I said it earlier. Like those fake Twitter and Facebook Likes, they had a lot of fake bitcointalk users who pushed this ann thread at the beginning. Look at the first 50 sites, its really obvious.
The writer of that article is basing everything off speculation, it's asinine - just a bunch of accusations with no basis. To top it off the writer's lack of understanding of the technical whitepaper is emphasized in his own article.
It doesn't phase me, I'll gladly wait a couple days for a fully functional alpha.
I'm the writer of the article and I thought the claims I made were pretty straight forward. I admitted I don't understand every line in the white paper but that has nothing to do with my claims. If you want to start getting into a technical discussion we can, but that doesn't take away from any of the fraud presented so far and is more then enough for me to stay the hell away from "projects" like this.
Also, I think it's noteworthy that you saying "I'll gladly wait a couple days for a fully functional alpha" when we both know the "alpha" isn't out yet, the ICO is in 2 days, it's been delayed every day for the past 2 weeks, and evidently people will need to make a decision about investing in this scam way before they have any time to judge this "alpha".
Ok,
1. You review that the majority of Facebook profiles are fake, to prove this you are giving a screen shot of profile pictures?? Where is the proof in that? Give me concrete evidence. I consider that pure speculation (all the while, YES I believe there are definitely fake profiles involved, just not the majority. it's inevitable in any social media outlet)
2. There are 25k telegram users, and most are quite active (which gives some validity to the facebook users). A new message practically occurs every 3 seconds and mob mentality will kick in for any subject of conversation - it's literally an echo chamber, feelings of any group in conversation this large will be steered by that factor.
Also your statement that "the whitelist has been hacked" is incorrect - What was hacked were the credentials of an admin account on telegram who's purpose on telegram was to inform the chat of the whitelist terms (Which has since been cleared). This is where you lost a ton of your credibility to me, you lacked sincere research here.
3. 30% active users is healthy and normal - Take a look at Ethereumproject or NEO_Blockchain or any other project you find reputable.
4. Your review on Credit's partners is credible, at some points I agree - it's lackluster. There are missing links in some websites and completely obscured motives for some of these partners (keep in mind these projects are still fairly new). Although some of your points are mediocre (no offense) - with phrases like "don't get me started" without even divulging in evidence or "enough said" after pointing out grammatical inconsistencies... It's just juvenile demeanor.
Also to your point of websites changing use-cases - Some websites served a different purpose before, so? Amazon was a bookstore and Mt. Gox was a trading card exchange.. Things change.
Now I completely understand the concern on alpha and the disorganized approach towards objectives - Frankly, I agree. Alpha is not out yet, it should have been released by now and it is concerning. I totally adhere the response of avoiding this ICO if Alpha isn't released, but the team is pushing back the ICO for a reason (if it were a scam don't you think they would cash out? Don't you think that Igor wouldn't have gone to expos and interviews?).
Just be patient.
"1. You review that the majority of Facebook profiles are fake, to prove this you are giving a screen shot of profile pictures?? Where is the proof in that? Give me concrete evidence. I consider that pure speculation (all the while, YES I believe there are definitely fake profiles involved, just not the majority. it's inevitable in any social media outlet)"
Go to the Facebook page and actually look at the followers. I don't need to review them one by one, that's enough to get the general idea (yes, some Poor Bolivian with a straw hat is not investing in ICOs). I saw hundreds of fake profiles that clearly have no real presence on Facebook (you know a fake profile when you see one), and this isn't "inevitable" but rather is something people pay for to make it seem like people give a shit about their project. I have plenty of Facebook pages myself and guess what? I never had an issue of hundreds of fake profiles following them....
"2. There are 25k telegram users, and most are quite active (which gives some validity to the facebook users). A new message practically occurs every 3 seconds and mob mentality will kick in for any subject of conversation - it's literally an echo chamber, feelings of any group in conversation this large will be steered by that factor."
There are plenty of real people in the telegram group, but after the games they played with Facebook (and everything else I come across related to them) I just don't trust they didn't take the easy route and buy telegram groups with fake users.
"Also your statement that "the whitelist has been hacked" is incorrect - What was hacked were the credentials of an admin account on telegram who's purpose on telegram was to inform the chat of the whitelist terms (Which has since been cleared). This is where you lost a ton of your credibility to me, you lacked sincere research here."
I'm sorry if this made you doubt my credibility (no I'm not), I didn't get the full story as I was r-e-m-o-v-e-d from the group as soon as I asked them a few tough questions about the ICO and the product.
"30% active users is healthy and normal - Take a look at Ethereumproject or NEO_Blockchain or any other project you find reputable" - point taken although this wasn't exactly the main argument.
"There are missing links in some websites and completely obscured motives for some of these partners (keep in mind these projects are still fairly new)" - these arnt projects, these are jokes or outright scams. you can't call a website with a few pictures, no product, no team, and no credible info a "partner". sorry, it just doesn't work that way...
"juvenile demeanor" - that's me, nice to meet you
"Also to your point of websites changing use-cases - Some websites served a different purpose before, so? Amazon was a bookstore and Mt. Gox was a trading card exchange.. Things change" -
Things do change, but comparing this to Amazon, really? I liked the comparison to Mt. Gox better... usually ICO sites remain consistent with their idea, here it just looks like CREDITS is pilling on logos and websites with no substance to give them back some credibility they are clearly missing.
"Now I completely understand the concern on alpha and the disorganized approach towards objectives - Frankly, I agree. Alpha is not out yet, it should have been released by now and it is concerning. I totally adhere the response of avoiding this ICO if Alpha isn't released, but the team is pushing back the ICO for a reason (if it were a scam don't you think they would cash out? Don't you think that Igor wouldn't have gone to expos and interviews?)" -
This is a key question I don't have an answer for... they did push the ICO forwards once, presumably for the alpha to be ready before hand, but now we have an ICO lees then 48 hours and no alpha to be seen, so what do you expect me to think? If the team had a shred of integrity they would delay the ICO by another 2 weeks, release the alpha and a github to let us see what exactly of their claims are real, and then let people invest while knowing a little more about what they're getting in to.
what we have now is an ICO, with under-delivered grandiose promises, fishy social media at best, partners that look like they were created on fiverr, and no real answers to hard questions. 