LockChain’s Wings.ai case — community vote
this post is of high importance as it affects every investor regardless of the size of investment in LOC. We, the management team of LockChain.co have found it to be our responsibility to raise concerns about a service which has had an extremely poor delivery and which might be unfair to our investors.
Before going into the details, we will provide some general information about the subject of the “deal” that we had with Wings.Ai and what their service’s value is.
Back in late September 2017, days before launching our tokensale, Wings.ai’s platform had been recommended by one of our highly regarded contacts as an assumed good marketing tool for raising awareness and for generating sales/contributors for ICOs.
The person who had recommended them to us, had used them for an ICO which was held earlier in 2017 and had assumed that Wings.ai was one of the marketing channels that had played a role in that ICO. That project was exclusively listed on their platform. We are using the word “assumed” because they had no direct measurement in terms of marketing effect on Wings as an isolated marketing channel.
Wings.ai is an unregulated and decentralized forecasting/betting platform where users make bets on the amount of money third party ICOs would raise and in return, the respective ICOs which are listed for featuring, would make an airdrop contribution for the marketing effect of this “forecast” service. It is a basic form of airdrop, where you rely on the direct impact of the service since you don’t capture any of the airdrop participant’s emails or contacts which are normally of high interest to any company. The bets are timed in “forecast windows” usually which are 1 weeks in duration. The people that are able to guess the amount which a project would raise during that 1 week voting window, are to be rewarded the prize of the airdrop. The ones which don’t guess do not get the airdrop. Or in other terms , if out of 10,000 people, 200 guess the raised amount, those 200 people will get the airdrop as a prize.
The Wings founders requested a significant airdrop of 1.5% of all generated LOC tokens for the valuable service that they would provide — listing LockChain and raising awareness. This equates to approximately 279k LOC token which is $370,000 — $500,000 worth according to current rates.
It is also important to note that they did not promise any results at the time of the deal. Nevertheless, the implications and conversations were entirely in the context of previous projects which we all assumed had managed to generate measurable results from their listing service.
On our end we assumed that the results they would generate would be significant and we thought that our project would exclusively be listed for the voting window in the same way all other projects were before us.
The listing happened on the 5th October 2017, which is why we have shut down any additional marketing channels for the duration of the campaign. Specifically to be able to measure the effect of the listing.
Here is a snapshot of the traffic that originated from their website for the whole month of October:
As it can be seen from the google analytics code, the total traffic received from their website is only 27 visitors. Our Telegam growth for the duration of the Wings.ai campaign (5th Oct — 15th Oct) was also insignificant and completely corresponds with the amount of traffic that we have recorded. So was the growth of contributors in our smart contract. All data perfectly matches and confirms the lack of results.
Immediately upon being listed, we were surprised to see that LockChain had been listed simultaneously together with 3 other projects (making 4 projects at once for the same forecast window, whereas before, on average 1 project was listed for 1 voting window/week). We immediately raised these concerns together with the concerns for the weak results, and Wings.ai’s team had accused us of being “unappreciative”.
We even provided data that proved that, the listing of the 4 projects at the same time, was further diluting whatever effect their service had in the first place.
Again the fact that LockChain got approximately 20% of the resource for that voting window, was not addressed as a concern from their team even though it was sent in written shortly after the forecast window had been opened.
Their argument is that the service is listing on their platform irrespective of the value their community brings. Completely disregarding the provided data. They also claimed that we got “more eyeballs” by sharing the same window with 3 other projects which was supposedly boosting the effect of the campaign. We did contact one of the other project owners who also confirmed he was disappointed with the results.
In common business sense, when you are giving value, you need to get some value in return. Otherwise you are practically giving free money to the other party. Any rational person would initiate a “non delivery” dispute for poor quality of service in such a case. However, since in this case it is a decentralized entity, it is more a question of reputation risk and making what’s fair.
With all of the above kept in mind, our concerns are as follow:
- We have factual data that proves that the Wings.ai campaign was a complete failure in terms of marketing
- There was no traffic, no sales, no user growth and no value behind the listing
- Our concerns were not addressed in any way from their team, although they were expressed immediately upon identifying them
- The size of the demanded airdrop is out of proportion, and would end up going to users that have not contributed to our tokensale.
- The airdrop itself will go to a relatively small number of people (the betting element in factor, where there are “winners” and “losers” in the forecast. The winners win the airdrop without caring so much of the project they bet on, because they bet on either way).
- Giving so much tokens to small group of users that are agnostic to LockChain would be unfair to investors who have contributed with their hard earned money and could be a potential risk factor for the price of LOC.
- No exact terms were provided about our listing, no guidance on how we can increase our exposure was provided from their team and no proper account management was provided for the number of raised concerns. The last time when we tried to raise any questions, we were called “scammers” by one of their team members and threatened that “we will have to live with our decision” …whatever that means.
We believe that an airdrop should result in raising awareness and adding value in the form of distributing small number of tokens to thousands of users, instead of large amounts of tokens to a small group of users irrespective of their contribution.
Up to this moment, their founders insist on Lockchain distributing the 280k LOC tokens to the people that placed bets on their platform, irrespective of any circumstances.