Topic: [ANN][TKS]TOKES Platform | Empowering the Cannabis Industry - page 51. (Read 103676 times)

Still on the fence about investing in Tokes. Why should I invest in this? Also what will the profit for investors look like 3-6 months from now?

Uhmu aha ghe hmm.

Admittedly, we did make a mistake on the ICO. Many project launches are providing 3-6 months of marketing and promotion prior to going live with their fundraise. I erroneously believed two weeks was sufficient to get our message across. That said, we've made some great strides in our exposure in a very short period of time, and I'd consider the early ICO investments to be quite successful. A lot of time left, and a lot of great content still to be released by us.

Thanks for the support!

I will be concerned about this project if it fails to reach $250,000 because that means they have done somethings wrong

There is no cap on funding beyond the 47.5M tokes for sale. Funding goals based on capital raised are outlined below:

You will do your license application at the end of ICO.

What is threshold for ico?

I cant trust them because I have no reason to. The escrows who work on this forum have put years into their reputation and them I can trust, Some unknown people to me cant be trusted.

Sorry.

No worries bud. If you can't trust the CEO of a crypto media company and a top rated escrow from bitrated, I don't know who you can trust.

No I've seen it before when people outside of the forum atmosphere acted as escrows and it did not turn out very well. I really wanted to invest here but without real forum escrows I have to pass.
Im sorry but I cant trust theses guys who you say are important but when I do my research they are just nobodys to me and could very well be part of the tokes team for all we know. That's why using an escrow on the forum who specializes in escrows would have had me purchase but now I must pass.

Good luck tho, i'll be watching.

I read part of a giant AML publication.  ( https://www.protiviti.com/sites/default/files/united_states/insights/guide-to-us-aml-requirements-6thedition-protiviti_0.pdf ) too. i just replied to letters from companies asking for clarification. thanks

Your expectations do sound plausible at least.  Truly I lack the expertise for a firm conclusion either way, but your reply covers intent on the matter well enough for me to plan to contribute a bit more to the ICO.

After all, the type and magnitude of expected measures in a MSB's required AML program is supposed to be influenced by whether actual money laundering potential is high or low.  It does seem possible (and hopefully the case) that FinCEN might take a common-sense approach in regard to how, if the fiat ramp is controlled, that does limit money laundering potential.


The thought is appreciated.  Unfortunately my comments were drawn only from an incomplete personal investigation (originally for another project), not extending much beyond what is already mentioned. 

Among some other sources, I read part of a giant AML publication.  ( https://www.protiviti.com/sites/default/files/united_states/insights/guide-to-us-aml-requirements-6thedition-protiviti_0.pdf )

But I am not a professional in a related field.

My browsing did come across, though, a number of cases when state and federal agencies responsible for MSB regulation have replied to letters from companies asking for clarification.  So, as you may already be quite aware, completion of your other research might be followed by an optional last step of contacting FinCEN itself, if any uncertainties were left unresolvable otherwise.

Yet, of course, you are dealing with non-regulatory business matters as well, one step at a time.

Anyway, thanks for the reply.  After all, seeing quite active developers tends to be a good sign.

I apologize for joining the list of challenging responses, personally considering a lot of the others to be unjustified.

But I would be curious if you could address a concern of mine.

Page 10 of your whitepaper notes a plan for anonymous transactions.  You are planning to operate based in an U.S. (Nevada) facility while offering anonymous transactions.

Miners and end-users of cryptocurrencies are exempt from relevant FinCen regulations.  However, your company would rather be classified as an administrator of a cryptocurrency:


https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/new-us-treasury-fincen-ruling-clarifies-money-transmission-status-renting-bitcoin-miners-hashing-power/

So you will be required to register as a Money Services Business (MSB).  That means you will be legally required to enforce anti-money-laundering (AML) and know-your-customer (KYC) measures within your cryptocurrency, as far as I can tell from reading about federal regulations.

