Hi all,
Thanks for the interest in this ICO. Sorry for the late response, replying to all of you at once:
Q: Are you going to run any bounty campaigns?
Q: Hello, are you intending to run a bounty program ?
Q: PS: are you intending to run a bounty program ?
A: We weren't going to, but because of all the requests we came up with something, please take a look: https://royalkingdomcoin.com/bounty
Q: how will it work that the supply will decrease every month? Then there will be a total supply less than 15 million?
A: Sorry, that's old information. We were going to simply burn the coins to decrease the supply (transfer() them to the address, bruteforcing the private key of which would take a ginormous amount of time, so it's basically becoming non-transferrable anymore, thus decreasing the supply and signaling the scarcity => higher price to the market). But many people were confused about the economics of this, so we want with premiums that are going to be paid monthly to the token holders.
Q: Do you have an interest in more exchanges or will it just be the venture kingdom platform and tomorrow exchange?
A: We have the plans, yes, the more the merrier, but we can't know anything for sure right now about whether the tokens will be listed on the specific exchange.
Q: How does it work with the exchange? Because I saw that the bank verification was disabled, so I can't get my money of the exchange?
Q: Excited about this project! Will the token be listed on other exchanges beside tomorrow exchange?
A: You don't need to be verified to participate in the ICO. Sorry for the confusion. We've deleted the bank account info section from the website.
And thanks for everyone else commenting here about us.
I'm also gonna close this thread, as we have an official one now: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-royal-kingdom-enterprise-ico-2012486.
Cheers.
Topic: Royal Kingdom Enterprise - pre-ICO stage (Read 3264 times)
Excited about this project! Will the token be listed on other exchanges beside tomorrow exchange?
good to see that funds will be controlled ! will keep a look on the projet ! good luck
PS: are you intending to run a bounty program ?
PS: are you intending to run a bounty program ?
Interesting ico
Thats true,
Instead of selling 100% coin and just being a waste that does not sell, you better only sell 20% or less, it will be better.
You have a very good idea
Instead of selling 100% coin and just being a waste that does not sell, you better only sell 20% or less, it will be better.
You have a very good idea
Hello, are you intending to run a bounty program ?
WOW, nice ann.. keep my eye on it also wait for the next progress
Yes, this is our legal and mailing address. If you open the home page of businesssetup.com, you'll see that they help with the company registration, and we have used their services. About our physical address, we're not a big company now and it so happens that our team is currently in different parts of the world (UAE, Brazil, Russia...), so we mostly work from our home offices and coworking spaces. Works out fine for us.
here he is a normal example of a decentralized community of developers who apply for decentralized funding of their product
Are you going to run any bounty campaigns?
Royal Kingdom Coin ICO added - ICOTRACKER.NET https://icotracker.net https://twitter.com/Kaznachej123/status/877205211923849221
But just to clarify, it's not an official ICO thread, so I wouldn't want to turn this into a lengthy legitimacy discussion or something. I was hoping for some neutral technical conversation about the tokens and smart contracts here. And in the ICO thread, I believe the public relations dept will be able to answer all the questions about the company.
I checked your peoples linked in profiles. For an IT firm I find it strange that your people have only ever worked at Royal Kingdom Enterprise. It kinda looks like they just created their linked in profiles.. all of them. very strange..
There is an explanation for this. In UAE and Russia (where I come from) it's not really that popular, and many of us never had a problem finding a job without a LinkedIn profile, just with a paper CV. Mind you, LinkedIn is even banned in Russia. But I digress...
We will fill our profiles before the ICO, thanks for pointing that out. And some of us already had.
Quote
Your website should be an IT firm's website but its just an ICO site... strange that an IT firm started in 2016 wouldn't have a proper website.
You're right, the royalkingdomcoin.com is an ICO website, but if you look closer, it links to our main websites:
- royalkingdomenterprise.com - holding, info for investors mostly
- rkeitsolutions.com - subsidiary for the business clients explaining the services
- venturekingdom.com - our main platform we're using now for many of those services
Quote
I checked your address. Looks like its occupied by another company. https://businessetup.com/contact-us/ WTF man?
