Firstly, thanks for the answer. tl;dr at the bottom.
Did you not contact others before me?
Ill accept that as something specific for the alt section, but AFAICT you have a very good mod there.
Alright.
Dabs usually asks for 2% -> https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/escrow-service-by-dabs-234939
Ill ask them though.
The wording is the opposite though. Assuming less than 530 BTC funds in total, stage 1 would have paid out all funds.
Hmm, I guess the gist of my question is: Why do you think you will (or would have) succeeded where others have failed. Mind you others that had finances covered.
Im talking about the app, as you said yourself the currency matters little.
My bad, must have missed that. Added my rating accordingly.
I decided to remove the rating. Not because I think M28MmickT is trustworthy, but because I have no solid evidence that they scammed someone. The same is true for icanscript. The later was involved in several ICOs gone scam. Maybe hired, maybe not, I cant judge that. If anyone from DT wants to see the files regarding this, send me a PM.
#2 Contacting me. I have no active escrow thread, I dont activly promote this service and I was gone for 2 months. If you end up with me and I dont know you, you have either gone through a lot of other escrows and they all denied or you have a specific reason to contact me. Maybe you want to exploit my little experience in the field.
Your profile says about escrow service and your reputation plus the date since you joined this forum was enough for me to trust.
Your profile says about escrow service and your reputation plus the date since you joined this forum was enough for me to trust.
Did you not contact others before me?
#3 Self moderated thread. Seriously, I dont care who you are. It makes you look bad instantly. I know the spam is bad, but the obvious troll posts had not been removed and 'local rules' are usually a better alternative.
This us used to prevent counter-marketing operations from other ICOS running at the moment, where in some cases uses several chill-accounts to attack a project, why most of them are not moderated? because most of them belong to the same group of "developers" (coming from NXT) doing an ico over an ico.
This us used to prevent counter-marketing operations from other ICOS running at the moment, where in some cases uses several chill-accounts to attack a project, why most of them are not moderated? because most of them belong to the same group of "developers" (coming from NXT) doing an ico over an ico.
Ill accept that as something specific for the alt section, but AFAICT you have a very good mod there.
#4 Rushed time frame, as SebastianJu already pointed out, the show was about to start.
Maybe this was true, but it was done for marketing reasons as several other icos were starting, not to hide something with reducing time.
Maybe this was true, but it was done for marketing reasons as several other icos were starting, not to hide something with reducing time.
Alright.
(#5) The post that told people not to send to the multi sig address covered by escrows. Im still not sure who payments would have been received. Might be just miscommunication though and you actually wanted to say "not yet".
#6 The payment rate, 3% (!) of (potential) 3200 BTC. Why would you pay 3% if you can get the most trusted escrow this forum has to offer for 1%? Not only that, 3% each. That does not strike me as a sane financial plan.
The payment rate was set by escrow Dabs, not by me.
#6 The payment rate, 3% (!) of (potential) 3200 BTC. Why would you pay 3% if you can get the most trusted escrow this forum has to offer for 1%? Not only that, 3% each. That does not strike me as a sane financial plan.
The payment rate was set by escrow Dabs, not by me.
Dabs usually asks for 2% -> https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/escrow-service-by-dabs-234939
Ill ask them though.
#7 The payout wording for the stages. "Stage 1, A maximum of 530 BTCs or 25% (whichever is more)". This could have potentially drained all funds.
The stages was purely set to project people from releasing all funds at once, 100% of icos outhere gain complete control of TOTAL amount collected days after crowdsale.
The stages was purely set to project people from releasing all funds at once, 100% of icos outhere gain complete control of TOTAL amount collected days after crowdsale.
The wording is the opposite though. Assuming less than 530 BTC funds in total, stage 1 would have paid out all funds.
#8 The stages and the amount of coins needed(?) for them.
#8.1 Stage 1 "Main net launch" and "Coin distribution". What exactly costs 530 BTC here? Is this the amount needed after stage 1 to reach stage 2?
#8.2 Android PlayStore launch is 1 month after Beta Release.
#8.3 "Stable Profit"? The idea is not new. I know people that worked on a similar project (without the special currency) in asia. It failed.
