Crowdholding

48 Hour Task: We plan to lock pre-ICO holders for three months. What do you think?

48 Hour Task: We plan to lock pre-ICO holders for three months. What do you think?

task

EXPIRED


YUP icon 1600


48 Hour Task: We plan to lock pre-ICO holders for three months. What do you think?

Rewards

No YUP/tokens awarded

Recently it has become common practice to lock pre-ICO holders to let the market establish. This is due to the increase in bonus structure that can incentivize selling. We understand that speed is crucial, thus this will be the last task regarding the pre-ICO lock discussion. Do you see this fair? Is the length of 3 months adequate? Officially Friday we make the announcement exactly how we will accomplish this. From your feedback from both pre-ICO investors and future ICO investors we have come to the conclusion this is the most effective way to solve this issue. We’re excited to start implementing your suggestions.





15 COMMENTS 9 VOTES

Most recent Most voted Most verbose

I like the idea as it stops the pump and dump that seems to happen due to preico buyers getting in for cheaper than normal and will keep the tokens healthier or at least thats way i see it.

11 months ago

I think it will be fair if the pre-investors who doesn't agree to blocking and other decisions that are taken on the basis of the maximum benefit for the project, should receive their investments back (unless initially it was stated that the ICO can be extended in case the project doesn't reach the goal). Probably after deduction %, which was already actually spent for the past period. That is, some of their Yupies may remain.

1 year ago

There's no need to hurry for locked up till 3 month later. because I think this project even not a "baby" yet, it still an embrio's ☺ I mostly concern about how to spread this project, untill we've got big community in here and then we can consider the next step. (Sorry, Just my opinion)

1 year ago

What do you consider a big community?

1 year ago

I'm sorry..not consider, I mean planing the next step after we reach a big community on here

1 year ago

If you are going to have a lock-up period, instead of having a three-month lock-up apply only to pre-ICO investors, I suggest you think about a firm date that tokens become freely transferable. In other words, you have all tokens for all investors locked until say March 31st, at which point they can be freely sold by anyone. You will never be able to fully control the market, but it's inherently unfair to penalize your earliest and most committed investors for being early to the party.

1 year ago

No lock up period. It's not necessary. If people want to flip the token once it hits the market, let them. I believe in the platform and it's potential.
It's normal that demand is low for now, given the many regulations on ICO's these days. You have a working beta. Once it launches people will join in very quickly; especially given the unique bounty program.
Given the reward value at the present; I find it normal that the people who joined up first can have a "first mover" advantage. The reward system will stabilize itself once more users join. More users = smaller rewards. So I see no need for changes at this moment in time.
In general I would try to launch the platform as soon as possible so more people can and will join.
With regards to the token burn; you could consider a "proportional" token burn. Whereby the percentages are respected. However; you might also want to consider instead of burning all tokens to employ a contract lock up system whereby a certain amount of tokens is divided into several portions and locked for a set amount of time e.g. 12 months/24/36... and released on each of these predetermined dates.
Also; there needs to be some incentive to hold the token (a bonus after holding the token for X amount of time perhaps?).
And more importantly a way to get the tokens back into the system. I would like to suggest you create a kind of store on your platform which will allow users to spend the tokens.
E.g.: Give some to charity; buy coupons (which you can negotiate with websites and stores), buy products, buy gift cards, etc.

Kind regards.
Keep up the good work, and please don't give up on the project! To much potential!

1 year ago

Ethan Clime

CEO of Crowdholding.com

Hey Steven, thanks for the feedback and great ideas as well. The issue we have is investors and even influencers are contacting us personally that they will invest if we have the lockup in place which will allow us to raise the 1 million quickly. We have applied our multicurrency system on the app and announce our 2nd erc20 token business today. This market moves so fast that changes at times must be implemented by being transparent. Our tech is almost at a point that we will be listed as a decentralized app which only a handful of business have. With our current team we have the ability invent new tech to be leaders in the industry. While other big ICO's take a few years to build their application (they are playing the market more then focusing on their product) we are using funds on development giving us a great opportunity to be leaders in our technology. It's all about team, which we have internally. Our monthly expenses right now is $20K, which has allowed us to build the product you see here and this is just the start. By raising 1 million we can increase our budget to 40K, which doubles our speed. And our revenue model makes us sustainable by July next year.

1 year ago

I do not think this is the right way to go.

You write that you came to the conclusion that "this is the most effective way to solve this issue", but what issue are you actually talking about? That you cannot reach $1m and hope that your ICO will be more attractive if pre-investors are locked-in?

This will not happen with a lock-in and in my opinion, it will make things even words.

Let's state the facts: You did not reach the soft cap on 1st December. Instead of refunding all participants (as stated in the whitepaper) you continued with the ICO, even though this is a massive crack in integrity and credibility. That sucks for everyone.

Furthermore, there is already much supply of YUP in the type of bounties and rewards on this platform. If I am the only one posting here, I will get 100 YUP right? This is approx. 70$ now. I'll take it, but how could I recommend buying YUP if I know that there is a lot to be "found" here. The system got out of proportions, especially because there is no plan to burn tokens that were not part of the ICO. 44.2% of all tokens were reserved for the ICO, this makes 278m YUP, equivalent to approx 278k ETH, which would be approx. $200m now (lol how ETH has risen since beginning of your ICO..). Well, lets assume you sell YUP for $1m for approx. $650/1000YUP, so there are approx 1.5m YUP on the ICO side. But you wont burn the other ones, so for rewards, internal stuff etc. there are still 631m*55.8%=352m YUPs!! 1.5m vs. 352m ..and you are thinking about locking the pre-ICO tokens? How much are we taking about, 300k YUP? ... Better burn some tokens, this would make the ICO more attractive.

