What happens when your ICO is not transparent or the story of Fetch.ai.

Fetch tries to polish it’s PR behind investors back.

Yesterday on 13.06 Nick Ward from Fire on the Hill contacted me behalf on Fetch.ai (yes Fetch is too proud to contact me be themselves) and begged that I would remove Fetch.ai as an example from article about ICOs without smart contracts.

He even said that he agreed about the issue in general, but didn’t see that Fetch was a good example for it.

As I replied to Nick Ward, Fetch.ai is the perfect example, because Fetch:

  • Has no Token nor Smart Contract (at least a public one)
  • Has not announced what amount of tokens nor price of tokens.
  • Has not announced soft cap nor hard cap
  • Has not announced token distribution or that it even had a token sale.

So basically when some one invests in Fetch.ai he has no idea what he will get.

However this time Nick confessed that they indeed had a token sale, just like I stated in my previous article. But did not provide explanation about why Fetch was lying before.

He also wanted to explain to me (in private of course) why they do what they do. Which is a bit of comic, since when I asked about the same issues in Fetch.ai Telegram Group I was banned from there.

It sure looks like Fetch.ai is unable to be transparent and open. Another reason why it’s not a good investment.

Since all of those points are still valid there is no reason to remove Fetch as an example, and I would suggest that Fetch would rather publicly response to my articles publicly in comment section instead of asking me in secret to remove it. I’m surprised they did not offer me money for this, but perhaps it will happen after this article.

Here’s the link to the original article where Fetch.ai was mentioned:

https://hackernoon.com/alarming-feature-in-ico-industry-icos-without-smart-contract-f45cf86dcc5b