Careers Flow Traders

FUD Slaying: Why “DYOR” is More Important Than YouTube Videos and Internet FUD

Hello everyone,
I am here to discuss the recent FUD presented by a relatively unknown YouTube reviewer. I intend to discuss his methodology and the actual points themselves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=1hH5_FAEzyo
This is his YouTube video based on the document in question. He wrote the document. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XQlAGIDPjDoQNHtzEWGdbO9i8MUkc4lZFKYLTZzMpYU/edit
First, to get this out of the way, the reviewer has only been around on the social media scene for a short while. The views of his videos are only in the hundreds and his twitter was created a week ago. He is basically a "nobody" at this point. I don't mean that to be disparaging. He literally came out of nowhere. He is unproven and his methodology is inconsistent and extremely questionable.
With that said, just because he came out of nowhere doesn't mean he might not have a point, so let's look at his rating methodology to get a better idea of his process.
Oh and if you do not want to read all this, here is the TL:DR: The guy doesn't know what he is talking about. He doesn't has much idea of what he is doing when writing reviews. His research is lazy. I actually feel I wasted my time responding to this, but I am going to do it anyway.
When rating a project, he uses the following categories: MVP (minimum viable product), ease of research, team, roadmap, community (bonus), solving a problem, does it need blockchain, token use, red flags, competition, presentation, token vesting, demand/value, scarcity, customer service, best in field (bonus), active use, size of market, development (bonus)
These are pretty good things to look at, but he failed to look at GitHub contributions (or other source code related sites), so he can't really tell if a project is scammy or not. So, how well did he check this stuff out?
Rating the team:
When looking at his review of GVT, the only way to get an idea of this person's methodology is to look at his reviews of other projects. When rating the team there are basically two basic routes a person can take. You can analyze the team itself, or you can bundle the team and the advisors together and rate the project as a whole.
The reviewer is inconsistent in his reviews. In this category he bundles the entire team and advisors on some projects whereas he just looks solely at the team in other reviews.
His research is absolutely lazy. He gave Polymath a 0 rating for their team, but their website links to their company LinkedIn page and lists all 26 employees. It was not hard to find this. Even if it weren't on the site, a simple google search would have revealed who the team is. Polymath has a great team with some decent “stars” on it. It makes no sense to give them a 0. The reviewer doesn't know what he is doing.
Difficulty in finding the team deserves docking points in "ease of research", and it does not deserve giving the entire category a 0. The point of this category should be to evaluate the merits of the team members, which is something he does not do in most of his reviews.
He gave Selfkey a perfect score stating: "Team: 20 Points - Superstar team and advisors" This means he is bundling the team and advisors together. If so, any issues with advisors deserves docking points from that category, not docking at additional 20 points because of one advisor.
Looking at Selfkey, I don't know where the he gets the idea that they have a "superstar team". What does that even mean? I checked their profiles. Some of them only came onto the project recently and their LinkedIn pages are nothing to write home about. Some of them don't even have LinkedIn pages.
He gave the GVT team 13 points, but then docked 20 points because he didn't like Charlie Shrem.
Do you realize the ridiculousness of this? The GV team category effectively gets -7/20 points because the reviewer does not like Charlie Shrem. That is worse than giving the team 0/20. Charlie is only one advisor with no actual power over the GVT team's operations. He cannot execute any commands over the GV team or force them to do anything. The GV team can fire Charlie. Charlie cannot dismantle the GV team. That power balance is important. The rating makes no sense at all. Also, he docked the Changelly advisor because his company has bad customer service? Really? What does that have to do with his ability to advise the GV team on the things they need from him? Fact of the matter is his business is still running. The same cannot be said for advisors of other projects (more on that soon).
If you are going to rate the team and include the advisors, the value should be 3:1 or even 2:1. Even if you gave the advisors a score of 0, the category score should not be that low. GVT's advisors are absolutely amazing. To call them weak is ridiculous.