Yes, this is our legal and mailing address. If you open the home page of businesssetup.com, you'll see that they help with the company registration, and we have used their services. About our physical address, we're not a big company now and it so happens that our team is currently in different parts of the world (UAE, Brazil, Russia...), so we mostly work from our home offices and coworking spaces. Works out fine for us.
I checked your peoples linked in profiles. For an IT firm I find it strange that your people have only ever worked at Royal Kingdom Enterprise. It kinda looks like they just created their linked in profiles.. all of them. very strange..
Your website should be an IT firm's website but its just an ICO site... strange that an IT firm started in 2016 wouldn't have a proper website.
I wouldn't put a dime into this. Smells too fishy for me.
I checked your address. Looks like its occupied by another company. https://businessetup.com/contact-us/
WTF man?
Your website should be an IT firm's website but its just an ICO site... strange that an IT firm started in 2016 wouldn't have a proper website.
I wouldn't put a dime into this. Smells too fishy for me.
I checked your address. Looks like its occupied by another company. https://businessetup.com/contact-us/
WTF man?
I'm not sure there is the "best" case here, but I believe that unsold coins should be redistributed, but if you are going to do what you mentioned about every month buying coins off the market and burning them then this would be the route to get more of your brand out at first. If you keep burning coins at some point no one will actually want to buy because the volume of coins being sold (at least of the 18% your company is allowing coin traders) will be diminished thus just letting the 82% you guys hold be the main source of income and value.
Not trying to be rude, but it seems like a concept that seems nice, but with only a small amount coming out to coin traders, I don't feel the coin will hold much value.
Not trying to be rude, but it seems like a concept that seems nice, but with only a small amount coming out to coin traders, I don't feel the coin will hold much value.
This is an interesting take on this, thanks. The part about redistributing makes total sense, I will try to incorporate this into the contract. But could you please clarify what you mean by this:
Quote
If you keep burning coins at some point no one will actually want to buy because the volume of coins being sold[...] will be diminished
How would smaller volume and fewer sell orders discourage people from buying the coins? I imagine that because of the price raising (and not depending on news etc., but depending on the company performance only, thus being consistent and regular) people will want to buy the coins even for the bigger price, in the anticipation that it will go up again next month (I mean, that's what's happening to Bitcoin now, isn't it?) And I don't think the traders will want to just cancel their sell orders because of the price being higher. They will just set their orders with the higher price, satisfying the fresh demand. Yes, the volume will be decreasing, but the value of the asset is not defined by the trading volume, but by the price or its total capitalization (and both of those numbers are to be increasing).
Also, I don't think that 18% limit to be traded on the exchange is a bad idea. I don't believe there are significant percentages of Bitcoin/Ethereum/etc. being traded on the exchanges this instant. Most of them are kept in the users' wallets or just lie dormant (especially the biggest wallets). Yet the trades and exchanges are very much alive.
What do you think?
We will use the funds from the ICO to facilitate the company processes, and then use the 50% of our profit (profit being revenue minus costs) every month to buy the coins off of the open market (thus increasing the price), and then burn them (thus shorting the supply and increasing the scarcity). Token holders can trade the difference or hold longer for the better price. And 50% will be reinvested in the company. What do you think of it? Do you think it’s easy to understand the underlying economic mechanisms and does it seem straightforward?
* First of all, it seems unfair to burn the unbought percentage, because the percentage of pre-sale tokens will de-facto increase. But re-distributing the unbought ICO pool between token buyers is tricky; and, also, it will create an incentive for the people who already bought the tokens to generate FUD so that others will stop buying and there will be left as much as possible for them. Versus the scenario where they will want people to buy more because it will increase the price. So, maybe chopping off the same percentage from the pre-sale token holders would be fair? Burning the same amount of coins proportionally to what has been burnt when ICO closed.
* First of all, it seems unfair to burn the unbought percentage, because the percentage of pre-sale tokens will de-facto increase. But re-distributing the unbought ICO pool between token buyers is tricky; and, also, it will create an incentive for the people who already bought the tokens to generate FUD so that others will stop buying and there will be left as much as possible for them. Versus the scenario where they will want people to buy more because it will increase the price. So, maybe chopping off the same percentage from the pre-sale token holders would be fair? Burning the same amount of coins proportionally to what has been burnt when ICO closed.
