This 'Exciting' Bitcoin Rival Is Up Over 200% So Far This
The True History of Johann Gevers : tezos
Backroom battle imperils $230 million cryptocurrency venture
Johann Gevers explains why Bitcoin has inherent value in a way anyone can understand
The last question from the audience at 1:03:15 of this DLD conference on Bitcoin brought up one of the most common criticisms of Bitcoin (having no inherent value), and Johann Gevers' answer (after two other panelists) explaining why that assumption is wrong made a world of sense, and more so in the context of his talk on the implications of Bitcoin for society at 0:36:12. Member of the audience: Bitcoin combines the negative effects of the gold standard, being scarce, with the negative effect of fiat currencies, of having no intrinsic value. Johann Gevers: The question of inherent value often comes up [...] Basically, there is nothing in the world that has inherent value, nothing. Even gold has not inherent value. You always have to ask what is the value to a certain person, for what purpose. For example, if you want to survive, you need water. But some people want to kill themselves. Or oil: oil was seen as a dirty black gooey thing, until there was the invention of a car and it became useful for car fuel. And the same thing with Bitcoin: it's only useful because it has certain properties that make it useful, and those are inherent properties. So if you want to use the word inherent, those properties are inherent to Bitcoin -- they cannot be changed.That is what makes Bitcoin useful, just like gold has certain properties that make it useful for a certain purpose.
The Tezos Community is battling to rescue Tezos, and to remove the central impediment to its success, Mr. Johann Gevers. The community has explained its reasoning in several posts and press releases, not least a petition that has garnered worldwide support calling for Mr. Gevers’s ouster from the Tezos Foundation Board. Further to this effort, a large number of concerned Tezos Community members have collaborated to thoroughly and objectively research Mr. Gevers’s past, and current network in Zug’s “Crypto Valley.” What we have found is concerning: Mr. Gevers’s history shows a pattern of very disturbing behavior, and of repeated failure through poor judgment, lack of competent management and labyrinthine efforts that seem to lead to either bizarre and questionable activities, or dead ends. The many members of the Tezos Community who have put hundreds of hours of efforts to crowdsource this document, want the world, but especially the Swiss Foundation Authority, to know the true history of Mr. Johann Gevers. We call on the world’s press to access the document below and use it as source material to do its own thorough investigation, and confirm our findings. We call on the members of the Tezos Community to spread the information widely on social media, but to especially draw the attention of the Swiss to the reputational disaster that awaits Zug if Mr. Gevers continues to draw the world’s attention there. The Crypto Finance Conference is to be held in St. Moritz on 17-19 January 2018, and the conference proudly posts on Twitter that it wants to connect “investors and crypto whales with crypto funds and ICOs.” It further tweets on 15 Jan 2018 that it is “excited that @johanngevers, founder & CEO of @monetasnet, the world’s most advanced transaction platform, and @thecryptovalley, the leading #cryptofinace ecosystem, is joining us in @stmoritz_ch for an #ICO-related panel at #CFC18!” So advanced is Monetas that Mr. Gevers has driven it into “accidental bankruptcy,” and the legions of Monetas former employees can readily attest to the veracity of the document we have put together, which could well have predicted Monetas’s failure. The Crypto Finance Conference website speakers’s list describes Mr. Gevers in a paean that borders on either delusion or mockery: “Johann is a visionary thought leader and entrepreneur. His mission is to drive the development of a free and prosperous society. He is the founder of Crypto Valley, the world’s leading cryptofinance ecosystem, Monetas, an award-winning transaction platform, the Tezos Foundation, the Digital Finance Compliance Association, and the Bitcoin Association Switzerland. Johann is rated as a Top 100 finance leader in Switzerland. His talks The Four Pillars of a Decentralized Society and The Age of CryptoFinance have been influential in the decentralized technologies and fintech spaces. He has served as strategic advisor to companies across diverse industries, including award-winning technology startups.” The Tezos Community will do everything in its power so that Mr. Gevers does not similarly drive Tezos to the height of bankruptcy, so that the Crypto Finance Conference can then invite him in 2019 to talk about “Tezos, the world’s most advanced transaction platform.” The Tezos Community Swiss counsel has delivered the document to the Swiss Foundation Authority, and has paid the courtesy of delivering a copy to Mr. Gevers before its public release, and asked him to do the right thing by Tezos. We have received no response from Mr. Gevers. The Tezos Community is confident that the Foundation issue will be resolved, and that the Tezos Protocol will go on to reach its full potential and revolutionize the blockchain sector. “Johann Gevers— Background & History:” (English) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RPLgYqULFQwzk3JZok8Q7OtkZYEyJNtfi24mXh_xlcU/edit?usp=sharing “Johann Gevers— Background & History:” (Deutsch) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i-v-OGEgisDgkMccM-8exO5a1-zS24XnV8nOim4hnLU/edit
You can read the following text alongside our original Community Statement here. About the Tezos Community The grassroots Tezos Community is comprised of contributors, developers, Community leaders, prominent crypto technologists, thought leaders and researchers and key industry investors. Together, we have risen up to help the Tezos Foundation overcome its current paralysis and fulfill its mission to support the Tezos protocol. Through online forums and meetups around the world, the Community has united and is galvanized in its request that changes be made to the Foundation immediately. What we are doing and why We are gravely concerned about Mr. Johann Gevers and his failure to realize the purpose of the Tezos Foundation. These concerns are clearly enumerated in this Community Petition. The petition has now garnered almost 1,400 signatures, from 95 different countries, including some from eminent people in the wider crypto Community. The Tezos Community wishes to expose the gravity of Mr. Gevers’ mismanagement and the need to make changes immediately to ensure that we realize Tezos’ astonishing potential. In addition to the Petition, the Tezos Community Organizers have released two position statements, “The Tezos Community Condemns the Foundation Investigating Itself,” which called out the conduct of the Foundation’s self-evaluation as deeply disturbing amid reports here that Mr. Gevers would play a key role in reviewing evidence against himself, and “The Tezos Community Statement on a New Tezos Foundation Board Member,” which, upon the resignation of board member Mr. Guido Schmitz-Krummacher, called on the board to unanimously elect a new board member who is a demonstrably competent executive, highly respected in the crypto Community, and completely independent with no prior dealings with current or former board members, and reiterated its call for Mr. Gevers to resign or be dismissed immediately. While a board member, Mr. Schmitz-Krummacher never addressed the Community, but upon resigning, he joined an online Tezos Community forum and posted inconsistent and incomplete statements on his actions during his tenure, which he subsequently deleted and revised. This disturbing, questionable behavior severely diminishes Mr. Schmitz-Krummacher’s credibility as he speaks about internal Foundation matters. In addition, these prior statements, which he has since deleted, failed to provide comprehensive answers to specific questions he was asked online, such as: what was the cause of leaks of internal Foundation matters to the media; why the complete and final Foundation audit had not been made public; why Mr. Gevers was allowed to review evidence against himself when obviously there was a conflict of interest; and, why there had not been a unanimous statement from the board clearing Mr. Gevers of the impropriety he denies. At this point, the behavior of the board is so questionable that if the audit is released the Community is concerned that it will be presented in an incomplete or redacted manner so as to protect the interests of Mr. Gevers and possibly of Mr. Schmitz-Krummacher as well. Pattern of misconduct by Mr. Gevers Through its determined and passionate efforts, the Community has come to learn about a pattern of disturbing conduct by Mr. Gevers. These are enumerated in the previously mentioned petition, and through personal stories of Community members and former colleagues of Mr. Gevers. The following are a few of these stories and represent a clear and consistent pattern of disturbing behavior by Mr. Gevers. The Tragedy of Monetas Mr. Gevers’ now bankrupt venture, Monetas, is a prime example of his appalling mismanagement and willingness to manipulate his financial backers with incomplete and false statements. Recently, Mr. Gevers praised the progress of Monetas to his investors, announced his expectations of profitability in Q2 2018, while only days later Monetas bankruptcy was announced. This means that Mr. Gevers praised the progress of Monetas though he perfectly knew that his venture was over indebted and that bankruptcy was imminent. Here is how he represented the matter to investors. Furthermore, a key member of the Monetas team has bravely stepped forward to describe the mismanagement of Mr. Gevers. For now, because Mr. Gevers has a history of making threats of retaliation against people who have worked with him, this person wishes to remain anonymous.
