a material way.

I know this sounds very theoretical, but it is important to keep market forces real and not to apply artificial meddling.

Cassius

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1031

Quote from: Cassius on April 28, 2017, 03:40:31 AM

Quote from: ifyousmell on April 28, 2017, 03:24:52 AM

Quote from: Cassius on April 28, 2017, 03:40:31 AM

That's fine to pay people in Incent, it is normal practice however the norm is to lock-up those shares/tokens to avoid an instant dump. It is irresponsible to investors not to consider it and the excuse of this being crypto is just an excuse.
You are asking for investors but you are not looking in their best interest and not being transparent about it.

When a coin (in this case Incent) is promised to be bought off the market because of an event or anything, something is off. I'm glad I bought at 10k and sold it at 19k just before the beginning of ICO, and washed my hands off this. I had similar experiences with colored coins back in 2014 and I guess my instincts kicked in.

That is the business model. There's nothing untoward about that. It's a perfectly valid approach and lots of businesses use it. In fact it's becoming the norm in crypto due to the regulatory problems involved with issuing dividends. Just because you got burned with colored coins doesn't mean 'something is off'.

Re: locking Incent for partners - as I said, that's problematic. I guess we could have done for the team, though (unsurprisingly) no one from the team has sold. For the PR company, a lock-up period would have been a dealbreaker. Incent is a crypto startup, a high-risk company in a high-risk sector. Who's to guarantee that the Incent would be worth anything at the end of the lock-up period? We might be confident, but they have bills to pay.
That's not to say we aren't very disappointed in the course of action they took.

If it was a dealbreaker from the PR point of view then you should have advised the investors. It was obvious they would sell in that case. Your role is to protect and advise investors in Incent but you don't seem to get it.

I get where you're coming from, but just so you're duly warned: we crowdfunded $1.1 million and distributed 23 million Incent. Anyone who holds any Incent at all might dump it at any point, and the market is thin enough to take it down to zero if someone really wants to.
It's a market. It's a part of the Open Value proposition. It's not cool they did it, but it's their call. Same as it will be with anyone else who sells.
We'll do everything we reasonably can to build value for investors, but we're not in the business of telling people what they can and can't do with their own money.

Markov

sr. member

Activity: 258

Merit: 250

Breizh Atao

Quote from: ifyousmell on April 28, 2017, 03:24:52 AM

Quote from: onemanatatime on April 28, 2017, 03:36:23 AM

That's fine to pay people in Incent, it is normal practice however the norm is to lock-up those shares/tokens to avoid an instant dump. It is irresponsible to investors not to consider it and the excuse of this being crypto is just an excuse.
You are asking for investors but you are not looking in their best interest and not being transparent about it.

When a coin (in this case Incent) is promised to be bought off the market because of an event or anything, something is off. I'm glad I bought at 10k and sold it at 19k just before the beginning of ICO, and washed my hands off this. I had similar experiences with colored coins back in 2014 and I guess my instincts kicked in.

That is the business model. There's nothing untoward about that. It's a perfectly valid approach and lots of businesses use it. In fact it's becoming the norm in crypto due to the regulatory problems involved with issuing dividends. Just because you got burned with colored coins doesn't mean 'something is off'.

Re: locking Incent for partners - as I said, that's problematic. I guess we could have done for the team, though (unsurprisingly) no one from the team has sold. For the PR company, a lock-up period would have been a dealbreaker. Incent is a crypto startup, a high-risk company in a high-risk sector. Who's to guarantee that the Incent would be worth anything at the end of the lock-up period? We might be confident, but they have bills to pay.
That's not to say we aren't very disappointed in the course of action they took.

If it was a dealbreaker from the PR point of view then you should have advised the investors. It was obvious they would sell in that case. Your role is to protect and advise investors in Incent but you don't seem to get it.

Cassius

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1031

Been following this project from day one even before the ico started.

Looks like it's about time for this project to get a boost.....

Good for you. Market fluctuations notwithstanding, there's a lot of good stuff going on.

Cassius

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1031

Quote from: ifyousmell on April 28, 2017, 03:24:52 AM

That's fine to pay people in Incent, it is normal practice however the norm is to lock-up those shares/tokens to avoid an instant dump. It is irresponsible to investors not to consider it and the excuse of this being crypto is just an excuse.
You are asking for investors but you are not looking in their best interest and not being transparent about it.

When a coin (in this case Incent) is promised to be bought off the market because of an event or anything, something is off. I'm glad I bought at 10k and sold it at 19k just before the beginning of ICO, and washed my hands off this. I had similar experiences with colored coins back in 2014 and I guess my instincts kicked in.

That is the business model. There's nothing untoward about that. It's a perfectly valid approach and lots of businesses use it. In fact it's becoming the norm in crypto due to the regulatory problems involved with issuing dividends. Just because you got burned with colored coins doesn't mean 'something is off'.

Re: locking Incent for partners - as I said, that's problematic. I guess we could have done for the team, though (unsurprisingly) no one from the team has sold. For the PR company, a lock-up period would have been a dealbreaker. Incent is a crypto startup, a high-risk company in a high-risk sector. Who's to guarantee that the Incent would be worth anything at the end of the lock-up period? We might be confident, but they have bills to pay.
That's not to say we aren't very disappointed in the course of action they took.

onemanatatime

full member

Activity: 294

Merit: 101

Aluna.Social

Been following this project from day one even before the ico started.

Looks like it's about time for this project to get a boost.....

ifyousmell

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

Quote from: Cassius on April 27, 2017, 04:56:26 PM

Quote from: Markov on April 27, 2017, 04:31:15 PM

Quote from: KarlKarlsson_ on April 27, 2017, 06:46:19 AM

Please have a look at the Bittrex trading history. You will see that our bot market purchased quite some Incent over the course of several hours, few small orders every minute.

Regarding the dump: We just paid a PR outlet in Incent for their services during the ICO. They immediately transferred the whole payment to Bittrex and it looks like they want to sell all of it, pretty short-sighted if you ask me.

Seems pretty short sited of Incent that they did not contract a lockup period which is standard in business and business 101 level.
It ensures the market will not disproportionately increase the supply, which drives prices downward. 40+% in this case.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lockup-period.asp

That's really not going to fly in a sector like this unfortunately.

I don't see why it wouldn't work in crypto since the PR obviously went back to btc or Fiat. Kind of immature to have done that and kind of bad investors were not informed of it earlier. Tech is nice but behaviour is is slightly shocking.

Lots of people were paid in Incent for their work on ico. Any one of them could have dumped, and still could, just like anyone else. Most were smarter.
The dump was the first we knew about it, which was also when we shared that information.

That's fine to pay people in Incent, it is normal practice however the norm is to lock-up those shares/tokens to avoid an instant dump. It is irresponsible to investors not to consider it and the excuse of this being crypto is just an excuse.
You are asking for investors but you are not looking in their best interest and not being transparent about it.

When a coin (in this case Incent) is promised to be bought off the market because of an event or anything, something is off. I'm glad I bought at 10k and sold it at 19k just before the beginning of ICO, and washed my hands off this. I had similar experiences with colored coins back in 2014 and I guess my instincts kicked in.

Markov

sr. member

Activity: 258

Merit: 250

Breizh Atao

Quote from: Cassius on April 27, 2017, 04:56:26 PM

Quote from: Markov on April 27, 2017, 04:31:15 PM

Quote from: KarlKarlsson_ on April 27, 2017, 06:46:19 AM

Please have a look at the Bittrex trading history. You will see that our bot market purchased quite some Incent over the course of several hours, few small orders every minute.

Regarding the dump: We just paid a PR outlet in Incent for their services during the ICO. They immediately transferred the whole payment to Bittrex and it looks like they want to sell all of it, pretty short-sighted if you ask me.

