Why are you confident in the success of your new project?  As far as I remember, your team failed in the last SpectivVR project, you raised more than 10,000 ETH at the Spectiv ICO and after a while the project was closed.
I don't think your team inspires confidence!
Previous project of this team: https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/2296908.0

why resurrect an old project ? unless someone else will invest their money there after they closed even with such fees) and this is a completely new project, you can lure new investors, in the hope that after 3 years, old investors will not remember them, so according to the classic scheme, close the project again)  well we'll wait for an explanation

We’ve addressed our prior experience with Spectiv and the Signal Marketplace in a Medium article, which was posted from the day we launched. We’re not trying to hide anything – we are proud of our conduct as a team in these projects. Here, we’ll respond to the concerns you guys point out:

We launched Spectiv in late 2017 and ended it in early 2020. As you might be aware, the crypto markets endured a jarring downfall over that time. Many projects — even those who followed through on developments, built functional products, and maintained positive community sentiment — didn’t survive that downfall. Spectiv was one of those projects.

We and many members of the retired Spectiv community reflect fondly on the project. We built an innovative decentralized ad platform, made major industry partnerships, and maintained a spirited community culture over its lifespan. We also set an unprecedented standard for transparency — for example, by publicizing all organization expenditures and tax documents. Although Spectiv was on the tram lines to an industry collapse, the project was conducted with grace, excellence, and honesty. No Spectiv founder ever sold any team tokens at any point in the project’s existence.

As markets took a turn for the worse, we did everything we could to weather the storm. We downsized the team, switched to remote working, cut out all noncritical expenses, and Nick/Dylan did not take a salary at any point from 2018–2020. As time went by and markets held low, we foresaw that reserves wouldn’t be able to support hosting/development costs much longer, and that it wasn’t prudent for us to continue expending capital to maintain a sinking ship. We elected to refund all remaining ETH holdings to token buyers. Without compensating ourselves, we refunded all of ~1000 ETH in January of 2020.

To sum it up for you guys, 2018 and 2019 were overwhelmingly difficult years, especially for small cap projects. Even if we were magicians, there isn’t much that we would have been able to do to come out of that successfully. The same can be said for most other small cap projects.

But you shouldn’t be focusing on the success failure of a prior project. Entrepreneurs try things – sometimes those things work out and a lot of the time, they don’t. That is the nature of startups.

But unlike many teams, we went out of our way to refund reserves to buyers as we saw an imminent downfall – and didn’t pay ourselves a penny from those reserves. We held ourselves to the highest standard of integrity throughout the lifespan of the project.

Spectiv was a defeat – one which was heavily influenced by an overwhelmingly bearish crypto market. That defeat is not a reflection on the team. If there is any takeaway regarding the team as it pertains to Spectiv, it should be that we handled that defeat fairly and put the community first.

One last thing worth pointing out is that all BASE team tokens are locked for 12 months, then vested linearly over 12 months. We are long-term committed, because like always, we have and will conduct ourselves with the highest standards of honesty, transparency, and integrity.

The fact that we’ve had a failed project shouldn’t sully your view on Base Protocol. It should show you that, firstly, we have direct experience in launching a crypto project – we know what to do and what not to do. Secondly, it should show you that no matter the circumstances, we have always put our community first.

Make sure to refer to the team Medium article, which has been on the Base website since launch:

https://medium.com/@BaseProtocol/base-protocol-team-f64d0b62aa35

Interesting question here.

If they will based from https://coinmarketcap.com/ today the global crypto market cap is about $397.77B, so if in case you will take into account the current rate in CMC, their Base token will have a value of about $0.397. But can they really keep this value once their token is already in exchanges? What are their protocols to keep their value in exchanges be pegged to this price?

We'll answer these questions in this response:

1) To determine total crypto market cap, BASE feeds total crypto market cap data from 11 different popular price tracking sources through a Chainlink oracle.

This is already functional, and you can see how it works on the interactive BASE Dashboard: https://dashboard.baseprotocol.org/


2) The way BASE maintains its price peg is through an elastic supply protocol which utilizes rebasing. This means the protocol will adjust total BASE supply, changing scarcity, to influence price to reach the target peg.


Consider this example, where total crypto market cap is $400B:


t1 : Starting Equilibrium (Pegged)

John has 1 BASE worth $0.40.

t2 : Price Increases (Peg Disruption)

John has 1 BASE worth $0.80.

t3 : Ending Equilibrium (Pegged)

John has 2 BASE each worth $0.40.


In this situation, the price of BASE doubled above the peg price. In response, the protocol doubled the total supply of BASE, which brings scarcity down, and influences price to return to its equilibrium. These supply adjustments are called rebases. There can be expansion rebases or contraction rebases.

This is how the peg is achieved.

The Spectiv team worked diligently to make the project work for as long as there was a feasible future. But when failure became imminent, we provided refunds. 2018 and 2019 were terrible years for the market, but we didn't quit at the first site of a market fall. We stuck it out through those years, until it was no longer responsible to do so.

Regarding your concern as it relates to Base Protocol, we are not here for DeFi hype. This is not a money game, APY-focused project. A crypto index is a real need which does not exist in the world today, and we've built the protocol which services that need. You can see that on the Github and Dashboard on the Base Protocol website.

And if crypto markets take a bearish turn, it won't be a threat to the operation of the Base Protocol. Unlike many other projects, the Base Protocol is not a revenue reliant business which requires customers for success. It is a decentralized protocol which achieves its utility value on its own. There won't ever be a reason to "close the project."

Lastly, BASE is not a scam. More than 96% of funds accepted are through private "smart money" strategic partners who we are in direct, regular communication with. If it was our intention to "chase profit" or "scam," it would make more sense to open the presale to the public. But less than 4% is allocated to the public, through a community lottery round.

Not to mention, all BASE team tokens are locked for one year, then vested linearly over the next year - meaning it will take two years for all team tokens to be released.

The BASE team is long-term committed to this project.

The ATH of $ value in ETH is not relevant. ETH was spent on an ongoing basis as needed to support operational costs. There were times where the reserves value was high and times where the value was low. Still, even when the market hit its low in early 2018, the team persisted and did everything possible to weather the storm. Downsized the team, switched to remote working, cut out all noncritical expenses, and Nick/Dylan did not take a salary at any point from 2018–2020. As time went by and markets held low, we foresaw that reserves wouldn’t be able to support hosting/development costs much longer, and that it wasn’t prudent for us to continue expending capital to maintain a sinking ship.

Unlike many teams, we went out of our way to refund reserves to buyers as we saw an imminent downfall – and didn’t pay ourselves a penny from those reserves. We held ourselves to the highest standard of integrity throughout the lifespan of the project.

Lastly, it is important to understand the nature of startups. They can succeed and they can fail. This is the road of innovation.

An attractive starting price in my opinion but it is true whether they are able to maintain that price or get a higher price than that. But I will see developments that continue to appear in this thread.

Price is pegged by adjusting the total supply of BASE correspondent to the peg disruption. That could be a 100% adjustment, 20% adjustment, or even a 1% adjustment.

The team does not have control over the rebases. It is a feature built into the smart contract that affects all tokens in the ecosystem. Anyone, anywhere can call the rebase to trigger at the rebase time.