Most of the management and employees resigned in 2016 because we could see that Johann was an incompetent CEO, running the company into the ground. I am not surprised at all that Monetas eventually failed. Johann has treated employees and investors very badly. He harmed a lot of people. Monetas had terrible governance. Johann set the company up in Anguilla, and granted himself sole and single handed decision making powers in all matters. The other shareholders, Board members, or management had no ability to make decisions. Monetas had very competent managers and advisors who attempted to put the company back on course. As soon as anyone was getting traction, Johann declared them the enemy and part of the ´dark forces´ that are hell bent on destroying Johann and Monetas. One example was a very experienced and highly regarded Swiss banker and entrepreneur, an excellent talented manager who came in as Advisor, and selflessly threw himself into saving Monetas - working practically full time (despite being paid only for a few hours of advisory work). He made a great impact quickly. Johann soon declared that he was ´part of the dark forces against him´ and that ´his aim was to destroy Monetas´. His advisory contract was soon cancelled. Many Monetas employees had serious financial problems because the company did not pay their salaries, often for months on end. We usually found out that the company was unable to pay salaries by checking our bank accounts and noticing that there was no incoming salary payment. When the company had liquidity problems, Johann almost never warned us in advance so we could at least make arrangements, almost never mentioned it when the salary payment date came and went without payments being made, and when we asked him when salaries were going to be paid, he repeatedly told us of that were due soon and would cover the salary payments. These investment inflows typically did not materialise. We eventually realised that when Johann made these promises, this was on the basis of either no ongoing investor conversations, or only extremely tentative ones that could never have had anything but a small chance of materialising, and none within the timeframes that Johann indicated. Eventually, we did not believe Johann´s statements, but early on, many of us got into financial difficulties trusting what Johann had told us. When Johann caused someone harm, he seemed to show no hesitation prior, nor guilt or remorse in hindsight. The only thing that seemed to concern him was how he would be seen as a result. Johann has an inflated view of himself. I have heard him make the following claim, ‘I add a thousand times more value to this company than anyone else working here.’
Tezos Foundation The same deplorable pattern of behavior is repeating, as Mr. Gevers has so mismanaged the Tezos Foundation that it has failed to fulfill its stated mission, as categorically detailed in the Community Petition. The same animus that he showed towards former advisors who tried to help save Monetas he now aims at Kathleen & Arthur Breitman, the Tezos founders. Mr. Gevers’ paranoia of “the world is out to get me” drove him to leak internal Foundation matters to the press in an attempt to defame Kathleen & Arthur Breitman. After Arthur Breitman submitted a 46-page confidential complaint to the foundation, requesting that it be handled internally with discretion, Mr. Gevers leaked it to the press. Furthermore, when Kathleen & Arthur Breitman requested indemnity against the pending class action lawsuits, Mr. Gevers leaked the matter to the press. Contributors to the Foundation expect and understand that the Tezos Foundation is obliged to fund the development of the Tezos protocol before its launch. As President of the Foundation, Mr. Gevers bears ultimate responsibility for meeting this obligation, but he has yet to approve funding to the core development team, forcing Kathleen & Arthur Breitman to fund the development alone. This pattern of Mr. Gevers forcing people who work with him to take money out of their own pocket, as happened with Monetas, is repeating at the Tezos Foundation. On August 10, 2017, the Tezos Foundation announced a $50 million development fund that excited many Community members. No additional details were given past that initial announcement, and no funds were ever distributed. In addition, the Foundation announced that its “spending plans will remain...similar to the numbers outlined in the Tezos Overview document,” but the spending plan has not been implemented. On September 30, 2017, the Tezos Foundation announced that it would build out the core development team as well as additional “organizations to house teams working on the core protocol, building out the developer experience, and crafting products and applications.” Despite this broad ambition, only Board Member Diego Olivier Fernandez Pons frequently offers support and encouragement to the development team, as seen in twitter posts featuring photos with him and the team, and the core team confirms that Mr. Pons is doing all that he can to help prepare the Tezos network for launch. Mr. Gevers, on the other hand, has been mysteriously absent. Such a profound lack of leadership demoralizes the team and the larger Community. Since September 30, 2017, the Foundation, under the leadership of Mr. Gevers, has failed to provide an update to the Tezos Community. Community member and well-known leader, Jonas Lamis, through his own time, effort and expense has hosted a Community website and produced videos on the progress of Tezos. He also coordinated some meetups which the Foundation should have initiated and funded. Mr. Lamis received specific email approval from Mr. Gevers to host a meetup. In this email Mr. Gevers clearly represented that the expense would be reimbursed. Mr. Lamis submitted a request for reimbursement to Mr. Gevers, which has gone unanswered for more than 4 months and counting. The disregard, disrespect and callousness by Mr. Gevers does not go unnoticed by the Community, which highly values Mr. Lamis’ contributions, and follow the same pattern of behavior he exhibited at Monetas, his now bankrupt venture. Resolution We do not support or encourage the class action lawsuits that are pending against Tezos in the United States, which we denounce as without merit, and we offer our full support to Kathleen & Arthur Breitman and the core developers. The Tezos Community admires their heroic work despite difficult circumstances. We call on the board of the Tezos Foundation to immediately fulfill its mandate to “promote and fund the development of the Tezos protocol,” and for Mr. Gevers to resign or be replaced, and if needed, for the Swiss Foundation Authority to forcefully step in and make changes to the Foundation that are necessary to fulfill its stated mission. The Swiss Foundation Authority has clear responsibility and authority in the matter and exists for the purpose of making sure that the Foundation fulfills its charter. We denounce in the strongest terms the disrespect, disregard and utter contempt which Mr. Gevers has shown to the founders of Tezos, Kathleen & Arthur Breitman, and call on the board to repair its relationship with them. We reiterate the essence of the Community Petition here:
Regardless of the current state or outcome of the audit, the immediate resignation or dismissal of Mr. Gevers. The Community no longer has trust and confidence in his leadership;
Immediate clarification of whether Mr. Gevers did or did not attempt to pay himself 750,000 XTZ and whether he represented this bonus as being worth 300,000 CHF;
Full, unredacted publication to the wider Community by the Foundation’s legal counsel of the audit investigating allegations against Mr. Gevers;
With immediate effect, the disbursement of a sizeable budget to the core development team for the completion of network development, testing and deployment;
With immediate effect, the disbursement of a sizeable budget for Community program funding, such as, but not limited to, the funding of a bug bounty program, Tezos ancillary utilities such as wallets, delegation and baking software, blockchain explorers, the Validator Audit program, Community forums, and other such Community projects that have self-funded so far;
Introduce governance procedures into the Foundation to take into account the voice of Community members. The Foundation will work with the Community to come up with an acceptable method of making sure that its voice is adequately considered.
