Topic: [ANN][SIM] Simcoin - A Simple Coin - page 52. (Read 157763 times)

I have a different way of taking it in stride. The FUDsters are people who are angry at the world, butthurt over a previous IPCO gone wrong, nursing a grudge, etc. At least one is a bully-boy playing hero. Since the altcoin space is on the wrong side of the tracks, even wrt Bitcoin, it attracts those kinds of people.

As for that (surprising!) negative-trust rating, I put it out of mind as soon as I saw it. So have many others.

Oh, so you are not a liar.

You are just too stupid to consider that I myself might have some money in my own exchange.

Unbelievable...

someone who forgot them there/lost password/died?
http://87.230.14.1/nxt/nxt.cgi?action=3000&acc=3283108578452123518

WHAT? I knew you are a shameless liar, but still...

sure, there were about 11.000 Nxt, I researched that

It's very simple. Those who spread FUD about Simcoin are investors themselves, so they don't want you or any new investors to come in and make their share smaller.

That's why there are so many topics in here, falsely accusing me of being a scammer and spreading all sorts of FUD.

When the IPO closes, you will see their position reversed. Those topics will quickly be deleted or forgotten and the very same people and their new sockpuppet accounts will start hyping Simcoin to try and get a better price to dump at by the time the exchange opens.

It's not that hard to follow their primitive logic.

---

Then there is salsacz and his sockpuppets, who doesn't like it that I openly talk about NXT flaws.

Why? Because I know what I am talking about and this undermines his attempts to generate a constant marketing hype-storm for NXT to blind everybody who has no technical expertise or haven't looked under the hood.

---

Then there are people, who are invested in other coin and feel threatened, because they are afraid that if Simcoin succeeds, their coin will die.


So that's the main reasons for all these tons of negativity thrown in my direction.

Do you think people would spout as much crap if Simcoin didn't matter?

"You decide." (c) The new lamest NXT slogan.

--
P.S. I don't bash NXT, I bash certain people.

Why the hell did they remove the noob restrictions?

This placed turned into a carnival of sockpuppets and retards...

LOL.... Fact of the day!!

1) This is going to happen anyway, so "1)It is good to keep the IPO open as long as necessary to increase the distribution of the coin."

2) This is just an observation, not a point, so "2) Up to a point dilution is inevitable and may in fact raise the value of the coin so it's not a bad thing."

3) That's essentially your wish to have more money. Aren't we all wishing this?

As I've explained earlier, I see no reason. You provided one in your previous post as "investors will promote Simcoin better" (which I refuted), and now you seem to back away from it.

So now we're back to "I just want more money", thus going in circles. Either provide me with another valid reason to give you more, or we're done here. You seem to be in minority anyway.

4) No reason given why it will be "good or desirable", so "4) I'm not saying we should change everything now. But an improvement would be good and desirable.".

You have to understand, that I will not give in to short-term enrichment goals of some investors/speculators.

I don't condemn it, but allowing such people to side-track the project is a grave mistake. That's what we see in the corporate world, where a new CEO essentially drives the company into the ground just to pay more money to himself and shareholders and then bails with a golden parachute. Not gonna happen.

So if there is no reason, other than "I want more", I suggest we close this discussion.

I heard from my Chinese friend,
they said this coin is scam.
What is your opinion guys?

bullshit!
Dev wants to keep the IPO open longer, investors want it stop now. As simple as that.

Wrong. Here is the condensed version of my post.

1)It is good to keep the IPO open as long as necessary to increase the distribution of the coin.

2) Up to a point dilution is inevitable and may in fact raise the value of the coin so it's not a bad thing.

3)Since dilution is inevitable, and even desirable(for the sake of good distribution), find a way to reward the investors who took the most risk in a slightly different manner.

4)I'm not saying we should change everything now. But an improvement would be good and desirable.

A raw example would be to say announce that stage 1 of the IPO will end in 3 days and stage 2 will begin. Since  you don't seem to intend on keeping the IPO open for 3-6 moths as I mentioned above, 2 stages would do the trick. In this case stage 1 would receive 20% more coins than stage 2.

I guess some variation of this example may solve the problems mentioned above.

I agree with the dev. Skewing the distribution by weighing in the early investors is unfair in a scenario where its mutually agreed upon in the beginning that there will be no incentive to invest early. The risk factor being the unanounced closing date, he's basically put the decision making in the hands of the investor. The longer you wait, the higher the probability of you being rejected a share. The early investors mitigated that risk my investing early, and the late investors gambled (and still are) by waiting for more updates.