I'm not sure there is the "best" case here, but I believe that unsold coins should be redistributed, but if you are going to do what you mentioned about every month buying coins off the market and burning them then this would be the route to get more of your brand out at first. If you keep burning coins at some point no one will actually want to buy because the volume of coins being sold (at least of the 18% your company is allowing coin traders) will be diminished thus just letting the 82% you guys hold be the main source of income and value.
Not trying to be rude, but it seems like a concept that seems nice, but with only a small amount coming out to coin traders, I don't feel the coin will hold much value.
I like the idea of just a certain percentage being sold in the ICO..This means that you can bring in different investors from different back rounds correct? If they are all crypto investors it becomes much more vocative, so spreading the investment is also spreading the risk, I like the idea.
Yes, that was the idea. We have several investors on a pre-sale stage, and crypto investors will come in the ICO round. Thanks for the feedback!
I like the idea of just a certain percentage being sold in the ICO..This means that you can bring in different investors from different back rounds correct? If they are all crypto investors it becomes much more vocative, so spreading the investment is also spreading the risk, I like the idea.
Hello, BitcoinTalk!
Next month we’re announcing the ICO of our company, Royal Kingdom Enterprise. We’ve prepared the website here: https://royalkingdomcoin.com/
This is not an official announcement thread per se (we’ll create one a few days prior to the ICO start date). We’re doing the ICO for the first time, and because this is a community thing, and because some of the ICO features are a bit unconventional, we’d like to hear your thoughts on it, and maybe some of your suggestions will end up in the final version.
Again, you can see everything detailed on the ICO website, but, basically, the unconventional bits are:
1. Instead of doing the usual crowdfunding as others have been doing, our ICO is more similar to IPO: instead of selling 100% of tokens, we’re selling 20% (18%, if we don’t count the pre-sale investors). It’s because, unlike others, we already have products, sales, the company is active and paying salaries, the partners had invested their personal money and time to get this off the ground, so it’s similar to the company going public and presenting some percentage of the shares in an IPO.
* But then, the 82% seems like a threat to the coin price. The major coin holders are not going to sell the whole thing on the exchange. If anything, they would do a private sell that wouldn’t affect the market price (and that’s usually how big shareholders in traditional company sell their shares). But it’s not very convincing and calming, is it? Perhaps the smart contract algorithm to limit the huge transfers from those wallets would help?
2.There have been many solutions to answer the question “what’s in it for me”. Some tokens bought in an ICO were going to be useful inside whatever product they asked to fund. Some managed to pay dividends to the token holders, like in traditional companies. Some are just plain useless and only designed to benefit the authors - after they got ether or whatever from the ICO (or premine in the altcoins), the tokens are just being traded on the exchange, and the price follows the Tinkerbell law. We’ve decided to do something different. We will use the funds from the ICO to facilitate the company processes, and then use the 50% of our profit (profit being revenue minus costs) every month to buy the coins off of the open market (thus increasing the price), and then burn them (thus shorting the supply and increasing the scarcity). Token holders can trade the difference or hold longer for the better price. And 50% will be reinvested in the company. What do you think of it? Do you think it’s easy to understand the underlying economic mechanisms and does it seem straightforward?
3. Instead of setting a fixed price per token and thus trying to evaluate our own company (and let’s be honest, it’s always biased), we’ve decided to let the algorithm in the smart contract discover the market price automatically. Basically, we have a low fixed starting price, which is being slightly increased by the algorithm whenever someone buys the token. We’ve made sure to aim very high, almost impossibly high, so that at some point market will just stop buying the tokens. And at this point, the market price will be discovered, and when ICO is closed, the contract will burn the rest of tokens in the ICO pool. So, this raises two questions:
* First of all, it seems unfair to burn the unbought percentage, because the percentage of pre-sale tokens will de-facto increase. But re-distributing the unbought ICO pool between token buyers is tricky; and, also, it will create an incentive for the people who already bought the tokens to generate FUD so that others will stop buying and there will be left as much as possible for them. Versus the scenario where they will want people to buy more because it will increase the price. So, maybe chopping off the same percentage from the pre-sale token holders would be fair? Burning the same amount of coins proportionally to what has been burnt when ICO closed.