A lock-in of pre-investors would furthermore make the credibility of the ICO even worse. How often do you want to change things until the ICO finally succeeds? Pre-Investors invested in September (!!). This is three months ago. They should now further wait until the end of March, because then is FINALLY the end of the ICO (because it was postponed) and then they should wait another 3 months? You. cannot. do. this. This is wrong, it it will damage your credibility forever, and no business should start like this.

So, my alternative proposal (besides a provocative, but completely appropriate "Lets stop this and keep your promise of refund when soft cap is not reached") is: Instead of looking at the 44.2% ICO side (which is more like 1% now as described above), burn massively on the other 55.8%, burn as much tokens as you can to make the actual acquisition of YUP more rewarding and attractive. And be very transparent about it, and make the calculations transparent. Nobody would ever invest in something with this so unbalanced proportions. And nobody will ever invest in an ICO which changes the conditions over and over again.

1 year ago

Case in point: 1000YUP free for starting an own project. It's so depressing.

1 year ago

Rosario Colletti

Power is nothing without control

One part of the calculation is correct ( 631m*55.8%=352m ) but you missed the other part (631m*44.2%=279m). So if the option is diluting, ICO investors will get 279m YUP; if the option is burning, then everyone keeps the same amount of YUP. The proportion is kept, the only change is the initial value of YUP.

I totally agree that changing conditions is not good, but Crowdholding strength here is also its capability to
adapt and transparency with users, and investors. November has been a slow month for ICO (worldwide), so several actions were taken: delay end of ICO, focus on product, onboard projects which will buy and use YUP (that will create a demand for YUP).

We are extremely thankful to our pre-ICO investors because thanks to them, Crowdholding is alive, the multi-currency task reward feature has been deployed, product team has grown and many other features are lining up... but we understand the worry of possible future investors, specially when we will enter to the market.

That's why there is discussion about locking, some people may think it is not needed, some other may find it useful. In my opinion it can bring more confidence to investors, but we must ensure to go to the market only AFTER following steps are done:
- improve platform
- grow number of projects and users, attract more investors
- successfully end ICO
- improve adoption of platform, attract new businesses, create demand for YUP

1 year ago

Rosario Colletti

Power is nothing without control

Also@Alex, the 1000 free YUP is an incentive to create projects, they can be used only for tasks to reward users. We believe startups will benefit from crowdholders comments and continue to create tasks. When credit is finished, they can buy more YUP during ICO through our Smart Contract, and from investors when ICO has ended.

1 year ago

"One part of the calculation is correct ( 631m*55.8%=352m ) but you missed the other part (631m*44.2%=279m). So if the option is diluting, ICO investors will get 279m YUP; if the option is burning, then everyone keeps the same amount of YUP. The proportion is kept, the only change is the initial value of YUP. " --- Why did I miss the other part? If you are only selling YUP worth $1m, then there are not 279m, but 1.5m YUP (considering an average ETH price of 650$). As you burn all other coins in the ICO pool, there are now 1.5m YUP in the hands of investors, and 279m YUP in the hands of Crowdholding.

"I totally agree that changing conditions is not good, but Crowdholding strength here is also its capability to
adapt and transparency with users, and investors." --- This sentence makes me so angry. How can you even think about whitewashing such unworthy and lying behavior? I understand that we are in crypto here, but if you were a legitimate business on the free market (imagine distributing stock!) and you would promise the investors that if the soft cap is not reached there will be a refund and then you CHANGE that afterwards... I am sorry to say that, but you would be sued. And you would lose, and that would be completely appropriate.

Locking pre-investors would further damage the credibility of Crowdholding. I cannot believe that you even think about implementing another change since the inappropriate extension of the ICO.

So, two options:
(1) Burn tokens on team side, massively. I do not know about which 279m YUP you are talking about, as only 1.5m of them will be sold. This makes you the holder of 352m YUP which you can spent how you want and unfortunately, you spend it very, very generously. This burning would make the buying of YUP more rewarding and maybe you reach the soft cap by doing this.
(2) Refund everything and start anew with another ICO. Make it transparent how much YUP you already distributed on this webpage, calculate a new value for the coins, communicate the new start to everyone and let investors decide whether they still believe in the vision and want to invest. You state there are a lot of strong believers in the project, and I wont deny that. This option would be the most appropriate thing to do in terms of integrity, plus it would also be the most successful strategy. I fear you already used some of the money gathered in the pre-ico, so this will be a hard way, but doing venture capital the old-school way (=giving away some equity) is not that bad and with your already good partnerships this shouldnt be a problem.

1 year ago

I understand it, this situation sucks, especially for you guys. It just baffles me how bold and confident you just implement those changes without regarding values like promises. I believe you when you say you want to do good for investors, but the ICO extension, the spending YUP everywhere and now the locking.. it just appears to me that you do things that best fit in a current situation without regarding the overall picture. I really do not think locking will get you more investors. They will see how you make changes all the time and that makes the ICO very unpopular. They will see how easy it is to get YUP and question why they should pay 700$ for it. They will question the imbalance between ICO coins and the coins you hold. Solve these three issues with a new start, this is the best shoot for success.

1 year ago

Ethan Clime

CEO of Crowdholding.com

@Alex, I hear your concern, but we have a handful of investors that will put in including influencers which will allow us to hit the million quickly if we do a pre-ico lock. Although I was worried regarding legal issue for buyback for pre-ico (similar to Wabi) this may be the way to go to make pre-ico investors happy. Official announcement to come Friday.

1 year ago