With regard to Nuls: "Asian team, isn’t on LinkedIn. No way to research." They get 0 points because they are Asian and don't use the sites you like to use? The language used allows that statement to be interpreted in a very negative way. There are non-Asians on that team as well. There is a way to research them. There are bios of each team member if you scroll over the pictures. You can then use that information to do more research on them. You are just too lazy.
Looking at The Key, their members are definitely not "all-stars". Their team is unknown and they have 3 relatively unknown advisors, only one of which has a LinkedIn page. Love him or hate him, Charlie Shrem is a crypto superstar compared to these people. Interestingly they are more of an "Asian team" than Nuls. That didn't seem to affect the score much though.
He gave the Bounty0x team a perfect score, but he obvious didn't bother to research every member of the team or their advisors with much effort. As an example, Terry Li is the Bounty0x solidity developer. If you check his LinkedIn page you will find a few serious red flags. He hasn't held a job for over a year. He has no visible programming experience. He has been a solidity developer for 10 months with no prior history or proof that he can program well. I cannot stress this enough: you do not want your solidity developer to be a programming newbie. This will spell disaster for your project.
When you look at their advisors there are some serious red flags as well. I picked two advisors to research and I found out that both of them have had their companies fail. One of them even declared themselves unsuccessful in a Facebook post. I don't want a project to be advised by people with a bunch of failed startups. Changelly having bad customer service pales in comparison to advisors whose project's failed. Bounty0x's advisor team is filled with failed entrepreneurs and members of their team lack experience in the jobs they are assigned. Also, their "Backend and Solidity engineer" has only been with the project for a month, and his blockchain programming experience is nonexistent. They do not deserve a perfect score in this category.
GVT has a team with years of programming experience, but more importantly, they have years of experience programming financial software. These are exactly the type of people you need on your team.
To the reviewer: Either bundle the advisors into the team rating or give them a separate category. Do not be inconsistent in this category. Do not bring a team's ethnicity into play as a factor for anything. Please do actual research on all the members, and please define what it means to be a "superstar". Please learn to navigate websites. Polymath's team is there. Your inconsistency and lack of research in this makes you appear incapable of judging a team. There is no clear methodology here. All your reviews are questionable because of this.
Roadmap:
He gave 0 points to GVT for their roadmap being hard to read. But the key point is this: They have a roadmap. There is no reason to give 0 points in this category. Not only that, the roadmap is decently detailed with many goals and objectives. The roadmap isn't some simple points on a line like Enigma's roadmap. Speaking of which...
He gave Enigma 0 points for not having a roadmap at all.... But they do have a roadmap. The guy didn't do his research.
https://en.decentral.news/2017/12/27/ico-analysis-enigma-catalyst-realm-crypto-trading-machines/
It can be found here.
MVP:
Having a minimum viable product be worth only 10 points is ludicrous. Any project that has an MVP basically utterly destroys a project that doesn't. More importantly, the reviewer didn't actually bother to use the MVP on what he reviews.
He gave Polymath 0 points for their demo, but gave GVT 10 points for theirs.
I am going to be blunt about this. GVT's demo is a non-functional interface demo. GVT's MVP comes on April 1. Polymath does not deserve a 0, and GVT does not (as of 3/21) deserve a 10. They both deserve a 5. He didn't bother to actually check out GVT's demo, which goes to show he doesn't actually research things properly.
He gave Enigma a 3 for an MVP not available to the public and Selfkey a 5 for an MVP not used by the public. Eh?
He gave the Authorship a 10 for their MVP but claims he cannot find any info about them. How is that supposed to work?
He gave Po.Et 0 points for their MVP because he couldn't find it.
Here you go buddy: https://github.com/poetapp/wordpress-plugin
It's right there. You just failed to find it. It isn't their fault your research is bad.
Ease of Research:
The reviewer either needs to dock points for research being difficult in their respective categories or dock research being difficult in this category. Do not "double dip" and dock points in both categories. This category is irrelevant since the reviewer already docks points in their respective categories. Also, this category is subjective because it is based on the reviewer's research skillset.
Community:
He uses coingecko's score or numbers from their telegram channel but there isn’t much evidence that he actually bothered to check out their communities much. Reeks of laziness and has nothing to do with the quality of a community. This really shouldn't even be a category if he is going to give points based on this. High telegram channel members has little meaning.
