Print

• Show the most recent posts.

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[pf]

Personally I think the asset owners should be paying for the review, NXT users should not be having to pay to see the contents of the reports whatosever
Just my opinion of course

[RAlex]

Personally I think the asset owners should be paying for the review, NXT users should not be having to pay to see the contents of the reports whatosever
Just my opinion of course

Not a problem to register new account, or new NXT address. No way to prove who's having assets who's not...

[crumb-bum]

I'm very happy to read that, Jefdisel.

While I have your attention, I want to ask a stupid question: I think I recall nxtinspect saying at some point that it would be possible to buy four in-depth reports for 1000 NXT. Is that deal available yet? Is it still in the works?

Thanks, and keep up the good work!

Hey crumb, we started putting our reviews together and we realized that people wanted greater distinction and deeper review criteria, so we rebuilt our review process. ten important criteria, weighted and factored to work across the broad variety of assets, circumstances, and users.
We are building some really deep analyst tools, and with the help of 1.3.1 will be able to crunch numbers a lot more effectively.
So before we offer the data we have, we are running it back again in the new tools and getting it even better.

Once we are done this, later this week, we will be ready to release our subscription model as well

Jefdiesel, thanks for replying and giving details. It's great that your team has been so responsive to suggestions from your asset holders. I, too, am all for depth and detail and look forward to reading your reports.

By the way, no offense, pf, but I like the idea of subscriptions and will be happy to pay for good reports on assets of interest to me.

[jefdiesel]

Personally I think the asset owners should be paying for the review, NXT users should not be having to pay to see the contents of the reports whatosever
Just my opinion of course

Not a problem to register new account, or new NXT address. No way to prove who's having assets who's not...

pf.. reviews will be done free, and listed free. No one has to pay. We plan on monetizing by selling ADVANCE subscriptions, probably 24 hours, so professionals can choose to subscribe and get the news first.

[Dxl]

Great team! 

[pf]

Personally I think the asset owners should be paying for the review, NXT users should not be having to pay to see the contents of the reports whatosever
Just my opinion of course

Not a problem to register new account, or new NXT address. No way to prove who's having assets who's not...

pf.. reviews will be done free, and listed free. No one has to pay. We plan on monetizing by selling ADVANCE subscriptions, probably 24 hours, so professionals can choose to subscribe and get the news first.

I think asset owners should be able to pay something to be able to eliminate an advance report.  I mean the fairest thing to do would be to level the playing field for everyone, so that nobody gets the report ahead of anyone else (and thus swings the market in a certain direction).  Same reason insider trading is regulated in the real world.

[martismartis]

I think it would be good, that asset issuers pay for NXTInspect review and users get reports free of charge. It could be not so big fee for issuers to review their assets. If review is good, asset issuer is also winning, because his asset will have some trust and more buyers.

[TwinWinNerD]

Personally I think the asset owners should be paying for the review, NXT users should not be having to pay to see the contents of the reports whatosever
Just my opinion of course

Not a problem to register new account, or new NXT address. No way to prove who's having assets who's not...

pf.. reviews will be done free, and listed free. No one has to pay. We plan on monetizing by selling ADVANCE subscriptions, probably 24 hours, so professionals can choose to subscribe and get the news first.

I think asset owners should be able to pay something to be able to eliminate an advance report.  I mean the fairest thing to do would be to level the playing field for everyone, so that nobody gets the report ahead of anyone else (and thus swings the market in a certain direction).  Same reason insider trading is regulated in the real world.

Reviews can be pusblished as they like.

But if there is "breaking news" or "Ad-Hoc news", then it would be ridiculous to postpone the publishing to the broad mass.

PS: I consider a IPO offer such a Ad-hoc news. Offering private investors the chance to invest early is basically insider trading.

jm2c

[pf]

I think it would be good, that asset issuers pay for NXTInspect review and users get reports free of charge. It could be not so big fee for issuers to review their assets. If review is good, asset issuer is also winning, because his asset will have some trust and more buyers.

Even if the review is bad, at least it's a sign of good faith on behalf of the asset issuer.  Perhaps have NXTInspect offer to re-review any poor rated asset for free after a given period of time (say 1 or 2 weeks) for any assets that pay to get reviewed and then get a poor rating?

This would make this service a lot closer to what the real world considers an audit.  Having investors paying to be able to see reports earlier than everyone else seems way too much like a private investment club instead of a review/audit service.

[jefdiesel]

Personally I think the asset owners should be paying for the review, NXT users should not be having to pay to see the contents of the reports whatosever
Just my opinion of course

Not a problem to register new account, or new NXT address. No way to prove who's having assets who's not...

pf.. reviews will be done free, and listed free. No one has to pay. We plan on monetizing by selling ADVANCE subscriptions, probably 24 hours, so professionals can choose to subscribe and get the news first.

I think asset owners should be able to pay something to be able to eliminate an advance report.  I mean the fairest thing to do would be to level the playing field for everyone, so that nobody gets the report ahead of anyone else (and thus swings the market in a certain direction).  Same reason insider trading is regulated in the real world.

