Right now, the CVL token launch has failed. Current sales $1.3m after 22 days; 6 days to reach $8m; 85% of purchases by a single entity; potential buyers barred after failing idelogical purity test ...
"Potential buyers barred after failing idelogical purity test".
You seriously believe the TokenFoundry quiz meant to weed out the get rich quick crowd is an "ideological purity test"?
Agreed that their ICO looks set to fail, but lol.
> Agreed that their ICO looks set to fail
Okay, so what do they do now? Why did it fail? What will they change so it doesn’t fail next time? Will there be a next time? How much time do they have before investors lose patience?
No clue what they do now and if they try to have another ICO or take a different approach. They haven't said anything about what they plan to do in this case, nor should they until the decision needs to be made. In terms of why it failed, probably a few reasons. I'd venture that the fact that they are giving tokens based on the $ value of ether received has kept many away given ether price is so low and their ICO period was so long - why would you want to put in 5 ether at $200 a pop for $1000 worth of tokens if you feel like ether might double during the near month long ICO? The way they structured their ICO was to avoid short sighted investors that might lose patience within a year so that is a non-sequitor, but definitely played a role in them likely not meeting their $8mm threshold.
Why do you think they [likely] failed?
> Why do you think they [likely] failed?
Their marketing has been horrific. Their sub /r/joincivil has 10 subscribers (not a typo), their alleged press person hasn’t posted in a month (she may have been shadow banned for spamming). No one in /r/journalism could articulate a reason for purchasing CVL tokens. I had to read a small novel to understand why anyone would purchase a CVL token. Professional journalists spent days installing esoteric software and weeks waiting for bank approval to purchase ETH for the privilege of purchasing CVL - in the end they still couldn’t explain what they would do with the CVL tokens they now owned. They were expressly forbidden from purchasing them as an investment. No one accepted them as a ‘tip’ for good writing. They are supposedly useful for voting newsrooms out of Civil, but no one actually cares whether they are in/out of Civil, so the vote is meaningless, and made even more meaningless by the fact that anyone who cares will appeal to a(n unelected) council that can overturn votes to prevent quote mob rule unquote.
The only reason to be excited about owning CVL is if they can convince Facebook/Google/Apple/Reddit to give a boost to Civil-affiliated newsroom articles. But Civil never even hints that this is one of their goals. It is positively bizarre that their marketing is so bad, given their journalistic background.
I also think it is ridiculous to ban speculators from purchasing a cryptocurrency. I honestly don’t even understand the reasoning. Why do they care? It’s a huge mistake.
I agree 100% with your comments on their marketing and failure to incentivize people to hold their tokens. It is not enough to say what amounts to "you will have a say in the content produced on the platform" to rationalize putting forward capital that will be tied up for at least a year. Especially when, as you noted earlier, a majority of the tokens are held by a few. That said, your comment about journalists needing to download esoteric software is not true and the thought of Civil needing to convince fb/google/whatever to boost their content is fundamentally against what the platform is meant to stand for. I personally love how they banned speculators from their crowd sale, but can appreciate the argument for.
In any case, this has been one of the most fascinating ICOs to date and completely different from any of the hundreds that we've seen in the past. Looking forward to drawing more conclusions once it actually finishes/fails.
> the thought of Civil needing to convince fb/google/whatever to boost their content is fundamentally against what the platform is meant to stand for.
Strongly disagree. The purpose of Civil is to make Forbes modify its behavoir to prevent being voted off the island. But why does Forbes care? Only if being voted out reduces traffic and/or revenue. Civil could spend hundreds of billions brand building ... or membership could be used to influence article ranking on traffic drivers (basically facebook and google at this time). Facebook and Google are actively looking for a solution to their fake news problem. Even the rumor that Civil membership boosts traffic driver ranking will make membership valuable, and CVL tokens worth owning.
I also have to say that Civil’s response to low sales was an MLM scheme. Is that really so much better than banning speculators?
They’ve tied themselves in ideological knots. It remains to be seen if the existing leadership can unbind the project.
Being part of Civil means they’ve agreed to abide by a journalistic code of conduct. In theory other CVL token holders can vote them off the island, which would be embarrassing. In the future Facebook or someone might be pressured into rewarding/penalzing newsrooms that are in/out of the Civil network, then membership will be meaningful.
Isn't blockchain-based news a good thing? It would help prevent "rewriting history" since the words published will never be able to be changed, assuming that the entire chain is always available to download somewhere. Retractions will always be a thing, but those would be timestamped and encoded on the chain as well, so full history is always preserved.
So will corrections, disproofs, and counter-arguments, with semantic data linking the nodes together instead of everything just swimming around in Google to be found or missed. This is a big step in the right direction.
Propaganda and false news being permanent is a good thing as it would prevent a news organization from simply deleting inaccurate articles and pretending they never happened. The immutable record of these stories will provide transparency and help users curate the Civil Registry. If a news organization is consistently publishing false stories, those can be used as evidence to get them removed from the registry.
Won’t embedding images, audio, video, etc bloat the ETH blockchain beyond all reason? Is there an article you can point me to that will convince me otherwise?
> immutable record
What happens the first time a judge orders an article expunged? Hard fork?
The establishment is corrupt, head to toe. Forbes is a flag carrier of the establishment. They will play dirty and rough to preserve their position. They are like a Trojan Horse. Let them in and kiss your butt goodbye. There must not be tough minded people running Civic. They simply do not know how to fight. They lacked the vision to be relevant and effective. JMO
If newsrooms or writers on the platform behave in a corrupt fashion, their audience can challenge them and potentially evict them from the platform and take the stake or security bond that they must post to be on the platform. This is one of many mechanisms contemplated for the platform to enable more diverse, more ethical journalism with experimentation towards hopefully more sustainable business models.
Civil is about changing the business and incentive models of journalism, so that they're powered by many rather than by a few. The important thing to note here is that this agreement doesn't bypass the community control of the network. Every newsroom on Civil is bound by the same ethical principles of the Civil Constitution, and if Forbes (or any newsroom, now or in the future) does not adhere to them the community will likely vote them off the TCR. More on that process is here: [https://blog.joincivil.com/the-civil-registry-a-tcr-for-quality-journalism-a2452f363665](https://blog.joincivil.com/the-civil-registry-a-tcr-for-quality-journalism-a2452f363665)