It’s time venture financing moved, as ICO is confidently stepping around the planet. The total value of the funds raised reached almost $2 billion. Round and pretty numeric expressions, especially monetary ones, always attract attention, which produces a positive and negative opinion of critics and experts.
However, an expert or critic is not always/often a competent expert in his/her field. There have been many doubtful conclusions about various projects in blogs and forums. And not all of them, to put it mildly, are correctly written, relying on the competent and detailed assessment provided by the developers of a particular start-up.
Due to the fact that the SEC's restrictions do not have any levers of influence on the ICO, unfortunately, those projects are taken to the market which having collected the necessary amount disappear forever. This is exactly the soil which the war is being waged on in order to expose SCAM between projects that prove their honesty, and investors conducting a thorough search for pitfalls in each ICO which is announced.
There is a well-defined list of aspects that should be primarily taken into account when choosing a project. However, for some unknown reasons, many ignore the openness, the history of experience and the community, preferring to check the design of the site, evaluating not the quality of the team's work, but their photos.
The future of many young and promising projects is also ruined by investors who do not study the whitepaper, but diligently review the accounts of the team members in Linkedin, the profiles which you can buy at. Another effective but equally doubtful strategic move is the publication of the project on the sites of famous people, with the aim of increasing the reputation and attracting investors with a thick wallet. But you should ask yourself a question: is this an honest game?
This is all nonsense, because if a young team does not have a decent fee for promotion or it does not attract the attention of the masses' favorites, then the above-mentioned critics, experts and investors will refer to such headlines as SCAM in all headlines. Please, explain where the logic here is.
In order to find it, let's take a look at a review of the decentralized social network steemit by an interesting user 010101, who considers himself an expositor of the ICO projects.
How do you feel about hasty conclusions or about those that are done without getting acquainted with official information or are formed on the basis of random data? Or about those who are ready to write anything for a couple of bucks? Yes, Steemit provides awards for the most active participants!
I think, if someone is interested, he/she will pay a visit to the personal page of the represented user to evaluate it. Do not feed yourself with illusions, so that later on you will not be annoyed by the fact that it is not some respected expert with a long record of work, but only a schoolboy who alternates news reports and alleged exposures of ICO projects.
This all is not very important, we will return to the search for logic. To do this, let's check out his review "Boosteroid ICO review - rating:" stay away ". Boosteroid is a unique platform of cloud storages that will provide convenient access to computing powers, storages and software products. If you are not looking for a fairy tale from questionable bloggers, I recommend you to read more about this project yourself.
The author pointed out in his publication that all his conclusions were made after reading the whitepaper and checking the company's website, the proposal of which did not surprise him at all.
To begin with, projects should not surprise everyone in a row. They are primarily created to solve specific tasks or provide innovative services. Therefore, if you don’t have an interest in this or that project, don’t invest, pass by and don’t shout at every corner that the project is absolutely terrible. If the goal of the startup doesn’t match your preferences, it doesn’t mean that it is useless for everyone. As people say, every Jack has his Jill.
In the course of reading the review of pseudo-critic 010101, an opinion is formed that a whitepaper of the Boosteroid project has never been seen by him, let alone read. Doubts arise about the review itself. When an "expert" claims that the Boosteroid’s plan is to go against Amazon AWS, Google Compute Platform, Microsoft Azure, IBM and other hosting platforms, compete with them in price using blockchain technology.
If he had really got acquainted with the official information provided by the developers of the platform himself, and hadn’t given Chinese whispers, he would have noticed that the price statistics of cloud services are presented in the whitepaper so that future users become more aware of what opportunities are involved.
Today, the daily rent of computing power is the privilege of the "elite", since one hour of rent costs from $6.5 to $10. Just the same optimization of the price spectrum for ordinary users is the goal of Boosteroid, and not competition with the leading suppliers of computing power.
The number of tokens and their distribution are one of the important points which attention should be specifically focused on. Our author, by the way, screwed up here. In general, it is not clear where he takes all the information which the review "Boosteroid ICO review - rating:" stay away "was based on.