Solving a problem:
The reviewer’s inability to understand the problem that a project solves should not be held against it. Polymath is quite clear in the problem it solves.
He gives projects that solve problems of identifying people a 10, but gives projects that solve problems of identifying intellectual property a 3. That makes no sense. Those are both problems that need to be solved by the blockchain. The idea that he finds one more important than the other is clear bias.
Token Use:
The author does not understand the GV product. GV is platform agnostic, and more importantly GVT needs as little outside influence as possible. There is a very specific reason why GVT has to be used in place of ETH. ETH would technically be a middleman in this sense. GV's success is not meant the be tied to ETH's success or ETH token price manipulation. GV's success isn't even meant to be tied to crypto's success. GV is designed to succeed even if ETH or crypto fails.
GVT actually deserves a 10 in this category. GVT is needed to use the platform. Money is transferred using GVT. Profit is returned using GVT. Other services such as GV Markets will also function using GVT as gas. The utility of GVT is needed in all aspects of the platform. This gives the token great utility and investment value. If 1 Billion is invested through the GV platform, GV's market cap includes that 1 billion because the token is needed to transfer that 1 Billion around. This provides great incentive to invest in the platform and a great reason for the token price to grow in value. No other project that this much incentive or ways to bring value to their token as much as GVT. I am surprised the reviewer cannot see this.
GVT is also market agnostic. The entire crypto market can fail and GVT can still maintain value through profits brought in from the Forex and stock markets. This will make it extremely resilient over time.
Presentation:
The purpose of GVT is quite clear. It is broken down on the website and the presentation clearly explains why it is needed as all levels of trust management including the brokers, customers and managers. All that info is very clear on the front page of the site. 0/10? GVT presentation isn't the problem here. It seems the reviewer only watched the video which is just one part of the presentation. Everything is on the site and in the whitepaper, which the reviewer apparently didn't even fully read.
Token vesting:
He colors it yellow for GVT but green for other projects that also get 5 points... visual bias is apparent. He gave one project a 10 for an 18 month vesting period and a 6 to another project for the same period with little justification for such a disparity.
Supply/Scarcity:
GVT receives 3 points because 44M tokens were available during ICO but only sold about 4M. This makes him believe that they didn’t create much demand. “Everyone who wanted GVT got it.” The US and Singapore could not participate. Also, Bounty0x failed to reach their soft cap, but the reviewer didn’t dock any points for that. If everyone who wanted GVT got it then the marketcap wouldn’t be where it is today. What a terrible assumption he made.
Competition: He gave GV a 5/10, but his reasoning made little sense. “Covesting and coindash are used to trade cryptocurrencies while GVT is for cryptocurrency AND non-crypto trading. They will still compete for a portion of the same market. People will have only so much fiat to invest.” You do not use fiat to invest in Covesting or Coindash. Also, GV will allow people who are into stocks or forex to bring their money into crypto. No other coin is doing what GVT does. Covesting and coindash, arguably, are projects that try to compete against just one part of the entire GV platform. GVT is more than that and should have a higher score because there is basically no competition. There is competition for some of its features, but not for the platform as a whole. He gave Bounty0x a 20-point bonus for "Best in Field"... but they are the best because they have no competition. As a matter of fact, there is no reason for a 20 point "best in field category" when you already have a competition category worth 10 points.
He gave Funfair a 5/10 even though he states "No competition in FunFair’s niche"... That would automatically make it the best in its field if it has no competition as well.
Why does a project that has no competition effectively get 30 points (10/10 + 20), while another project with no competition get only 5 (5/10 + 0)? I will tell you why. It's because the author doesn't know what he is doing.
Guy's I am going to be honest. I am tired of doing this. You get my point. His reviews are an inconsistent and poorly researched mess. I've written around 8 pages worth of content covering this. If there is anything else you need me to compare, please write it in the comment section.
submitted by novadaemon to genesisvision [link] [comments]