Call to the Press We call on all reputable journalists and media to take up the untold story of the Tezos Community and its reasonable and sound requests for a resolution. We regret that the united voice of the Community has barely been heard in news outlets while Mr. Gevers’ views and leaks of internal Foundation matters have received large circulation in the media. We call attention to Mr. Gevers’ ties with Thomson Reuters, as both Monetas and Thomson Reuters were founding members of the recently formed Crypto Valley Association, which Mr. Gevers initiated. Nevertheless, we are confident that Thomson Reuters, as well as other media outlets, will be professional and objective in accurately and adequately publishing the views of the Tezos Community. The Tezos Community is incredibly optimistic about the potential of Tezos. Arthur Breitman and the core team of developers are doing heroic work moving forward despite difficult circumstances. With changes to the board, Tezos will move forward and reach the incredible potential that it has to revolutionize the blockchain sector. The good name of Zug, Switzerland, known as “Crypto Valley” may well become known as “Klepto Valley” if the Tezos Foundation, with Mr. Gevers at its head, is allowed to take contributions from individuals all over the world and fail to use them for its stated mission and purpose in a timely manner. The Tezos Community Petition Organizers
Tezos Jokes - Quote what you like/Add yours to the collection
What's the difference between Tezos and NASA? Tezos is actually going to Mars
Why do meat lovers love Tezos? Because it's the best 'Proof-of-Steak'
What is an Irish Tezos investor most worried about? “Forking Tezos”
Who was the prequel to Tezos? Jeff Bezos
"How much for Tesla?" 100 Tezos. "100 Tezos! That's a lot of money." I know, but Tesla is a big company. And I think if you look at our financial statements for the last few years, you will see you are getting a bargain and we'll include SpaceX for free.
Where does an Eskimo keep his Tezos? In a cold wallet.
What’s the difference between an average bitcoin miner and an average tezos baker? An average tezos baker will have at least something to eat
Johann Gevers ... He was the joke
What's the difference between Elon Musk's SpaceX and Tezos? SpaceX will actually return to earth, after takeoff...
Who is Tezos' least favorite rapper? 2chainz!
How long before 1 Tezos becomes worth more than 1 US dollar? It already is!!!
So Tezos price is down 50% ? Sweet. Now you can get twice as many for the same price.
You hesitate when asked what your occupation is, because you think they won’t believe you if you say both ‘baker’ AND ‘your real occupation’
What do you call a 3 humped OCaml? Pregnant
What should Arthur's Twitter handle be? Arthur "Not giving away XTZ" B.(@ArthurB)
Why is baking Tezos more fun? Because they never get mold
What does XTZ do after it's baked? It loafs around
What happened when a delegator's wife came home early? She caught her husband Masterbaking
Pick up line: You must be a xtz baker, your buns are fantastic
A frustrated baker walks past a bar
How do you pronounce XTZ? Ecstasy
Chuck Norris is a Brain Baker No block dares to delegate to him
Why is Tezos popular in the Desert kingdoms? Because it's oCamel based
Why do Tezos hodlers want a Tesla? Because Ferrari is owned by Fiat
Over a year ago Tezos has conducted one of the most promising ICOs. What was supposed to be one of the greatest blockchain project turned into a series of corporate wars for money and power. The conflict between Tezos founders Arthur and Kathleen Breitman and Johann Gevers, the former president of the Tezos Foundation, has resulted in costly delays in developing and launching the Tezos network. Angry investors have filed four class action lawsuits against Dynamic Ledger Solutions, Inc., the Breitmans, and the Tezos Foundation. Here’s the whole story, in case you missed it. Why Tezos founders are fighting so hard to get the full control over the Foundation, what do they get out of it, or more precisely, how much do they get out of it? Where the money came from Founders told the journalist at Wires they funded the platform’s development out of their own pockets. But hold on, the Breitmans conducted a private pre-sale between September 2016 and March 2017 and received $612,000 in funding from these early investors. In 2017, renowned technology venture capital firm Draper Associates, through Draper Associates Crypto, also made an equity investment of approximately $1.5 million in return for a minority stake in DLS. And these funds were used for the project development, not personal ones. There’s even more. In the beginning, we mentioned lawsuits. Reuters has reported founders of Tezos were seeking for their legal costs to be covered by the Tezos Foundation. Investors who sued DLS have paid for their lawyers. What exactly does DLS own DLS, Dynamic Ledger Solutions, Inc., the company founded by Arthur and Kathleen Breitman, owns all of the Tezos-related intellectual property, including the source code of the Tezos cryptographic ledger, logos, and trademark applications associated with the name Tezos, domain names, and goodwill arising from a set of a relationships with several contractors and potential customers in the financial technology market. What does not make sense is that DLS is not doing much for the product development after they have raised $232 million. They control the Foundation and they are basically sitting on a money bag not doing much. Nothing but failed expectations have been delivered so far. How much will DLS make According to the “Transparency Memo,” DLS will own almost 1/5 of the total value of XTZ. The founding team will receive 10% (76.3 million tokens) of the tokens, the Tezos Foundation (separate entity on the paper only) will receive 10% as well, both vesting over 4 years. They will have a nominal inflation of 5% annually. DLS shareholders are also entitled to receive 8.5% of the ICO proceeds in cash. As of August 2018 that would roughly be $282 million worth of tokens and about $19.7 million in cash. The remainder of funds raised in the Tezos ICO is purportedly the Tezos Foundation’s property. While the Tezos Foundation appears to have the mandate to use these monies to support the development of the Tezos blockchain, it appears to have no legal oversight or compulsion to do so. More questions remain unanswered: - What is going to happen to the unclaimed tokens? - When will investors actually be able to see XTZ on major exchanges? - Where is the detailed project development plan, token allocation plan? We need answers from the founders. We believe in a great idea behind the project, this is why we invested in the token a year ago and this is why we encourage you to ask DLS more questions, do your own research and demand full transparency.