*Second, should we allow the algorithm to go both ways, and lower the price when people stop buying? It would be more tricky technologically and could irritate some that bought it by the higher price earlier. But it would also make the market price discovery more precise and increase the result for the team.
4. Here is the contract source code for everybody to see. I’m still iterating on it though. But all suggestions are welcome.
So. What are your thoughts?
Serge,
CTO of RKE
Next month we’re announcing the ICO of our company, Royal Kingdom Enterprise. We’ve prepared the website here: https://royalkingdomcoin.com/
This is not an official announcement thread per se (we’ll create one a few days prior to the ICO start date). We’re doing the ICO for the first time, and because this is a community thing, and because some of the ICO features are a bit unconventional, we’d like to hear your thoughts on it, and maybe some of your suggestions will end up in the final version.
Again, you can see everything detailed on the ICO website, but, basically, the unconventional bits are:
1. Instead of doing the usual crowdfunding as others have been doing, our ICO is more similar to IPO: instead of selling 100% of tokens, we’re selling 20% (18%, if we don’t count the pre-sale investors). It’s because, unlike others, we already have products, sales, the company is active and paying salaries, the partners had invested their personal money and time to get this off the ground, so it’s similar to the company going public and presenting some percentage of the shares in an IPO.
* But then, the 82% seems like a threat to the coin price. The major coin holders are not going to sell the whole thing on the exchange. If anything, they would do a private sell that wouldn’t affect the market price (and that’s usually how big shareholders in traditional company sell their shares). But it’s not very convincing and calming, is it? Perhaps the smart contract algorithm to limit the huge transfers from those wallets would help?
2.There have been many solutions to answer the question “what’s in it for me”. Some tokens bought in an ICO were going to be useful inside whatever product they asked to fund. Some managed to pay dividends to the token holders, like in traditional companies. Some are just plain useless and only designed to benefit the authors - after they got ether or whatever from the ICO (or premine in the altcoins), the tokens are just being traded on the exchange, and the price follows the Tinkerbell law. We’ve decided to do something different. We will use the funds from the ICO to facilitate the company processes, and then use the 50% of our profit (profit being revenue minus costs) every month to buy the coins off of the open market (thus increasing the price), and then burn them (thus shorting the supply and increasing the scarcity). Token holders can trade the difference or hold longer for the better price. And 50% will be reinvested in the company. What do you think of it? Do you think it’s easy to understand the underlying economic mechanisms and does it seem straightforward?
3. Instead of setting a fixed price per token and thus trying to evaluate our own company (and let’s be honest, it’s always biased), we’ve decided to let the algorithm in the smart contract discover the market price automatically. Basically, we have a low fixed starting price, which is being slightly increased by the algorithm whenever someone buys the token. We’ve made sure to aim very high, almost impossibly high, so that at some point market will just stop buying the tokens. And at this point, the market price will be discovered, and when ICO is closed, the contract will burn the rest of tokens in the ICO pool. So, this raises two questions:
* First of all, it seems unfair to burn the unbought percentage, because the percentage of pre-sale tokens will de-facto increase. But re-distributing the unbought ICO pool between token buyers is tricky; and, also, it will create an incentive for the people who already bought the tokens to generate FUD so that others will stop buying and there will be left as much as possible for them. Versus the scenario where they will want people to buy more because it will increase the price. So, maybe chopping off the same percentage from the pre-sale token holders would be fair? Burning the same amount of coins proportionally to what has been burnt when ICO closed.
*Second, should we allow the algorithm to go both ways, and lower the price when people stop buying? It would be more tricky technologically and could irritate some that bought it by the higher price earlier. But it would also make the market price discovery more precise and increase the result for the team.
4. Here is the contract source code for everybody to see. I’m still iterating on it though. But all suggestions are welcome.
So. What are your thoughts?
Serge,
CTO of RKE
Jump to: