Reading the news of many STEEMers, I am surprised by their expertise and the conclusions they make in their reviews of some projects. The news about the next ICO in the crypto industry is hardly an event today.
Every month dozens of projects sell their tokens and collect millions of dollars in the crypto currency. At the same time, some of them, having collected a tidy sum, disappear.
Since then, a struggle has begun between projects and investors in exposing SCAM. The first try to prove their honesty and transparency, the latter - carefully look for a dirty trick in each announced ICO.
What is the importance of choosing a project? No matter how stupid it may sound, most investors look first at the design of the site, by what standards it was made and on the team's photo. There is a category of investors that does not even study the project's whitepaper, but is zealously viewing the contacts of the LinkedIn team.
But on the other hand - to find 15 project photos for the project is not difficult. Moreover, many experienced advisors themselves offer their services in LinkedIn profiles for a solid fee and a percentage of the fundraising. Is this honesty?
Most of the projects are posted on the sites of well-known personalities in order to generate greater confidence among investors. I consider this a complete absurdity. It turns out that if the project can not attract the attention of Floyd Mayweather or a well-known benchmark, most investors will consider the project for SCAM. Personally, I am against such a development of events.
Recently I came across a single steemit user who expertly reviews the ICO, exposing SCAM in them, alternating reviews with political news. What can I say, I disrespect users, who evaluate someone based on unreasonable facts. The profile itself is more like a schoolboy trying to earn a couple of bucks for ridiculously written project reviews.
I want to take as a basis his review "Boosteroid ICO review - rating:" stay away ".
The idea of the project is to create a platform of cloud services, analogous to the existing Google Cloud Platform and Amazon AWS. Everyone can learn more about the project on their own. As the author writes, after checking the company's website and whitepaper, he concluded that it was little impressed by this ICO. Okay, you do not like the project, but that does not mean it's bad.
If the author had studied the Boosteroid project a little more thoroughly, I am sure 80% that he would change his mind. The review of Mr. 010101 is more like a spoiled phone. As our "expert" writes, the project wants to go against Amazon Google Microsoft and IBM, bidding lower, using blockchain.
The document presents price statistics for cloud services and that can provide Boosteroid in comparison with the giants of the computer industry. To date, the lease of computing power is still the prerogative of the "elite". On average, the rent hour ranges from $ 6.5 to $ 10. Boosteroid also offers to make the lease of computing power accessible to any user - at the expense of price and ease of rent. At the next stage of the token, the cost of one token is only $ 1.88.
Now about the tokens. Most of the ICOs conducted by issuing their own token offer nothing in return for the investor, except for empty promises. Getting on the exchange, the released coin simply jumps from hands to hands of the traders playing on the course.
Boosteroid tied 1 BTR token to an hour of service rent. Thus, by purchasing a token, the user will be able to pay in the future for renting a cloud service at a more favorable cost. After the launch of the service, any user will be able to pay for services not only with fiat money, but also with crypto currency, including BTR tokens.
In addition, the "exchange" of the project will accept payment of fiat money and buy back tokens on stock exchanges. Thus Boosteroid will create the demand for BTR itself.
It is also worth noting that Google is already formed company, which also initially had no idea at what prices to offer this service, and the statement that GCP by that time will lower the price below the stated, just guesses. If Google can do this, then what is the difficulty of such a move for Boosteroid, if the projects are based on centralized capacities.
I am ready to support authors who make informed reviews, and not writings without any confirmation. If you look at the social networks of the Boosteroid project, you can see many live photos confirming the project implementation. Analyzing the many conducted by ICO, I can say with certainty that there are few projects where it is possible to estimate the stage of project implementation from photographs or video clips.
I also want to discuss the availability of existing facilities. Any novice project in the computer segment can not boast of having an already under construction platform. As stated in the Roadmap of the project, to date, the computing power of Boosteroid is already 0.5 petaflops (!). This is a small video with their datacenter proof of the implementation of the project.
I follow the Boosteroid project quite a long time ago. For me, SONM and Golem projects, which have successfully collected investments, also remain important, and I hate to see such stupid criticism of Boosteroid. I want to pay attention to the SONM project, which collected more than $ 40 million, without justifying in detail its attracted investments for development. To be honest, I did not notice a lot of evidence on their part about the project. I do not want to show that SONM is a bad project, I also like it, but in Boosteroid I found more openness and transparency than in other companies.
What else touched me, is that the author himself can not decide on the physical presence of Boosteroid powers. Open facebook and look through several records turned out to be a challenge, but he decided to approve it in the review. reference » link. When I'm interested in a project, I try to personally ask questions to the team, and only then draw conclusions about their competence.
Frankly, I also did not understand the amount of 1.3 billion, indicated in the whitepaper, but after talking with the community Boosteroid, I found out that this is hardcap for implementation, the maximum limit that will be required to quickly scale the equipment. What will be collected collected funds, you can learn from the business plan of the project. Everything is clearly and clearly written there.
Why did not the author of the review mention that the project has an already working data center in Ukraine, and also it is planned to build data centers in Georgia, Iceland and the UAE. In soc. networks of the project, there is enough information where the Minister of Energy of Georgia Romeo Mikautadze appears and their arrangements for placing Boosteroid.
The next point, which is so closely scrutinized is the project team. I do not want to say that the team is not a mandatory item in the ICO assessment, but if you refer to the profiles in LinkedIn, this will not give guarantees that people working in the project are 100% equipped with the necessary skills specified in the profiles.
The author of the review describes in his article inexperience and incompetence of the team, in terms of implementing such a project. If people were doing successful mining, they have enough ideas how to combine power for maximum equipment performance, all other work can be done by a team of developers hired with experience in developing server virtualization. I want to repeat, the SONM team collected more than $ 40 million, but it does not need to purchase its equipment. What for then so much money? 40 million for salaries to developers?
Read each information from Wikipedia about Amazon and its involvement in computer technology. The company, which was originally involved in the field of E-commerce, has over the years decided to occupy a niche in the IT field, creating the Amazon AWS. Based on this, no one believes that this is a bad product. From the world's giants, you can only take IBM, a company that from the very beginning developed in the field of computers and hardware, but its products are not designed for mass use.
You compare great players with a startup, but I'm sure that no one was interested in the fate of implementing these projects to such a scale that they have today. Google has been building its Cloud Platform for the past 15 years. I agree, Amazon Google is more trustworthy for most users and investors, but we also need to understand where these projects started.