I'm currently working on an article about ico's, and my intention was to implement the Guidelines SVD provided, now I think about if I should mention the project as a negative example -> Locked token = red flag. It makes me kinda mad cause I was a big supporter and now am split. I have foreseen any drop in community support. First the "Airdrop", then the "it's gone"-thing and finally the voting and huge delay. They totally underestimated the reactions of the community and its value. 181 Votes.
Thing is: The ICO-Manifesto-points are not even that bad. It's a bit superficial but all right as a first guideline. But the big problem is that Savedroid does not meet such standards and I believe that they may not even really understand that. They have understood that the PR-Stunt was a huge mistake and probably they've also figured that the way they've done the voting was damaging. But there is so much they obviously don't understand and think through. The other possibility is that they intentionally mislead people.
A few examples:
1. Transparency first
We put transparency first, we describe in depth the business and token model in a comprehensive prospectus or whitepaper. We inform visibly about the risks.Besides the fact that they've shown little transparency after their ICO (the voting is a prime-example) I would also not necessarily agree that they've given an in-depth-description of the business model. Maybe they have and in that case Investors are to blame for not thinking through it all. Especially the token-model has to be seen in context of their fee-model and that needs to be seen in context of their business-model which needs to be seen out of customer-perspective. And if somebody takes a deeper look... it doesn't make any sense at all.
2. Serve the Community
We respond to community questions, concerns and take-up community feedback. We are part of the entire crypto community and build a trustworthy, reliable crypto ecosystem. We keep the community updated about the status, milestones, (insider) trading and failures without sugarcoating.Probably they have communicated more and smarter during the ICO but since I pay attention nothing of that is true for Savedroid. Their communication still is terrible in my opinion.
5. Real Token Value
We create a token based on a crypto use case with real economic value - not just a speculative bubble. We do not hype or play with the greed of people (no pump n dump, FOMO). That is the most important aspect in my opinion (of course everything needs to be seen in context) and the most hyprocritical one.
1) Use-case, "real" economic value and the token What I said above in numbers:
Their use case is to save money. The expected fee is: 15% avg. transaction fee for all Services! And a fraction of the collected Fee in SVD would be burned. Looks good on first sight? No. Who will save money if one action, let's say buying into a Portfolio Savedroid will offer, already takes 15% of the money somebody wants to save? And if such a guy wants to have his money back: Again 15%! Means: The portfolio has to rise about 30% just that such a customer gets the money back he wanted to save. Nobody with an IQ above a cake will do that! And even if the fee would be reduced to 3% it still would be too expensive. Usual exchanges take 0.x% per trade.
Now let's think about the possibility that they will reduce the fee: How much of the token burning will happen then? Near to nothing, because Savedroid will not be an exchange with big guys trading forth and back. Savedroid aims to target small guys who want to save a few Euro's here and there. That will not generate high volume and such guys won't pay a high fee because that contradicts their Intention and Savedroids whole business model. And if they really would want to invest and to trade: They would go to a good exchange. And just btw: There are others who do what Savedroid promises. One example:
https://www.revolut.com/de/vaults?lang=en2) Economic value: They wanted to sell tokens for 60 M Euro. The total value (total supply * price) would be 100 M Euro! That is telling what they believe their "eco-system" should be worth, OR: It was intentionally misleading. They've "only" sold token for about 40 M Euro. But in which universe is it possible that a token for a usecase that contradicts itself with very high fees be worth more than the whole company? Or does anybody believe that Savedroid is worth about 60 - 100 Million? No way. I believe: Not even 10 Million.
3) Hype or no hype:
They say:
"We do not hype or play with the greed of people (...)" while they have done exactly that. They've announced the top 5 exchange 4 days before their ICO ended. That was with intention. They've even used a price-simulation-chart on their website, and of course, it's a nice chart that only knows the north-direction. They've collected as much money as possible while much bigger projects give themselve a hard cap significantly below sums like that. Binance started with $15 million, NEO also started with about $15 million, Coinlion started with about $7 million. Savedroid needs more money than Ethereum to get their shit done? If they are not able to develop and deliver their goals with $10 million they will not be able to do it with $40 million.
The whole ICO was hype and their messed up PR-Stunt was hype. And the last posts of the Savedroid account: A voting on an exchange is "Big news" and an aridrop is "huge". Yep, very subtle!
7. Equality
We treat every token buyer equally. We do not unfairly privilege big ticket buyers by offering unfair discounts without compensating lock-ups. We prefer buyers that participate in the crypto community and not speculators.Maybe they've not given big buyers better prices during the ICO. But they've contacted and encouraged pre-sale-Investors to vote for an exchange-option after the voting was officially closed. Besides the fact that they've not acted transparent during or after the voting, what makes it impossible to know if the results are not just made up, that already is a manipulation and it has nothing to do with equality.
8. Enforceable Rights
We ensure that the token buyers rights are enforceable. We do not set up offshore entities to avoid regulations but chose jurisdictions with advanced consumer rights protections. We provide an understandable token sale agreement and comply with the regulatory regime.But what was their answer when many Investors demanded to be refunded after their PR-Stunt? A clear "No"! They've said that nothing has changed, while they've successfully damaged their credibility, trashed their own reputation, divided the community, delayed pretty much everything etc.
In my opinion these guys should not collect money, should not manage other people's money, should not give advice to others at all. I consider them as hypocritical, arrogant and naive and not able to properly plan what they are talking about. Even without the whole PR-Stunt-and-voting-mess this project already had many red flags before and during the ICO.