Tezos is in the process of converting all crypto received to fiat
https://www.wsj.com/articles/tezos-raised-232-million-in-a-hot-coin-offering-then-a-fight-broke-out-1508354704 One of the year’s biggest initial coin offerings, a $232 million token sale by Tezos, is embroiled in a management fight that is threatening the deal and highlighting the risks in this red-hot corner of finance. Tezos’s fundraising in July at that point was the largest initial coin offering, a new type of rapid fundraising that has captured imaginations and rivaled venture capital for technology startups. But a battle between the founders of the company and the head of the Swiss foundation they installed to give it more independence has put most trading of Tezos coins on ice, possibly until early next year. That could alarm investors who were hoping that Tezos might catch on quickly. Sales of digital tokens like Tezos coins have concerned regulators and become a sign for some investors of a bubble in the cryptocurrency world. The costly battle at the company will be an early test for the coin market, which has raised $2.3 billion this year, about seven times the amount raised in all years before 2017. The money has poured in due to enthusiasm for virtual currencies such as bitcoin and open-ledger “blockchain” technologies that are often tied to the offerings. The largely unregulated coin offerings in turn have helped push the value of bitcoin and some other virtual currencies to record highs. But the Tezos deal highlights some of the drawbacks of initial coin offerings, also known as ICO ’s : untested management, opaque structures and little transparency into what anyone involved wants to do with the huge sums they are raising. The fight at Tezos is between the husband-and-wife team that started the deal and the founder of the nonprofit foundation they tapped to control the project. “There’s a lot to regret here,” says Kathleen Breitman in an interview this week. She and her husband, Arthur, run the primary company developing Tezos, which wants to improve blockchain ledger technology through software. “We made a lot of mistakes. The best I can do is put my head down and work on the code.” A lawyer representing the Breitmans on Sunday sent a nine-page letter to the foundation’s board, demanding that its founder and president, Johann Gervers be removed, or they would withdraw their support from the project. Mr. Gevers couldn’t immediately be reached for comment. He has alleged the Breitmans’ involvement in his work “was incompatible with the needed independence of the foundation,” according to a separate letter from a Breitman lawyer, which referenced a Sept. 21 meeting at which Mr. Gevers made the claim. The Breitmans, in their late 20s at the time of the offering, had done stints at major firms. He had worked at Goldman Sachs Group Inc . and Morgan Stanley , while she had spent time at hedge-fund manager Bridgewater Associates and consulting firm Accenture . Ms. Breitman also worked as a fellow on The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page during the summer of 2011. The couple now control Dynamic Ledger Solutions Inc., which, according to Tezos’ website, “owns all of the Tezos-related intellectual property.” The Breitmans contends they used a Swiss foundation to boost the company’s independence and add checks and balances in its early period. Eventually, the plan is for the Breitmans to sell their company to the foundation for about $20 million. But how much control the Swiss foundation has over the company’s direction has led to a dispute that has put trading of Tezos tokens held by investors in limbo while also putting some of the technology on hold as well. The Tezos tokens, nicknamed tezzies, have yet to begin formally trading, though some trades are taking place in a less liquid prelaunch market. The formal start of trading is tied to the release of the production version of the Tezos platform. That has been delayed by the fight and may not come until February, more than six months after the money was raised last July, Ms. Breitman said. The money that was raised in the deal is currently with the foundation in a bank account, Ms. Breitman says. The proceeds are in the process of being converted from virtual currencies -- bitcoin and Ethereum—into government-backed currencies. The offerings are in many ways more akin to crowdfunding efforts than securities offerings, although the Securities and Exchange Commission has said it would review exactly what an offering is on an individual basis. The coins sold by companies in most cases aren’t equity in a firm. Rather, they are tokens that can be used at a future date to purchase services or products a company intends to produce.
Mycelium Wallets use our own custom nodes to process the bitcoin blockchain and scan for address balances. These nodes were written by Jan Møller while he was the Lead Developer, along with our other devs. The job of these nodes is to parse the 30 gig Blockchain database into our own custom database, which is much larger, being over 100 gigs in size, but which allows for very quick and easy lookup of address balances, allowing for instant balance lookups and to do things like Cold Storage spending from paper wallets and Trezor. Note that this custom database doesn't actually contain anything that's not in the original blockchain database itself. Mycelium's owner and developers believe in total financial privacy and personal freedom, and our company has a goal to make Mycelium Wallet the most anonymous wallet possible. For this reason, we have kept our wallet code completely open since the beginning, and have been public and open about what goes on internally in our company (I hope you have noticed my frequent updates, especially with the unfortunate Entropy delays). And even while Jan was still the lead dev, we have created LocalTrader to work completely anonymously, using only bitcoin signed messages for user authentication and encrypting all user chat P2P using their respective private keys so our servers receive no usable data. We have also added HD wallet support, and disabled all IP and transaction logging on our nodes. However, we also realize that just us claiming that we do that isn't good enough, and that's why we added full Tor support, and are in the process of implementing CoinJoin, which we hope to have enabled by default, so that even those who don't care about staying anonymous will help contribute. Our goal was to have Mycelium Wallet be as anonymous as Dark Wallet, and that has not changed. Jan Møller, our lead developer who did most of the work on the nodes, realized that the node-parsed blockchain database can be used to analyze bitcoin transaction activity, and help track transactions in the same way that our current financial institutions do (although with much less certainty). So he decided to have his own project that does just that, and has split off from Mycelium company last October. We still kept him on as our chief technical consultant, since he did write most of the node and original wallet code, so he is technically still employed by Mycelium, but he has had no access to our nodes since he left. Our current full time lead developer is Andreas Petersson, who is working on implementing Coinapult Locks right now, and the other two developers are Jan Dreske (trasla here) and Daniel Weigl, who have been adding support for Trezor, fixing bugs, adding minor requested features, etc. We at Mycelium are not fans of what Chainalysis does, but we can't really object too much, because if something like this is even possible to do, then someone will do it, whether it's Jan's company or someone else. It's also preferable that this is done by a public company in the open, instead of in secret by a government agency. And secondly, since the developer behind this is someone who worked with us and continues to stay in touch and advise us, we can at least get inside knowledge of what may be tracked and how by such systems, so we can be aware of what to watch out for and what to fix. Obviously it's not a guarantee that we will get an honest answer, but it's still better than nothing. With regards to why our website's About section still lists Jan Møller as a Lead Developer, it's because our website dev has been working full time on another (secret) Mycelium project, and has not had the chance to change anything. I guess the site is too low of a priority to update. Note that both of our current top wallet developers who have been doing most of the work these past few months, Jan Dreske and Daniel Weigl, are completely missing from there too. I am sorry that I have not publicly stated anything about this either, but since Chainalysis is a completely separate company, Jan Møller has not had access to our internal systems since he became a consultant, and our internal goals are still total anonymity, there was no risk whatsoever to Mycelium or the privacy of our users from the Mycelium side. I have been fairly open about being an AnarchoCapitalist myself, supporting people like Cody Wilson and Ross Ulbricht, and supporting the idea of The four pillars of a decentralized society as explained by Johann Gevers to help decentralize government functions. So if there ever is a risk of Mycelium becoming a snooping agency, or if Mycelium changes its goals with regards to expanding personal freedom, I still promise to let the community know, since there would be no way I would be willing to continue to work there if that happens. P.S. Yes, we have those Chainalysis nodes blocked on our Mycelium nodes, too, but that's not really a fix, since Chainalysis can just change their IP address. EDIT: Also, please note that if Mycelium wanted to be involved in this, we would have done this internally ourselves, likely making a ton of money from bankers and regulators in the process. But we didn't, not even allowing Jan to work on this internally, and wouldn't even consider implementing anything like that.
Johann Gevers is a narcissist that will stop at nothing to take full control
By the way, I know that it's now obvious that Gevers is a narcissist. However I identified ages ago that Gevers is a narcissist as he is very similar to a person I used to know over the past few years, that destroyed a multi million business due to excessive narcissism. The longer Gevers stays in control the more chance Tezos has to fail. This man must be removed. Have a read of these: https://twitter.com/johanngevers/status/954338290366320640
[...] and cultural fit is especially important initially, to build trust and productive working relationships.
This type of wording is commonly used by narcissists. One of the most toxic persons I have ever met in my life is a narcissist and he would used words like this a lot to attempt to show that it was they that were the ones being harmonious. Things like cultural fit, trust, productive relationships. All of these words are corporate double speak and they are there to hide the one being toxic. Normally HR use words like this without really thinking about where they come from. Often the origin is a narcissist high up in the organization. By presenting themselves as the one that wants trustful and productive working relationships they mask their true intent. https://twitter.com/johanngevers/status/954465088441905155
[...] Please be patient while we get things set up. Further announcements coming later next week.