I don't see why then the early investor needs to have a bigger share of the pie. They decided to invest early because they did not want to further their chance of being rejected. Its perfect.

EDIT: And if you are thinking about the early investors taking a risk because of the lack of escrow, that's a risk the late investors are taking as well. Its a risk everyone is taking, that kinda cancells itself out of the dilemma.

Ok, so here's the concise version of your post (and I wish you'd spent more effort condensing your thoughts):

1) Protect current investors, so they would promote Simcoin better.

2) This allows you to publish the end date too.

Here's my response:

1) Unless new investors get 0, current investors will still lose some part of their share, so there's no incentive for them to promote IPO at all.

There is a big incentive to create more "Simcoin is scam" topics, what we currently observe.

Meanwhile new investors will be less attracted because of significantly reduced reward. I very much doubt it will be a net positive change.

2) I don't need to publish the end date.

And I would agree that objectively not much has changed. But I think the majority of investors would agree that the risk perception has changed a lot and the fact that a lot of them have been increasing their investments speaks for itself.

If you remember the discussion began when I said that it would be good improve the rules keeping to things in mind: 1) need to keep the IPO open to make the distribution as wide as possible and 2) find a way to achieve the 1st point without doing it at the expense of the early investors.

So what my proposed change would bring is an incentive for the investors to organize, strengthen the community and spread the word about the IPO because it's not conflicting with their self-interest. Secondly it would also create an incentive for investors to join the community, invest as soon as possible and renounce further speculation on the last IPO day. Moreover, the IPO end date could be published without any worry and set as long as desired if implementation of more stages would be possible.

As a caveat I think with some skin in the game the problem would look a bit different to you too. As these two problems arise(distribution and stakeholder dilution) you seem to have skin in the game(meaning could be affected) only by one of the problems. And since you are not exposed to any downside by further dilution of the stakeholder part, a bit of indifference may arise in dealing with the problems at hand.

I would argue that not much changed in this month. Investors could do their due diligence from the beginning and make sure I was "able to code", my account had some history.

The work displayed so far is rather trivial. In fact, if I were a scammer, that's precisely the kind of "work" I would be doing to make it look like a real project

I also don't understand what your proposed change in rules would achieve. It will not bring more investors, that's for sure.

People seem to be missing the point. If we want to build a successful project for the long term we need to put some serious thinking into these matters and stop treating them impulsively.

There are two problems at hand, firstly, an IPO done "correctly" or in the most effective matter should take the risk/reward ratio as the primary factor to act upon. For example, at the very first point, this project seemed somewhat interesting, though very risky(that was the reasonable perception based on the available/missing facts). Reward should have been very high then because risk was. In fact people even created Simcoin scam threads expressing reasonable doubts because it almost looked like a scam. So the earliest investors took a big risk and made a bet based on what they thought and very little available info. After that there was a second stage where people saw that a lot of other people were investing and some more info became available. The dev did not run away with the money(yet) and he even proved that he could code. That was the point when the risk perception was somewhat diminished, so as a result a lot of other people decided to invest.

Now, as we begun to have a intelligent/healthy and important discussion about the matters, and progress to show some more real work done, I suspect people will pour more bitcoins into the project precisely because the risk perception is decreasing significantly and the reward may be still very high.

Secondly, it seems from the beginning you have tried to avoid speculators and attract investors. In order to do so, you have tried to keep the date of the IPO secret so as to avoid massive last second speculation. But the same thing could have been done more effectively with the method I've described above. You don't have to keep the end date secret and worry about the last second speculation if there is a strong incentive for early investors to join, contribute and help build the project and community. Indeed, this may be the most effective way to reach the desired result.

If you are planning on ending ipo before releasing anything tangible then all this discussion is moot because everyone will have the same risk.

edit- just saw your post above. no need to change anything then imo.

Oh, wait... we seem to be talking completely different time scales

No, the IPO will be closed right before I announce what you call "alpha", that's my current plan anyway.

So there will be no "stage 2".

No, I don't have a problem with it. But when you consider it on the scale of weeks and even days it becomes ridiculous - there is no reason why somebody should get more just because they saw the topic 2 days earlier. It's just random.

If you are talking months then that reasoning might be understandable, but IPO probably won't last long enough for this to become reasonable.