The idea is not the important but the marketing and who is leading the project, there were tens of facebook style pages before it, and for example, WAVES idea has been tested multiple times too, that multi currency payment gateway is nothing more than failed ripple project, even counter-party can make tokens, there are existing technologies using the same and not worth 30k btcs.
#8.1 Stage 1 "Main net launch" and "Coin distribution". What exactly costs 530 BTC here? Is this the amount needed after stage 1 to reach stage 2?
#8.2 Android PlayStore launch is 1 month after Beta Release.
#8.3 "Stable Profit"? The idea is not new. I know people that worked on a similar project (without the special currency) in asia. It failed.
The idea is not the important but the marketing and who is leading the project, there were tens of facebook style pages before it, and for example, WAVES idea has been tested multiple times too, that multi currency payment gateway is nothing more than failed ripple project, even counter-party can make tokens, there are existing technologies using the same and not worth 30k btcs.
Hmm, I guess the gist of my question is: Why do you think you will (or would have) succeeded where others have failed. Mind you others that had finances covered.
#9 No reference to past projects. This is not a small project, unless you are a well oiled machine and have experience. If you have experience, show it off to build confidence in investors.
Most current ICO developers only show reference to another past ico as their history, this should be labeled as a red flag instead of green flag, because with exception of Ethereum, all those past ICOs currency is way down in price and investors have lose part of the money they invested.
Most current ICO developers only show reference to another past ico as their history, this should be labeled as a red flag instead of green flag, because with exception of Ethereum, all those past ICOs currency is way down in price and investors have lose part of the money they invested.
Im talking about the app, as you said yourself the currency matters little.
#10 No proper signature campaign. I would expect you to be busy with the project at hand and thus hire a manager, escrow the funds for the campaign. The usual.
There was a manager managing the campaign, but he ended being a scammer in other post.
There was a manager managing the campaign, but he ended being a scammer in other post.
My bad, must have missed that. Added my rating accordingly.
#11 Probably the biggest red flag, this all is just a concept, there is no indication that anything besides a fancy homepage was actually created.
Waves was a fancy homepage without even a proper whitepaper since they never explained how they planned to exchange fiat to crypto currencies technically and legally.
Waves was a fancy homepage without even a proper whitepaper since they never explained how they planned to exchange fiat to crypto currencies technically and legally.
#12 Uhhh, I forgot one. Dabs and me wanted a 3rd escrow, you never contacted them and told me some bullshit about need to see an ID. Seriously, why would you require an ID from the 3rd escrow, but not from the 1st and 2nd?
Why do we needed a 3rd escrow?, Dabs did not tell me anything from this.
Why do we needed a 3rd escrow?, Dabs did not tell me anything from this.
-snip-
I also like the idea of having a 3rd escrow to make a 2 of 4 multi sig
-snip-
I also like the idea of having a 3rd escrow to make a 2 of 4 multi sig
-snip-
I decided to remove the rating. Not because I think M28MmickT is trustworthy, but because I have no solid evidence that they scammed someone. The same is true for icanscript. The later was involved in several ICOs gone scam. Maybe hired, maybe not, I cant judge that. If anyone from DT wants to see the files regarding this, send me a PM.
Thanks to you Shorena for this outcome, regarding the fee from Dabs, informed me via pm stating the Fee for ICOs was 5% but if more escrows were involved he could share the fee with them.
My address 1H21C3ciaV8gzSGUgTQa9D9pifMgpiei2P used on those messages can be confirmed and I can send pm or post here if needed.
I contacted only one more escrow at that point, Sebastianju, but he didn't respond on time and I opted for the current.
I aimed to collect more than 500, in fact my goal was at least 1,500, thats why I set those rules, which in case I would had collected less or equal to 500, I wouldnt had a problem with re editing the rules, that was not my goal with the rules.
I think this can succed because all those projects that failed seem to have something in common, that is they focus only on the small bitcoin community and maybe they are ok with the money they get from crowdsales or maybe that was their goal, so their project never gets to the real final user, those projects stagnates on a starting level, they are not set to reach Nasdaq / Wall Street levels.
EDIT: This user icanscript keeps sending me pms on here once he saw he lost, I don't want to get involved with you in anything!, just find something else to do but stop bothering me with your dark shady goals.