Why should we be patient? We gave you hundreds of millions of dollars, missed out on so many community projects that could have been funded outside of DLS. This narcissist I know is the same. He screwed everything up so badly, then asked for us to be patient. Making it out like we're the ones in the wrong, for wanting something that we shouldn't really dare be asking for. https://twitter.com/johanngevers/status/954336650389348352
The most important category is the executive team — because that's where the action is.
The level of self love this man has is insane. All the onus is on him to finish his project. Yes you can tell now that Gevers believes that this is his project, not u/murbard project. And to discount development so easily?!?! Insanity! There is no way Tezos can become an EOS, Ethereum, Bitcoin competitor without a primary focus on the tech. This is first and foremost the core of these types of projects. Now I understand why Gevers has failed so badly at every project they have ever touched. How can Tezos compete with an outsourcing team? WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let me explain. This narcissist I knew was not capable tech wise, but his view of tech was so bad, that management was the only important consideration, that we lacked resources and the company started to fail under his leadership. See from my experience, good leadership would detect that the tech is primary and then will allocate resources to those areas accordingly. However this person I knew, he just thought that sitting on his chair was enough, that talented people would come from miles around to work with him no matter the low pay and shitty conditions of the office place. This is how a narcissist fails. They think that the world revolves around them and that the talent will flock to their name. I am certain now this is what Gevers believes, that all the talent in the world will flock to Tezos because of the name Gevers. And this is how these projects fail. Because in reality no one wants to work with a toxic narcissistic idiot that thinks of themselves alongside Elon Musk. https://twitter.com/johanngevers/status/954334947963297804
Best practices start with good people. With good people, there’s no limit to the heights you can achieve. Without good people, all the other best practices will ultimately fail. — Johann Gevers
Hello! My name is Vladimir Hovanskiy. I am a Google Adwords manager at Platinum, a business facilitator of new generation, providing STO and ICO marketing services. We already created best STO blockchain platform on the market and consulted more than 700 projects. Here’s the proof 😎 Platinum.fund We are more than proud that we not only promote but also share our knowledge with the students of the UBAI. Here you can learn how to do security token offering and initial coin offering! Now I want to share some cool info on the purpose and role of tokens within the Blockchain ecosystem at the ICO stage. Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) History Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) are a means of fundraising for the initial capital needed to get new projects off the ground within the cryptocurrency ecosystem. More often than not, Bitcoin and Ethereum, are used to buy a quantity of project tokens. However, new projects are also being launched on alternative Blockchain platforms such as NEO or WANchain, wherein the “parent” chain’s tokens will be used to fund these ICOs. Pre-launch, ICO tokens are endorsed as functional currency in the project ecosystem. After a project’s ICO, it is available on exchanges, and then the market determines the value of those tokens. The main benefit of using the ICO funding system is that it avoids the prohibitive amount of time and expense incurred by launching a startup in the conventional method, by way of Initial Public Offering (IPO). The lengthy and costly process of ensuring regulatory compliance in different jurisdictions often makes the IPO format unfeasible for small companies. Thus, the ICO method of fundraising is far more attractive as a means of crowd funding for the project. But at the same time, an ICO is certainly riskier for the investor. It is important to note the different stages of the token sale. Token prices generally escalate the closer the token gets to its listing date. Projects often seek funding from angel investors even before the date of the private pre-sale is set, though some ICOs do go straight to pre-sale. After potential initial investment has been sought from angel investors, pre-sale begins. Usually there will be a 15–30% discount from the public sale price. The main-sale begins after the pre-sale has concluded. At that time, normal everyday crypto enthusiasts, with no connections to the team, may buy into the project at pretty close to the ground floor price. Angel investors and pre-sale investors sometimes receive quite large discounts from main sale prices, but their tokens are locked up for varying amounts of time, to prevent dumping, or selling all their tokens for a quick profit at the time of listing. Today the vast majority of ICOs make use of the Ethereum blockchain and the ERC-20 token. The very first token sale was arranged by Mastercoin, a Bitcoin fork, in July 2013. Ethereum soon followed in early 2014, raising 3700 BTC in only 12 hours (equivalent to $2.3 million at that time, and just under $35 million today). Before late 2015 there were sporadic ICOs, with Augur, NXT and Factom all successfully raising funds. 2016 was the year that the ICO format grew to truly disrupt the Venture Capital industry. There were 64 ICOs in 2016 which cumulatively raised $103 million USD. Tremendous Success & Why Real World Case Study The ICON (ICX) Initial coin offering is an example of a project that reaped the rewards of a token sale done with precision of execution and clarity of vision. The project promised to build a world-wide decentralized network that would allow Blockchains of different governances to transact with one another without a centralized authority, and with as few barriers as possible. ICX offered fair and clear tokenomics, with 1 Ether buying 2500 ICX, and with 1 ETH costing approximately 250 dollars when the ICO began on September 18th. 50% of the total amount of tokens were put up for public sale, 400,230,000 out of a total of 800,460,000, equating to a fundraising goal of 150,000 Ether. One of the core reasons for the project’s spectacular success was the incredibly distinguished background of those involved, and the foundation the project had in many years of stellar achievement. ICON was originally a project developed by “The Loop”, a joint venture between DAYLI financial group and three Korean Universities. They lead the Korea Financial Investment Blockchain Consortium, one of the largest organizations of its kind in the world, boasting members including Samsung Securities. The Loop had already implemented Blockchain solutions for high profile clients well before ICX was born, including completing a KYC/AML authentication smart contract platform for Korea Financial Investment Consortium. Real World Example of Failure & Why Case Study The risk involved in starting your own company is huge. Over 75% of startups eventually fail, according to the Harvard Business School study by Shikhar Ghosh. The study’s findings show the rate of failure for new companies is roughly 50% after 5 years, and over 75% after 10. Shikhar Ghosh identifies the following issues as the most common factors in start-up failure: -Insufficient Market Demand -Insolvency -Wrong Team -Got beat by competition -Pricing/Cost issues -Poor Product -Need for or Lack of business model -Ineffective Marketing -Disregarding Customer desires The statistics concerning rate of failure for conventional business startups pale in comparison to the number of crypto startups that fail according to Tokendata. They are one of the most rigorous ICO trackers, recording 46% of the 902 ICO crowdsale projects initiated in 2017 as failing by the time of writing. Of these 46%, 142 collapsed before the end of the funding stage, and a further 276 had either “exit scammed” (took the money and ran) or slowly faded into eventual obscurity. With no shortage of failed and abortive projects to look into, we thought it would be more helpful to look into an ICO that was mismanaged and unsuccessful in terms of its execution, rather than being fraudulent, or terminally mismanaged. Real World Example of Failure & Why §3 Tezos was designed as a “new decentralized Blockchain that governs itself by establishing a true digital commonwealth”. The project was a partnership between the husband and wife team of Kathleen and Arthur Breitman, and a Swiss foundation run by Johann Gevers. They had a novel idea of “formal verification”, a technique that mathematically proves the veracity of code governing transactions and heightens security of smart contracts. That idea was wholeheartedly endorsed by investors, resulting in $232 million USD raised in the 2017 crowdsale. Trouble arose after the Breitmans asked the head of the Swiss foundation they were in partnership with to step down. In Gever’s words, the Breitman’s were attempting “to bypass Swiss legal structure and take over control of the foundation”. The resulting 6 class action lawsuits that were spawned from the wreckage of one of the most successful ICOs of all time have yet to be fully resolved at the time of writing, though Gevers has stepped down and a new leadership team is in place. The Tezos Network has a prospective launch date of somewhere around Q3 2018. The debacle, though not terminal to the prospects of the Tezos network, provides a cautionary tale about