Seems pretty short sited of Incent that they did not contract a lockup period which is standard in business and business 101 level.
It ensures the market will not disproportionately increase the supply, which drives prices downward. 40+% in this case.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lockup-period.asp

That's really not going to fly in a sector like this unfortunately.

I don't see why it wouldn't work in crypto since the PR obviously went back to btc or Fiat. Kind of immature to have done that and kind of bad investors were not informed of it earlier. Tech is nice but behaviour is is slightly shocking.

Lots of people were paid in Incent for their work on ico. Any one of them could have dumped, and still could, just like anyone else. Most were smarter.
The dump was the first we knew about it, which was also when we shared that information.

That's fine to pay people in Incent, it is normal practice however the norm is to lock-up those shares/tokens to avoid an instant dump. It is irresponsible to investors not to consider it and the excuse of this being crypto is just an excuse.
You are asking for investors but you are not looking in their best interest and not being transparent about it.

Cassius

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1031

Quote from: Markov on April 27, 2017, 04:31:15 PM

Quote from: KarlKarlsson_ on April 27, 2017, 06:46:19 AM

Please have a look at the Bittrex trading history. You will see that our bot market purchased quite some Incent over the course of several hours, few small orders every minute.

Regarding the dump: We just paid a PR outlet in Incent for their services during the ICO. They immediately transferred the whole payment to Bittrex and it looks like they want to sell all of it, pretty short-sighted if you ask me.

Seems pretty short sited of Incent that they did not contract a lockup period which is standard in business and business 101 level.
It ensures the market will not disproportionately increase the supply, which drives prices downward. 40+% in this case.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lockup-period.asp

That's really not going to fly in a sector like this unfortunately.

I don't see why it wouldn't work in crypto since the PR obviously went back to btc or Fiat. Kind of immature to have done that and kind of bad investors were not informed of it earlier. Tech is nice but behaviour is is slightly shocking.

Lots of people were paid in Incent for their work on ico. Any one of them could have dumped, and still could, just like anyone else. Most were smarter.
The dump was the first we knew about it, which was also when we shared that information.

Markov

sr. member

Activity: 258

Merit: 250

Breizh Atao

Quote from: KarlKarlsson_ on April 27, 2017, 06:46:19 AM

Please have a look at the Bittrex trading history. You will see that our bot market purchased quite some Incent over the course of several hours, few small orders every minute.

Regarding the dump: We just paid a PR outlet in Incent for their services during the ICO. They immediately transferred the whole payment to Bittrex and it looks like they want to sell all of it, pretty short-sighted if you ask me.

Seems pretty short sited of Incent that they did not contract a lockup period which is standard in business and business 101 level.
It ensures the market will not disproportionately increase the supply, which drives prices downward. 40+% in this case.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lockup-period.asp

That's really not going to fly in a sector like this unfortunately.

I don't see why it wouldn't work in crypto since the PR obviously went back to btc or Fiat. Kind of immature to have done that and kind of bad investors were not informed of it earlier. Tech is nice but behaviour is is slightly shocking.

Cassius

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1031

Quote from: KarlKarlsson_ on April 27, 2017, 06:46:19 AM

Please have a look at the Bittrex trading history. You will see that our bot market purchased quite some Incent over the course of several hours, few small orders every minute.

Regarding the dump: We just paid a PR outlet in Incent for their services during the ICO. They immediately transferred the whole payment to Bittrex and it looks like they want to sell all of it, pretty short-sighted if you ask me.

Seems pretty short sited of Incent that they did not contract a lockup period which is standard in business and business 101 level.
It ensures the market will not disproportionately increase the supply, which drives prices downward. 40+% in this case.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lockup-period.asp

That's really not going to fly in a sector like this unfortunately.

Duchess

full member

Activity: 232

Merit: 100

Rubic stays cubic