This "qualified" expert 010101 (apparently only in his head) writes that the majority of conducted ICO offer nothing in return for the investor when issuing their own token, except for empty promises. When the released coin gets to the exchange, it seems to simply jump from hands in hands of the traders playing on the exchange rate.
It sounds nice, doesn’t it? However, if you think about it, it's just irrelevant information, at least concerning Boosteroid, because it has one BTR token attached to one hour of rent. Buying a token provides an opportunity to pay rent of a cloud service with favorable price conditions. After the platform launches, users will be able to pay for the offered services not only in cryptocurrency, but also in fiat money.
We want to note that Boosteroid doesn’t create demand for BTR, as the project accepts fiduciary money for payment and provides an opportunity to redeem tokens on exchanges.
Also our author doesn’t believe or doesn’t want to believe that Boosteroid will reduce the cost of computing power whatsoever. Well, let's all together remind him that the project criticized by him is based on centralized capacities, that is, there is no complexity that would prevent him from reducing the cost of his services.
Don’t get me wrong and don’t put me into the category which the expert "010101" is in. I gladly support authors who don’t beat around the bush, but evaluate projects objectively and provide reasoned criticism.
Find Boosteroid’s social networks through their website boosteroid.com. There anyone can evaluate the stage of the project implementation from photographs and videos, which are provided in a live format on a regular basis. Not every ICO strives to inform future users about the current stage of implementation.
Let's move on to the powers that are already available. Not every computer-related project can stand out as an already emerging platform. The roadmap of the project indicates that at the moment Boosteroid already has 0.5 Petaflops computing power.
The only thing the author is doing during the course of his review is offending the developers of Boosteroid, accusing them of dishonesty. I have been following the Boosteroid project for a long time and will give my word that it is the most open and transparent project I've ever met.
I wanted to write a lot about "Boosteroid ICO review - rating:" stay away "and its author, but now I understand that it’s not worth it. Because there’s no need in discussing the opinion of a man who was too lazy to open a whitepaper. I'm 99.9% sure that if he at least read the definition of Boosteroid and got acquainted with the tasks that it is able to solve, 010101 would change his mind radically, or at least he would be able to determine the physical presence of Boosteroid powers.
If I'm interested in the project, then I only read information from official and trusted sources, and ask the team if I don’t understand something. I draw any conclusions only on the basis of the information received. Honestly, personally I couldn’t understand what the 1.3 billion sum specified in the whitepaper refers to. However, I wasn’t too lazy and found out that this is a hardcap intended for the rapid scaling of equipment. The business plan of the project specifies the expenditure of funds clear and understandable language, even a child would get it.
Do you know what the most interesting thing is? The author allegedly forgot to mention the already functioning data center, which is located in Ukraine, as well as planning the construction of data centers in Georgia, Iceland and the UAE. By the way, construction in Georgia is going full speed.
Undoubtedly, as I’ve already mentioned at the very beginning of the anti-review, when selecting ICO, you need to pay attention to the team, but you shoudn’t rely on the team's profiles in Linkedin completely, because they are not a guarantee that the information in the profiles corresponds to reality. Our “critic”, howeres, point out the incompetence and inexperience of the team, regarding the implementation of the project.
Boosteroid team members firsthand have a wide horizon of ideas about successful mining, which gives them the knowledge of the correct and profitable combination of powers for extracting the productivity of equipment. The rest of the work can be done by a specially hired team of developers with experience in developing virtualized services.
Never compare startups with great players. Here is an example: Amazon internet service has never interacted with computer technologies before mass demand and wide popularity, and today it occupies a leading position in the IT sphere. And nobody thinks that the product released by the service is bad only because its development wasn’t done by specialized professionals, although you probably didn’t even know about it. Another good example is the global giant IBM, which was developing in the mainstream of computers and hardware. I’m saying this to ensure that everyone can see where the projects started.
Finally I want to comment on the following words of the "010101" author : "But most people … I have this sinking feeling they will be really disappointed." Fortunately, only the author of this review will be disappointed if he doesn’t stop making conclusions based on the facts which don’t correspond the reality. For all the rest Boosteroid will make the rent of computing power maximally available for everyone and will allow to abandon expensive personal computers in favor of a powerful computing "cloud" with a friendly interface and simple control.