the need for a clearly defined leadership structure and plan for the allocation of funds after an ICO. It is entirely possible that the Tezos project could have ridden the late 2017 market euphoria to sit near the top of the cryptocurrency hierarchy if boardroom strife could have been avoided. Real World Example of Failure & Why §4 Projects often also “pivot” from one focus or project to another. More often than not, teams change the project name entirely, even while retaining the same core team, to try for a successful venture one more time. One such project is Chain Trade Token (CTT) which, while technically speaking, not yet a “deadcoin”, shows all the signs of shutting down operations within a few months, and “pivoting” into a new project. The CTT project aimed to be the “first blockchain-based platform for the trading of futures and options on food and raw materials (aka commodity derivatives)”. But through a combination of a non-existent social media presence, and a distinct lack of urgency in securing listings beyond decentralized exchanges, the lofty ambitions of the top-level team were left unrealized. The team has supposedly split their operations from solely Chain Trade, to a former business endeavors, and the Nebula Decentralized Exchange. The project leaders then offered a 1-for-1 token swap which has been accepted by the vast majority of CTT holders. The ICO Process Before even researching the particular strengths and weaknesses of any specific project in which you may want to invest, it is important to know the overall processes of the ICO crowdfunding method. This will allow you to avoid any potential pitfalls if you do decide to move forward and invest money into a particular idea or project. How does an ICO happen? Stage One: Token sale details are set: This takes place usually after release of the whitepaper, and the presentation of a project to prospective investors in forums and on social media. Stage Two: Whitelisting for private sale begins: The vast majority of all ICOs have instituted KYC checks for investors which usually involve uploading a photograph of your passport or driving license along with a selfie holding the ID. Did you know? Participation in ICOs has proven to be a regulatory nightmare in some localities. Most token sales restrict contributions from investors in China and the USA entirely, though accredited investors may participate in the USA in some cases. Stage Three: Private/Pre-sale states: Typically, 10% of tokens will be offered to early investors at a 10–30% discount. These select few investors will likely have a close association with the team. But not all projects have a pre-sale round, some go straight to public sale. Stage Four: Whitelisting for Public/Main sale starts: The same format used for pre-sale investors is used for public sale investors, though it is a regular occurrence to see main sale KYC checks closed early due to overwhelming demand. An investor must then register a contribution wallet address. That is the address used to send cryptocurrency from, to buy the ICO tokens, and then also into which you will receive your purchased tokens. This wallet address must be a non-exchange wallet, like Blockchain.info bitcoin wallet, or MyEtherWallet for ERC-20. You already understand from the prior lesson that making a mistake with your wallet address may mean you lose the tokens forever as well as the BTC or ETH you used to purchase them. Copying and pasting your cryptocurrency public key into the whitelist wallet form is the next task to complete. And then, as the investor, you wait for confirmation of successful ICO registration from the team. Stage Five: Public sale starts: Commonly on a specific date, though sometimes for a specific period of time. If you are interested in participating in an ICO, it is important to make your contribution as quickly as possible, or you risk sending your ETH or BTC after the hard cap has been reached, resulting in your funds being sent back. This refund can sometimes take many days, or even weeks in times of high market activity. Did you know? In 2017 it was not unheard of to find ICOs that had originally scheduled their ICO period for many weeks, but then they met with such high demand that they could close their crowdsale in a matter of hours or even in just a few minutes! Stage Six: Tokens are allocated to successful participant investor wallets, and trading can begin on some decentralized exchanges like IDEX, or EtherDelta in the case of Ethereum based tokens. Tokens will be sent to and received by the wallet addresses from which the investor contributions were made. Stage Seven: Tokens are listed on mainstream exchanges: The tokens will then be listed on the exchanges with which the teams have negotiated listing, prior to or during the sale. It can cost huge amounts of money to list on large exchanges like Bitfinex Bittrex, Huobi or Binance, so usually smaller projects will not be listed on top 10 exchanges so quickly. As tokens are listed on more and more exchanges, their price usually rises because more and more investors are exposed to opportunities to buy that particular token. Evaluating a Blockchain Use Case Evaluating a particular use case for Blockchain technology, and thus how successful an ICO project’s ambitions might be in a particular market, is not a simple endeavor. As demonstrated in the graphic below, Blockchain technology has nearly limitless potential to be applied to a great variety of business areas, but as an ICO investor, you are looking for projects that have the potential to deliver significant long-term success. In the currently saturated ICO environment, some use cases have more potential than others. Ascertaining which use case is likely to have long term success is a key distinction. Also, we must recognize that businesses and corporate entities may be overeager to experiment with this new Blockchain technology, whether or not usage of the technology is actually advisable or profitable for their particular purpose. The main questions to ask when analyzing specific solutions proposed by the project are: What are the problems posed and the solutions offered? Does this particular area of business need a Blockchain solution? That is, is a Blockchain solution in fact superior to the current way this particular business operates? Is the use of Blockchain in this specific instance feasible and applicable? What are competitors doing about Blockchain projects in this same area? A Blockchain network provides a shared, replicated, secured, immutable and verifiable data ledger. The implication for use case analysis: Shared and replicated: participants have a copy of the ledger and many people can view it or work on it Secured: Secured through cryptography Verifiable: Business rules are associated with all interactions that occur on the network Immutable: Transactions (records) cannot be modified or deleted, therefore a verifiable audit trail is maintained by the network So, with all this considered, what should we look for with regard to a possible business use case that would be best solved using Blockchain technology? 1. Data exchange that has trust issues i.e. businesses transacting with one another. Trust must be established through a multitude of verification processes with regards to employees and products. These processes increase operational cost. Example: Digital voting. 2. Any potential business process involving data storage, or compliance and risk data that get audited. Blockchain solutions would provide the regulators a real-time view of information. Example: Supply chain solutions like VeChain or WaltonChain. The possibility of close to zero operational loss would of course be attractive to any business. 3. All kinds of asset transactions. A Blockchain network, with its tamper-proof ledger, validating traceable and trackable transactions, could save many different industries untold amounts of money. Example: Tokenization of assets e.g. Jibrel Network or Polymath Purpose of Tokens Within the cryptocurrency ecosystem, the definition and role of a token iswidely understood. They represent programmable units of currency that sit atop a particular Blockchain, and they are part of a smart contract “logic” specific to a certain application. In the business sphere, a token can be defined as a unit of value that a project or business venture creates to enable it to self-govern. And the business venture also allows token users to connect and collaborate with its business products, while facilitating the sharing of rewards to all of its stakeholders. A token can also be described in a more general sense as a type of privately issued currency. In the past it was solely within the purview of governments to issue currency and set the terms of its governance. With the advent of Blockchain technology we now have businesses and organizations offering forms of digital money over which they, not the government or central bank, have control of the terms of operations and issuance. Wide scale adoption of these mechanisms could fundamentally alter the global economy. This is like the creation of self-sustaining, mini-economies in any sector of business or life, via a specific token or currency. Fun Fact: Tokens of the particular Blockchain upon which the project is launched will usually have to be bought in order to be exchanged for ICO tokens, hence it is important for traders and investors to be aware of the schedule for upcoming ICOs. ETH is usually the token used for exchange because the majority of ICOs launch on the Ethereum Blockchain. But this is not always the case. During January 2018, two NEO token ICOs, both the Key TKY and Ontology ICOs, were being carried