Reviews can be pusblished as they like.

But if there is "breaking news" or "Ad-Hoc news", then it would be ridiculous to postpone the publishing to the broad mass.

PS: I consider a IPO offer such a Ad-hoc news. Offering private investors the chance to invest early is basically insider trading.

jm2c

Agreed on the IPO.

We may in the future consult with issuers pre IPO , but we will let them issue their own ANN and then we may issue a report soon after.
This gives anyone following the ANN threads time to invest,  but it also gives subscribers the premium knowledge that comes with our service.
I would assume this is fair,  but we will always listen to the community.

[jefdiesel]

I think it would be good, that asset issuers pay for NXTInspect review and users get reports free of charge. It could be not so big fee for issuers to review their assets. If review is good, asset issuer is also winning, because his asset will have some trust and more buyers.

Even if the review is bad, at least it's a sign of good faith on behalf of the asset issuer.  Perhaps have NXTInspect offer to re-review any poor rated asset for free after a given period of time (say 1 or 2 weeks) for any assets that pay to get reviewed and then get a poor rating?

This would make this service a lot closer to what the real world considers an audit.  Having investors paying to be able to see reports earlier than everyone else seems way too much like a private investment club instead of a review/audit service.

Its not investors who get the information first. and it's not all new assets. Analysis will be updated as often as required or information is available.
We are not giving advance peeks to new assets, we are selling our own due diligence.
 our primary goal is transparency. We want issuers to be open to the whole community,  with reports,  accounting,  and operating procedures.

[pf]

I think it would be good, that asset issuers pay for NXTInspect review and users get reports free of charge. It could be not so big fee for issuers to review their assets. If review is good, asset issuer is also winning, because his asset will have some trust and more buyers.

Even if the review is bad, at least it's a sign of good faith on behalf of the asset issuer.  Perhaps have NXTInspect offer to re-review any poor rated asset for free after a given period of time (say 1 or 2 weeks) for any assets that pay to get reviewed and then get a poor rating?

This would make this service a lot closer to what the real world considers an audit.  Having investors paying to be able to see reports earlier than everyone else seems way too much like a private investment club instead of a review/audit service.

Its not investors who get the information first. and it's not all new assets. Analysis will be updated as often as required or information is available.
We are not giving advance peeks to new assets, we are selling our own due diligence.
 our primary goal is transparency. We want issuers to be open to the whole community,  with reports,  accounting,  and operating procedures.

Sorry, I meant having subscribers get the information first seems to me an awful lot like a private investment club, not an open and objective asset inspection/review company.
Revenues for a completely transparent asset inspection/review company should be being budgeted for by the asset issuers and provided by them, not by the people who are buying and selling the assets.  (Again, just my $0.02)

[martismartis]

I think it would be good, that asset issuers pay for NXTInspect review and users get reports free of charge. It could be not so big fee for issuers to review their assets. If review is good, asset issuer is also winning, because his asset will have some trust and more buyers.

Even if the review is bad, at least it's a sign of good faith on behalf of the asset issuer.  Perhaps have NXTInspect offer to re-review any poor rated asset for free after a given period of time (say 1 or 2 weeks) for any assets that pay to get reviewed and then get a poor rating?

This would make this service a lot closer to what the real world considers an audit.  Having investors paying to be able to see reports earlier than everyone else seems way too much like a private investment club instead of a review/audit service.

Its not investors who get the information first. and it's not all new assets. Analysis will be updated as often as required or information is available.
We are not giving advance peeks to new assets, we are selling our own due diligence.
 our primary goal is transparency. We want issuers to be open to the whole community,  with reports,  accounting,  and operating procedures.

Sorry, I'm not native English, I'll try to explain, that I had in mind:

Before asset is issued, issuer pays fee for NXTInspect for auditing, consulting his planned asset (business plan, some personal information, revenues, etc.). NXTInspect, after audit and consulting, gives some rate for asset. If it is shit asses, then it is shit, if it is good assets, then it is good. Then asset issuer issues asset or not, it is his decision, but some kind of rating is already done. I thing rated asset by independent "auditor" could attract more investors, than unrated.

Are we talking about the same things?

[martismartis]

I think it would be good, that asset issuers pay for NXTInspect review and users get reports free of charge. It could be not so big fee for issuers to review their assets. If review is good, asset issuer is also winning, because his asset will have some trust and more buyers.

Even if the review is bad, at least it's a sign of good faith on behalf of the asset issuer.  Perhaps have NXTInspect offer to re-review any poor rated asset for free after a given period of time (say 1 or 2 weeks) for any assets that pay to get reviewed and then get a poor rating?

This would make this service a lot closer to what the real world considers an audit.  Having investors paying to be able to see reports earlier than everyone else seems way too much like a private investment club instead of a review/audit service.

