For people that seem to be offended that district0x got non-transparent rate. please click on the rating and read the following part marked red

Are token holder rights protected in trustless way?

Several issues:
1. no refund mechanism implemented so this is at good will of multisig owner
2. tokens are not generated in trustless way and they may be or may be not generated after ICO by the owner
3. ICO owner has access to all funds all the time, he may choose to not generate tokens and still gets all the money, smart contract could protect against that but does not.

We are not evaluating teams and their good intentions. We look at the code and in particular (1) how it handles money (2) how it issues tokens (3) does it protect token holder rights — during ICO and after. district0x fails this check in every aspect. With a few small improvements (like having access to money conditional on ICO min cap reached and tokens generated, generating tokens via trustless claim mechanism like ‘claim’ instead of admin actions(!!!) etc.) it would be fully transparent.
Neufund is dedicated to make stable investment ecosystem where token holder rights are protected and this contract is simply a bad example of how you do that



Serial CTO and startup founder. Currently doing blockchain stuff at Mentor at

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store