Topic: Archive: Project correction after feedback - page 3. (Read 7933 times)

I have read through your project description once again... The project is extremely ambitious. Too ambitious, I would say.

Frankly speaking, you are naive if you think you can attract community fast, and collect significant funds without spending big effort and time here. Such revolutionary things cannot be done fast.

Prior to starting ICO, you should start building a community, popularize your project here, show some progress, gain backers and enthusiasts who will trust in you. ICO and money collection should come when you already taught your idea to people and got enough assurance it will be accepted well. Otherwise you get what you get - bunch of BCT folks attacking you with accusations.

Just to clarify: I do not think you are running SCAM. I actually believe you (at least some part of the team) are being honest. But
1. Other, more cautious people here may think differently. That's because at the moment you are very similar to the many scams run here in parallel. Just few days ago there was another ambitious money grab called Ascendancy, where developers just run with money. So people are are burnt many times here.
2. Even if you are not Scam, it doesn't mean you can achieve what you promice to achieve. Either make your goals more small and doable, or try to spend time(at least few months)  building a community here, before starting this ICO

Thats my 2 cents... Take care.

Яковлева? А я думал Лисичкина, всем похоже было...

NeuroChat will be a messenger app that will provide every user with an opportunity to rate and upvote other people's proposals and initiatives. If we put it as easy as possible, that will be a steemit.com moved to messengers. On the first stage this will be a messenger app (Telegram etc.) and the user's will upvote with their smartphones; later on they'll rate content using the power of their thought only.
*I tried to put it as simple as possible*

No problem, I think. I've sent your message to the team so I think that most of us will be present during the hangout.
As for the profiles:
https://www.facebook.com/anastasia.yakovleva.146 — this is my FB account knit to my "birth" name
https://www.facebook.com/rysev — Dennis Rysef, CTO
https://www.facebook.com/zamirakimov — Zamir Akimov, CEO
https://www.facebook.com/kibalnikov?fref=ts — Sergey Kibalnikov, MSU professor
https://m.facebook.com/Gent3lmen — Alex Kogan, Creative Manager

I will expand the list as I get more links from the team:)

It sound like I can't understand in simple English. NeuroChat, means we can chat using a gadget connected to our heads? Seem pretty challenging. I can't imagine how huge the company will be if all these technology are going to be produced.

I have not seen the full data from the profile team that worked on this project, I think a lot of things it takes to see a project that is really big

can we set up a date this feb 14?  winky winky  
after that i can really vouch and ask everyone to send all their coins to the team. is this possible? because i really think having a meeting with some from the forum could be a solution.

an AMA maybe and also make your profiles public.

RUNEURO has already developed the prototypes of neurotypesetting for example. What we need to do now is to enhance the speed of the typesetting and make the neurointerface itself more handy. As we already have quite long experience for future research, new achievements will be announced and demonstrated regularly which will result in the growing asset price.
The first step, neurochat, will be launched in the second quarter of 2017 whereas neurosecurity module is to be developed by the end of the year.

What is the thing that makes you feel puzzled when it comes up to the team? If you like I can organize a hangout with everyone from the team introducing themselves online. That's not really a problem and if you call the team "fake and scam" — there's a tool to make it as transparent as possible.

I fully agree with your words

watching

This project was initially gives the impression of some uncertainty, why all this is necessary. From what the asset price should grow?

This is so high amount for minimum goal just for chat I hope dev team will consider to make new plan according to the ground reality. I don't think with these kind of plans people will trust on them.

the better thing for them to do though is to develop what they have to before having the ICO, this at least we know and see where its heading. if its all just whitepapers and some pitch posts here in the forum, it will still turn out scam in the end. they could just say everyone in the team died. specially that old man and there goes your BTC going to their funerals.

Such scam projects put on stream. Who really leads, is not clear. It is time to introduce more transparent rules for PR on forums like Bitcointalk. And introduce more quality escrow service.

We need to find them by ourselves, community members may be fooled by some elaborate scams, you see ASC ico scam, the scammers fooled famous escrows: lauda, yahoo.

Probably will be review from bitcointalk users who are engaged in that are finding dishonest projects, and show all hidden facts.

Actually I can't trust this project because the team devs identities are not real, it is faked and not transparent to the community, there must be something to hide, not worth to invest. Maybe next ASC scam.

There no minimum goal for crowdfunding but maximum is too high.
No refund will be anyway, right? You can wait forever to launch.
What alternative sources of funding do you have? I would like to hear their opinion.
20% of the tokens is not very bold? Or is it for dump on the stock exchange?

Thanks for your answers. This clears up a lot. If you read comments in this thread, you can see practically everybody interpreted your investment scheme in a wrong way. You absolutely need to review the OP (opening post) to clear up confusion. I particularly mean - remove any mention of the 0.001 btc price, and clearly tell the supply is fixed, and the per token price is determined by actual investments volume, with all tokens being propoptionally divided among all investors.

Consider this as a friendly advise. I didn't yet make any opinion regarding your project, but I want it to be judged fairly at least. Your current ICO description is doing harm to your project.