out, and this caused the NEO cryptocurrency to spike to its all-time high in excess of $160 USD. Since the product or project is more often than not in its embryonic stage at the time of the ICO crowdfunding process, the ICO token’s true function and purpose is in most cases yet to be realized. At the ICO stage the tokens can usually be grouped together into one of three categories. Knowing how to distinguish these categories involves determining the specific nature and function of the token around which the project is centered. The main and crucial distinction, is whether or not a token is a security, and therefore subject to securities registration requirements. ICO Stage Token Categories Howey Test: This is the test created by the US Supreme Court to ascertain whether certain transactions qualify as “investment contracts”. If they are found to fall within this classification, then under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Exchange Act of 1934, those transactions are considered “securities” and participants must adhere to registration and disclosure requirements. One of the most important and amazing considerations of the effect of Blockchain technology is that normal people with a computer science background are now empowered to make decisions and offer products and services that previously only licensed financial institutions were able to do. This is a very complex and complicated situation with serious ramifications for anyone involved. One thing to note well is that ordinary participants and actors in this arena can easily commit white-collar crime, violating serious securities laws, without even realizing it. If a token falls within the US legal definition of “Investment Contract” then you must adhere to US regulations. For that reason, many ICOs simply do not want to sell to US based investors, perhaps until all the rules and regulations are clarified. Security Tokens The broad and varying definition of the term “security” is a regulatory minefield. This has always been true for traditional financial products, and now it is especially true for the as yet unregulated cryptocurrency market. In the case of SEC V. Howey, parameters were established to determine whether or not a particular financial arrangement could be classified as a security and thus be subject to securities regulations. Cooley LLP Fintech Team Leader Marco Santori has said, an arrangement is a security if it involves “an investment of money, and a common enterprise, with the expectation of profit, primarily from the efforts of others.” Investors have the option of accessing a huge range of security tokens through ICOs. Prime examples are the gold backed DigixDao (DGD) and CProp (still in crowd funding stage). A security token is fundamentally different from the currently available ICO project tokens in that it provides a legal and enforceable ownership of a company’s profits and voice in its governance much like common stock traded on any exchange. If security tokens are the next step in the evolution of crypto-finance, real estate, stocks, venture capital, and commodities can all be tokenized. The traditional markets could be fully connected to the Blockchain. Financial assets would available to anyone in the world, not just licensed or accredited investors. That is one aspect of Fintech, the financial revolution taking place today, as Blockchain technology clashes with traditional finance. Equity Tokens One exciting application of smart contracts on the Ethereum Network is the potential for startups to distribute equity tokens through initial coin offerings. That would reduce the hurdles that an average person has to face in order to take part in the early stages of a company’s development. And, democratic governance of a project could be conducted in a transparent manner through voting on the Blockchain. As of yet, few startups have attempted to conduct equity token sales for fear of falling afoul of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the US. But many Venture Capital insiders are bullish on the prospect of equity tokens taking a central role in the crypto finance industry, when and as the legal issues are resolved. For example, the Delaware State legislature recently passed a bill enabling companies to maintain shareholder lists on the Blockchain. That is one major step to enable Blockchain based stock trading. Lawyers also generally believe it is only a matter of time before the regulations are clarified. Did you know? Important consideration: The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 made it unfeasibly expensive for smaller companies to be listed on exchanges, causing a halving in the number of IPOs between 1996 and 2016 (7322 to 3671). In 2017 there was an almost 5-fold increase in the number of ICOs, from 43 to 210, with the 2017 volume already being eclipsed in the first 5 months of 2018. Utility Tokens However, given that this area is still a regulatory nightmare for people planning to issue security and equity tokens, many projects attempt to ensure that the tokens within their specific model fall under the definition of Utility Tokens rather than securities, so as to avoid the SEC regulations altogether. If a token is imbued with a certain functionality and use within the Blockchain infrastructure of that particular project, the token can avoid being labelled as a security, and thus render SEC regulations inapplicable. Just this week in fact, the SEC made the long-awaited and momentous decision that Ether was not a security. In the words of William Hinman, director of the Securities and Exchange Commission division of corporate finance, “Putting aside the fundraising that accompanied the creation of Ether, based on my understanding of the present state of Ether, the Ethereum network and its decentralized structure, current offers and sales of Ether are not securities transactions.” This means that Ethereum, in fact, fails the Howey test, which is exactly the decision the crypto world wanted. Hinman said, “When the efforts of the third party are no longer a key factor for determining the enterprise’s success, material information asymmetries recede,” Hinman said. “The ability to identify an issuer or promoter to make the requisite disclosures becomes difficult, and less meaningful.” We will now cover various use cases that projects have been adopting up to now in order to get their tokens classified as utility tokens rather than securities. Voting Rights Some coins portray themselves as a company with tokens being held in a way that is analogous to voting shares of a stock. One coin held is equal to one vote. This form of token utility has a major flaw in that so-called whales (people with huge amounts of a particular cryptocurrency) can manipulate any poll conducted. The cryptocurrencies Aragon and Lykke are examples of projects that have written voting rights into the structure of their code. In-App Reward: Another common tactic to evade the security label has been the addition of in-app rewards to the functionality of a particular token. The Basic Attention Token (BAT) is the unit of currency for use with the project browser named “Brave”. The BAT is a unit of account for the advertisers, publishers and users of the platform. Filecoin, the cloud storage project that raised a record $257 million through their ICO, pays other people or companies for use of their spare storage space. Some of the many rights afforded to token holders in various Blockchain projects are described by the graphic below. Token Roles Function The token can be used as a mechanism through which user experience is enhanced, enabling such actions as connection with users, or joining a broader network. It may also be used as an incentive for beginning usage or for on-boarding. Examples include Dfinity and Steemit. Value Exchange: In its most basic usage, a token is a unit of value exchange within a specific app or market. This usually is made up of features that allow users to earn tokens through real work or passive work (sharing data, allowing use of storage space) and to spend them on services or internal functions within the specific market ecosystem created by that organization. Augur and KIK, amongst countless others, are projects that have implemented this functionality into their tokenomics. Toll: The token can also be used for getting onto the Blockchain infrastructure, or for powering decentralized applications run on that particular Blockchain. This ensures that users have “skin in the game”. Tolls can be derived from running smart contracts, paying a security deposit, or just usage fees. Examples include Bitcoin and Ethereum. Currency: Seeing as the particular platform or app is designed with a view towards functioning in synergy with a particular token, the token is an extremely efficient means of payment and transaction engine, resulting in frictionless transactions. This means that companies can become their own payment processors and no longer have to rely on the often unwieldy stages of conventional financial settlement involving trusted third parties in the form of banks and credit card companies. Rights: Owning a token bequests certain rights upon the holder, such as product usage, voting, access to restricted markets, and dividends (e.g.: GAS for holding NEO). Though most businesses are trying to avoid fitting the definition of a security laid out in the Howey Test, the right to real ownership of a particular asset is sometimes granted as a result of holding a token, for example DigixDAO or Tezos. Comparison to Traditional IPO and Equity Capital Raisings Despite the similarity of the acronyms and the derivation of one from the other, Initial Coin