Beyond the Track: F1™ Mission Control vs FX Dealing Find The Best Forex Trading Setups Daily Part 1 of 2 - YouTube Forex Trading Risks You Can’t Afford to Ignore Best Forex Broker in Singapore - Risk Management 5 Beginner Mistakes I Made In My First Year of Forex - YouTube How to Trade Forex With a Full Time Job Successfully AUD NZD - The Best Forex Pair To Trade - YouTube

New Forex trader Jobs in Singapore available today on JobStreet - Quality Candidates, Quality Employers To sate your curiosity, we’ve put together a list of the highest paying jobs in Singapore, based on the latest document released in 2018 by the ... A forex dealer/broker can either work independently, or as part of a firm, and usually deals on behalf of investment banks. You’ll need a degree in Business, Finance, or Marketing and have adequate knowledge on sales in order to take on such a ... Thanks for visiting my profile. Please feel free to reach out for any advice on your project. I have extensive experience of development of following: - Model Development: Machine Learning, Deep Learning, Pricing Analytics, Risk Calculation, Time Series, Betting - Algorithmic Trading System Development(with full integration with broker terminal) - Custom Backtest Systems and Reports ... Today’s top 322 Foreign Exchange jobs in Singapore. Leverage your professional network, and get hired. New Foreign Exchange jobs added daily. Headquartered in Silicon Valley, Fortex taps the Valley’s culture of innovation, leading engineering talent, and technology advances to continue delivering industry firsts. With deep roots on Wall Street, Fortex intimately understands the needs of currency traders, broker-dealers, and markets. And with a network footprint in Asia, Fortex helps fuel global trading. New Ship broker Jobs in Singapore available today on JobStreet - Quality Candidates, Quality Employers Forex Markets . Forex markets are open 24 hours a day, five total days a week, which means jobs are fast-paced, involve long days and strange work hours. Search and apply for the latest Forex consultant jobs in Singapore. Verified employers. Competitive salary. Full-time, temporary, and part-time jobs. Job email alerts. Free, fast and easy way find a job of 69.000+ postings in Singapore and other big cities in Singapore. The Forex industry, and the Forex market specifically, is very large and liquid offering job opportunities to people who would like to work in more exciting and fast paced environments. The industry offers jobs for all experience levels (entry, mid and senior levels) as well as different contract types (full time, part time etc.). Our headquarters in Amsterdam and offices in New York, Singapore, Hong Kong, London and Cluj allow global, around the clock market coverage and accommodate more than 400 employees. Flow Traders fosters an entrepreneurial, innovative, team-oriented culture. We value quick-witted, creative minds and challenge them to make full use of their capacities. If you aim high, the sky is the limit!

[index] [22663] [26494] [5646] [14735] [11711] [8789] [2918] [21478] [14458] [13640]

Beyond the Track: F1™ Mission Control vs FX Dealing

When you start forex trading, you might have made some forex mistakes that is very commonly made by beginners in forex trading. In my first year of trading, ... What are the most profitable ways to trade the forex markets? What are some of the most profitable Forex Trading Strategies In this video, Adam Khoo shows yo... http://www.apftrading.com/ Learn Forex Trading in Singapore for free Set up the best Singapore forex broker account Receive live FX trading platform linked t... Ever wonder what goes on inside an F1™ Mission Control room, or the dealing room of a major forex broker? Watch the latest exclusive video from FXTM’s Beyond the Track to see how much these ... In this forex trading seminar, I'm going to share with you how you can go into trading forex full time with a full time job. Trading for working professionals can be tough due to work demands. The AUD NZD is the best Forex pair to trade, and I explain why. Those who want to trade the No Nonsense Forex way need to pay close attention to this one. No... 6 forex trading risks that you must take note of in your risk management strategies. If you don't take care of the risks of forex trading, it's going to be detrimental to your forex trading account.

https://binary-optiontrade.emarenrabkilog.tk