This looks suspiciously like overt advertising for another useless ICO, 50% of which is premined and 30% (make that 40% including "bonuses" & "marketing") of that is going to the "founders".

If this coin ever hits an exchange I would short it hard, there's no platform, no demo, the whitepaper is 13 pages of tosh

"Microsoft Word - CoinJob Whitepaper V1.3.docx"

"Day 1: 1ETH = 1200XCJ"

So with 200m tokens at 1200 eth each, that's $26,000,000

so they only want 780,000 for marketing and 780,000 for bonuses

And how much is going to the founders?

$3,640,000, there are four of them so skim a little marketing and bonus money and that's 1m each.

A lot of the ICO "whitepapers" are comedy gold

Just like http://Fomocoin.org/whitepaper.pdf

Disclosure: I wrote this "whitepaper"

This is an ICO that is apparently to fund the creation of the platform itself.

at $2,600,000, it's not a cheap platform to build apparently.

This is a blatant cash grab

Oh, I agree.

It seems like a neat idea, but do etherium-backed ICOs have any credibility right now? There are so many problems surfacing that it's not clear why anyone can take them at face value.

Congrats to them for front-paging this ;)

I've heard some people say that most ICOs wouldn't stand a chance at getting VC funding. So, investors of HN, what say you of this one?

To me, the first question is why does this need its own token rather than just using Ether? I can maybe see appcoins making sense for something like Status (mobile messenger platform trying to be the crypto WeChat), but this seems too small even if it's a success to merit a separate token.

Because if they didn't make a useless token, they couldn't sell the useless token

I don't think anyone is going to buy their useless token, in this case.

There ia a token named "useless ethereum token" which is created as a joke. And people are buying it. I think they habe sold at least 5 grands worth of it.

i wonder how expensive is it to frontpage something on HN.

Free, probably. It doesn't take much. I imagine this gets flagkilled pretty soon. (And just to be clear, my wink above is just b/c I thought it was kind of funny, not b/c I have anything to do with it)

Well they allocated 780,000 for marketing so clearly it's a lot more expensive than any of us could have imagined.

What's with the verify endpoint. If a hacker changed the address, couldn't they change the verify endpoint too?

Token sales should always use a .eth name as the wrapper for their deposit address. That's what FunFair did with their token sale [1]. It makes it a lot harder for a hacker or scammer to trick users into sending to the wrong address, since a user-specified identifier can be made far more mnemonic than an Ethereum account address.

[1] https://medium.com/@weka/token-sales-done-better-funfair-d38...

I could see this being successful by undercutting the Upwork fees alone