There seems to be some over hype surrounding this coin. I hope it doesn't end up flopping like SmartCash.
Have a look at the ICO page:
- outrageously overpriced ICO (mining it is orders of magnitude cheaper, why would anyone want to buy in the ICO?)
- unsuccessful ICO (92 mil available to sell, only 22 mil sold) ... no surprise here. In fact, 22 mil is already too much.
- a hell of a lot of coins go to the team in some form (4+8+27% reserves - seriously?)
- mentions ICO cap in USD, but ICO priced in BTC.
- a long series of unverifiable (surreal?) claims, e.g. claims to have already achieved: 140 merchants for the mobile wallet, 40 partners on terminal integration, etc ... Wow, and this coin isn't even on any exchange. Why do you think they don't name any single one of those merchants/partners? (rhetorical question)
- team put forward a pool with 0.01% fee because "we want to help the community, we don't want money for ourselves". When their pool reached a few MH/s, guess what happened to that 0.01% fee? It became 1%.
Good luck to those who actually bought in this ICO.
p.s. Has anyone asked all advisors about it (scammy ICOs slap on names all the time)? Though this looks like a Ukraine get-together, international footprint is minimal at best.
I have no affiliation with the Graft team, however, i'll take a punt.
- From my understanding the Graft project requires a large decentralized network. Graft is never going to take off with 5-10 M/hs of network hash. It needs the kind of Network support that ETN gets. That's why the mining incentives are so high. Regardless of the ICO pricing, over 22 million were sold, so somewhere in the vicinity of 5 million USD. It's hardly unsuccessful when you consider that most of the new Cryotonight coins had no ICO( because they would have barely been able to scrape together anything). They also offer no real product or solution, just a forked Monero chain that offers nothing Monero doesn't. At least Graft is unique here.
- The 27% in reserves does need to be cleared up, however, the logical reason for this is that the project is very ambitious(Far more than people realize) and if it is to succeed then it's going to require more funding further down the track. Keeping an amount in reserves mean they can raise more capital when the price is far more established. It's not some kind of "scam", it's just they're planning now for a successful future
- I'm not sure why the ICO is priced in BTC, but hardcap in USD. Needs to be cleared up
- They could very well have signed up that many merchants and partners. All are probably small time. This too needs to be cleared up.
- The pool fee changed from 0.01% to 1% because the mining community were complaining that only charging a 0.01% was encouraging centralization( going against their decentralized model) because too many were mining on the official pools instead of spreading hash across all private pools, where fees were generally higher( 1-2%). It had nothing to do with the Graft team trying to profit.
Mining incentive makes sense only if there is no ICO. Both mining and ICO at the same time only make sense if you have hidden interests, really, then it makes a lot of sense. When you still open mainnet for mining and launch an ICO at the same time, and price the ICO literally more than 10x the price of renting hashpower to mine the same amount of coins, then either (1) you don't know what you're doing or (2) you are a scammer. Good luck investing in either of those two options.
22 mil is around $6m and I feel sorry for anyone who actually spent crypto to buy in the ICO. The amount of coins sold in the ICO is unverifiable though. There seem to be quite a few folks complaining about not receiving their ICO coins. But I wouldn't worry about those ... the team could have itself mined a lot and sold for more than 10x profit. Most of the hashrate has come from solo mining.
Graft is unique among Monero forks? Maybe unique in shadyness. Electroneum and IntenseCoin both offer utility.
What do you mean 27% reserve makes sense? You must be kidding. They already take 8% + 4% for PR! How many projects do you know that take 4+8+27% ...
that's almost 40%, Jesus Christ.Anyone claiming they signed up 140+40 (one hundred and eighty) commercial entities and gives no examples, let alone verifiable ones, should be an alarm.
Sorry, but the pool fee change (a minor aspect compared to the rest) is as shady as everything else about this coin:
- it wasn't the only pool wits <1% fee
- i never saw the "community" complaining about the low fee (link please)
- a team of professionals should have thought of those arguments before launching a pool claiming they will keep a low fee. Once again, that is either (1) stupid or (2) a classic bait-and-switch.
- there was no risk of consolidation as their pool was buggy at first then never had more than 10-15% of the entire hashrate. Most hashrate came from solo mining anyway (talk about consolidation).
Regardless of what you think they still raised a possible 6 million USD in the ICO. What other recent Cryptonight launch has done that? Most coins have been distributed now, so less people are complaining, progress has been made( but you wouldn't' know any of that because you're just a casual observer throwing stones). The team on any coin could have potentially premined any amount( along with anyone else)- At least if that is the case then it's unlikely they're going to dump everything on the market at once. Other recent forks have been way more shady than Graft, look at IPBC, when their main net went live the reward was 10x greater than what it should have been, due to a "mistake in the code". Other forks have launched off the back of forum posts, and now have market caps in the millions, with no product or solution. Look at Masari, it doesn't' even have a whitepaper! Saying that ETN or ITNS has utility is clutching at straws lol. They're both good examples of pump in dumps, where early miners made 10-20x.
You are 100% wrong re the pools fees/ network hash. Go to the official Graft mining telegram group and search for " official pool fee". You will see various messages from frustrated pool owners like "Mojo" & "nu-coin.com" complaining about the 0.1% fee hurting their pools, because, they didn't want to drop their own fees that low. So it was requested for the official pool to go to 0.5% or 1%. Miners in general were also complaining, because, at one point the official EU pool had the majority of network hash, there was lots of debate over it. People like me were Nicehashing on the Official pools. So again your comments about the official pools never having the majority hash rate are wrong as well. You are wrong on quite a few things.
Are you even in any of the telegram groups? Please let me know your user name so I can check out your posts.
So, according to the above:
- The fact that there are other (more) shady forks than Graft makes Graft less shady. This reminds of politicians being prosecuted for corruption defending themselves by pointing out that other politicians are more corrupt. Congratulations.
- The POW algo used somehow is a metric for the success of an ICO.
- Raising 6mil somehow is a metric for credibility.
- ETN had dumps when it hit exchanges but Graft will stay solid. Good luck.
- ETN and ITNS have no utility. Look up the definition of utility (if you value track record of actual successful companies, lookup the track record of the ETN leader).
- Me posting in their telegram somehow has something to do the success/shadyness of the coin (also, why would i give my telegram nick?)
You have some quite skewed (to be polite) metrics for "success", and I wish you the best of luck. I'm not going to join you in name calling, sorry. However, supporting an ICO that runs along mainnet and is intentionally priced 10-20x than mining will not bring you an army of cheerleaders.
I did follow Graft during the ICO, mainly to warn people to stay away from the ICO and prevent them from being scammed.
It must be incredibly reassuring for the ICO buyers at least to see a stranger doing the team's bidding here.
p.s. As I said, the pool matter is a negligible aspect compared to the other aspects, but feel free to pick on it. There always have been pools with <1% fees, as low as 0.1%, just like right now. If the official pool ever had 50%+ hashrate then it could not have been for a long time.