Now you might think you could skip everything AML/KYC if you did not convert fiat to crypto or vice versa.  Even that may be iffy.  Not only definitely New York's law but also apparently federal FinCen now may expect AML thresholds (like $3000 and $10000 or whatever) to be applied to the equivalent value in cryptocurrency, even when merely transacting in crypto without fiat.

Anyway, in general, here is an example quote from a million-dollar court judgment against Ripple:


https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/Ripple_Remedial_Measures.pdf

In other words, the U.S. government forced Ripple to agree to implement anti-privacy measures.

I really do hope you have a way around the regulatory situation, but here is a question: Do you know of any privacy-protecting cryptocurrency with a blatantly U.S.-based administrator company, other than some tiny ones simply slipping under the radar?

I don't.  Most cryptocurrencies are either started in Europe or elsewhere, or more decentralized.  Bitcoin is decentralized with no single target for regulators to go after, not dependent on any particular company.

Satoshi Nakamoto probably disappeared for a reason.  Before the Bitcoin era, the electronic currency E-Gold reached $2 billion a year transactions.  E-Bullion and Liberty Reserve were other top privacy-protecting currencies.  What all three have in common is that their founders or top people ended up with federal criminal charges.

Like the rest of the badly managed drug war, just how bad FinCen regulations can be seems about impossible to overstate.

With that said, if you somehow really could pull this off legally, it would be great, especially as a volatility-free coin could much help business adoption of cryptocurrency.

All due respect, but that's generally how companies function. We've built a team of people qualified to fulfill the roles necessary for success. Yes, they will be paid as well, as development costs money. Not sure what I'm missing here?

i dont even understand this...

your outsourcing all the work, what are you even taking money for?
incent is hosting the platform -- they prob get a cut somewhere
you are outsourcing the dev work to people -- they get a cut
you get a cut, like this just seems like a cash grab

theres SO many points of failure when you rely on everyone else for your project, i wont touch this

wolf is already swamped with projects, darksilk is MONTHS behind due to him being paid and no work produced, i fear the same here

i wont ever give money to someone to hire people, do the work yourself or no way

These escrows came highly recommended from members of the community, and come with significant trust and rapport. They own businesses in crypto. Their reputations are extremely important to their credibility. Each of these reasons should instill trust in people interested in contributing to this project, and were the basis of selecting who we did.

The ICO platform is strictly for recording and reporting tokes purchases, and presenting that in a professional quality display. Incent's technology does this quite well, and is supported by a strong team who just completed a successful ICO of their own on the same technology(they raised over $1MM USD). I'm not concerned about them going out of business any time soon. However, even if that did happen, we control the wallets along with our third-party escrow signatories, so no funds would be lost. It would certainly complicate things in that we would need to retrace all of the transactions on the blockchain and identify the people behind those investments, but not impossible. In any event, Incent is a team of professionals with project experience under their belts.


edit: just a comment on satoshi's vision... I'm afraid that's the natural evolution of things. If nothing changed, the internet itself would be nothing more than command line in a terminal. I think we all appreciate what technological change has brought to the world as a whole. I'm sure we're going to see many more changes in coin tech and blockchain before this all settles down.

Please note that we're very early in development here, but these are critical initiatives we're tackling. The issue of cash onramps and offramps is at the core of our platform, and something that should be at least partially mitigated through Waves' proposal for direct fiat gateways, which is one of the reasons we selected them for asset issuance. I know we're being vague in some areas, but that is by design, and should be of value for anyone purchasing tokes in ICO. That's because a part of our value proposition is the proposed solutions to these very problems. More information will be released by our team as we approach ICO close, and as we move towards the implementations of those solutions. We want to maintain our competitive advantage in this niche.

As far as asset pegging goes, I would just ask what your familiarity is with the mechanism in general? It is effectively a two part system: one being the floating token (tokes), and a secondary unit that will be fixed at the value of $1.00 USD. Anyone with a desire to 'lock in' the value of their tokes against USD will be able to freely move between the two units. Again, early development, but the pegged unit will need to be fully capitalized and serve as a true USD-backed asset, in digital format. Think Tether.