Offerings and Initial Public Offerings are very different methods of fundraising. The distinction is not limited simply to the fact that IPOs are used in conventional business, and ICOs are associated with cryptocurrency. Through ICO’s, companies in their early stages issue digital tokens on a Blockchain and those tokens act as units of value for use within the ecosystem created by the project. They have many other uses, but it is also fair to say they are analogous to shares offered in an Initial Public offering. In an IPO, shareholdings are distributed to investors through underwriters, usually investment banks. But in the case of ICO token sales, companies often do not even have an actual product to show. Often, all that there is a whitepaper, evidence of the partnerships involved and the particular social-media infrastructure they have established. IPO’s take place when a more well-established company floats shares on a stock exchange. The company would have a well-established history of success and significant reasons to expect a bright future. In the vast majority of cases, an ICO is used for a new company with no such history, just trying to get off the ground. Another important difference is the expected return in exchange for the investment. Companies engaging in IPOs may offer participants dividend paying stocks which result in various levels of return depending on the success of the company after the shares are issued. An ICO however can offer no such guaranteed return. When buying tokens in an ICO, you do so with no promise of return. An investor who holds the tokens of a particular project does so with the promise, rather than an assurance, of future success. The main benefit to investors taking part in Initial Coin Offerings, compared to Initial Public Offerings, is the need for only basic Know Your Customer checks in the case of the ICO, compared to the costly, complex and time-consuming regulatory obstacles that must be traversed in an IPO. In the case of Initial Public Offerings, a business must obtain authorization from a number of entities before the act of “going public”. Prior to an IPO, companies are not obliged to disclose so much of their internal records or accounting. It is not so complicated to make a private company in the United States. But in the run up to going public, the company must form a board of directors, make their records auditable to the relevant authorities in one or more jurisdictions, and prepare to make quarterly reports to the SEC (or equivalent). Relevant Factors to Consider in ICO process When analyzing the chances of success for a specific project, and the likelihood of a favorable return on investment in the long term, it is essential to break down the project into its constituent parts, and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each part individually. An effective investigation and analysis would start with the team and white paper. Consider the stage the project is at,and VC investments in the project. That would lead to a good initial idea of the actual progress thus far. Next, evaluate the social media presence and the credentials of the community that has formed around the core team. If a compelling case is made by the team, (e.g.: via an in-depth dive into the use case), and the tokenomics, distribution schedule, potential competitors, as well as the team’s awareness of any future business or regulatory concerns all check out; then the ICO might present a good opportunity for investment. In the following slides we tackle each of these considerations in order so you will be able to evaluate an ICO’s worth and assign a grade for the success of each project. Relevant Factors to Consider in ICO process The Team First and most important, we need evaluate the background and experience of the team, the people involved in the project. Well-established developers, for example, will likely have LinkedIn profiles demonstrating their previous endeavors and occupations, from which we can judge their suitability to the project and the likelihood of the team’s success. The LinkedIn profile is a point of reference for professional accomplishments and official positions. But we can also learn more about a person from their personal accounts on Twitter, Facebook, and Medium etc. That is also a good way to follow along with the progress of the project. By investigating team members through as many means as possible, you will know how long they have been involved in cryptocurrency. If they have been around and active for a long time, they are that much more likely to be knowledgeable and capable of making better quality decisions in this business. It goes without saying that it is a huge red flag if it is too difficult to find information about the team members online, and worse still if the team members are anonymous. Relevant Factors to Consider in ICO process A good Whitepaper gives a detailed description of the project, the problems the team is going to solve, the timeframe projected, and methods to be used in the implementation of their ideas. If, in answering the question about what the project actually does, it seems the team is presenting ideas that are too complicated or advanced to understand, then you simply should not invest until you are satisfied you have been given the requisite level of insight to understand the concepts described. It is always possible that the whitepaper is nothing more than a salad of buzzwords and technical language intended to give the impression of competence while really doing nothing but obfuscate the truth. The whitepaper should clearly and concisely present the problems and the solutions needed. The whitepaper must give a solid and coherent answer as to who needs this project and why. Also, if the team have put no effort into explaining why a Blockchain solution is needed for this particular problem, or why such a solution is superior to its “real-world” equivalent, it is likely they are only in it for the money. We have more to say about red-flags later. While 2016 raised a comparatively small amount in comparison to the proceeding years, there were a few specific projects that raised significant amounts of capital. These are respectable amounts of money, even by today’s standards, and especially impressive when contrasted with the immaturity of the ICO market at the time, and relative to amounts raised in traditional IPOs. Waves ($16.4mill), Iconomi ($10.6mill) and Golem ($8.6mill) were the three largest fundraisings of the year. 2017 was the year of the ICO whales. Hdac ($258mill), Filecoin ($257mill), EOS Stage 1 ($185mill) and Paragon ($183.16mill) were the largest that year. To be able to raise so much money, so quickly, in such a new market, using such a new mechanism is truly incredible. 2017 was the year that proved ICOs are for serious individuals and institutional investors as well. We have also had some phenomenal amounts raised so far in 2018. Telegram ($1.7bill), Dragon ($320mill), Huobi ($300mill) and Bankera ($150mill). Telegram might be the first mainstream example of an ICO, not only by raising close to $2billion, which would be beyond incredible and impressive even by traditional IPO standards; but also, because it is one of the first ICO companies to tangibly put a product in the hands of hundreds of millions of users, and successfully compete against traditional companies such as Facebook (MessengeWhatsApp), Microsoft (Skype) and Tencent (WeChat). What is ICO main mechanisms and processes.? How to market STO? What are the best security tokens 2019? Follow the link to learn more: UBAI.co We can teach you how to do ICO and STO in 2019. Contact me via Facebook to learn more: Facebook
Just three months ago, a tech project called Tezos raised $232 million online in a wildly successful "initial coin offering," in which new digital currency is parcelled out to buyers. At the time Johann Gevers is a very tall, slender, charismatic man in his early fifties, with a high forehead, short orange hair whitening at the temples, and cloudy gray-blue eyes. He grew up in South Africa Johann Gevers CFA CA BCom BSc BA Founder: Crypto Valley ecosystem, Monetas, Tezos Foundation, Crypto Valley Association, Digital Finance Compliance Association, Bitcoin Association Switzerland Rated Top 100 finance leader in Switzerland. Bio: Johann is a visionary thought leader and entrepreneur. — Johann Gevers (@johanngevers) February 22, 2018 During his last few months with the foundation, Gevers battled Tezos founders Arthur and Kathleen Breitman over a contract dispute. Bitcoin has been beating out almost all of its rivals so far this year with bitcoin's dominance, a measure of bitcoin's value compared to the wider crypto market, approaching 70% for the first
Blockey CTO's technical explanation of the POE consensus algorithm mechanism and BTN public chain
Bitcoin 101 - Merkle Roots and Merkle Trees - Bitcoin Coding and Software - The Block Header - Duration: 24:18. CRI 42,585 views. ... Johann Gevers TEDxZug - Duration: 16:13. Bitcoin, Blockchain & Crypto Currencies papa smurf108; ... [Deleted video] WCN Live: Open Transactions -- Interview with Chris Odom, Johann Gevers by World Crypto Network. 57:13. Bitcoin to go ... Johann Gevers is Co-Founder and CEO of Monetas in Zug. Monetas is building the world's first universal transaction platform—an essential infrastructure for the society of the future. Johann's ... Johann Gevers, co-founder and CEO of Monetas (Switzerland) is announcing he is coming to speak at Bitcoin Singapore 2013 on November 15 at the Fullerton hotel Singapore. Johann Gevers erklärt, was Kryptofinanz-Technologie ist und wieso ausgerechnet in Zug ein «Crypto Valley» entstehen soll.