Its not investors who get the information first. and it's not all new assets. Analysis will be updated as often as required or information is available.
We are not giving advance peeks to new assets, we are selling our own due diligence.
 our primary goal is transparency. We want issuers to be open to the whole community,  with reports,  accounting,  and operating procedures.

Sorry, I meant having subscribers get the information first seems to me an awful lot like a private investment club, not an open and objective asset inspection/review company.
Revenues for a completely transparent asset inspection/review company should be being budgeted for by the asset issuers and provided by them, not by the people who are buying and selling the assets.  (Again, just my $0.02)

This.

[printshop]

I think it would be good, that asset issuers pay for NXTInspect review and users get reports free of charge. It could be not so big fee for issuers to review their assets. If review is good, asset issuer is also winning, because his asset will have some trust and more buyers.

Even if the review is bad, at least it's a sign of good faith on behalf of the asset issuer.  Perhaps have NXTInspect offer to re-review any poor rated asset for free after a given period of time (say 1 or 2 weeks) for any assets that pay to get reviewed and then get a poor rating?

This would make this service a lot closer to what the real world considers an audit.  Having investors paying to be able to see reports earlier than everyone else seems way too much like a private investment club instead of a review/audit service.

Its not investors who get the information first. and it's not all new assets. Analysis will be updated as often as required or information is available.
We are not giving advance peeks to new assets, we are selling our own due diligence.
 our primary goal is transparency. We want issuers to be open to the whole community,  with reports,  accounting,  and operating procedures.

Sorry, I meant having subscribers get the information first seems to me an awful lot like a private investment club, not an open and objective asset inspection/review company.
Revenues for a completely transparent asset inspection/review company should be being budgeted for by the asset issuers and provided by them, not by the people who are buying and selling the assets.  (Again, just my $0.02)

This.

Yes, and any time a company pays for a review, there will be a conflict of interest. This is what happened with moody's and S&P. They were paid by the industry to do reviews, and they had a strong financial incentive to give good reviews, or the banks/etc. would go elsewhere. If NXTinspect's model is to charge companies for reviews, that is going to become a problem.

Otherwise, it looks like their only way to make money will be as a "private investment club". Not that there's anything wrong with that. You can make a lot of money doing that. It's a good business.

[pf]

Hi printshop,

I think we're still early enough in this game that there has to be some kind of incentive for the asset inspectors/review company to actually review assets.
Personally, I don't think that having to pay for a review of my asset would make there be a bias towards getting a 'better' review - that's more of an issue with corruption I think.  But obviously someone has to pay for reviews, and I think the onus for shouldering that expense should fall on the asset issuer moreso.
By the way, I really like what you're doing with presenting your reviews in a wiki format - hopefully NXTInspect eventually moves forward with doing something similar.  Granted over time keeping everything current becomes more and more of a burden.

Although hopefully people will start to open their eyes to the fact that we have to stop investing in assets issued by new accounts.  Has there been a single asset released by a net new account recently that did not turn out to be a scam within the first 60 days?

[JanSako]

Hi printshop,

I think we're still early enough in this game that there has to be some kind of incentive for the asset inspectors/review company to actually review assets.
Personally, I don't think that having to pay for a review of my asset would make there be a bias towards getting a 'better' review - that's more of an issue with corruption I think.  But obviously someone has to pay for reviews, and I think the onus for shouldering that expense should fall on the asset issuer moreso.
By the way, I really like what you're doing with presenting your reviews in a wiki format - hopefully NXTInspect eventually moves forward with doing something similar.  Granted over time keeping everything current becomes more and more of a burden.

Although hopefully people will start to open their eyes to the fact that we have to stop investing in assets issued by new accounts.  Has there been a single asset released by a net new account recently that did not turn out to be a scam within the first 60 days?

How about LTCShare2g?
I don't much like this statement, 'old boy'  . What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

See you point that it is more likely that a scammer will use a newbie account, but how long does a person with a great idea (and these go stale really fast in crypto) need to hang around to get any sort of credibility?

Besides, how would you know that I am not a scammer that is just biding his time... I may come out with an fake asset in a month or 2... well, OK, it would be pretty stupid of me to be a scammer and still put my real name as the account handle... It is a matter of principle for me though  .

[jefdiesel]

NXTinspect will never take any fees for performing reviews.

We will make suggestions and comments free of charge so as to best help Asset Issuers and Managers organize their information. If they appreciate our initial information, and wish deeper consulting, we will work with them to best move with their asset.
This may involve organizing their accounting practices, or work on investor relations.
As these, among other criteria are important to investors, and by extension important to our review process, our rating of these assets may increase with proper procedures.

That is not to say because someone pays us to help with their accounting, their score will go up X points, but IF someone goes from a zero with no accounting to turning over all their books to us, for a verifiable, spreadsheet entered weekly and posted in the forums, we would feel the accounting score should go up.

This applies to all criteria. We will however be sure to note publicly in the review any areas that NXTinspect consultation advice has contributed to the score increase. As well, if these areas of improvement start to lapse and deteriorate, we will not hesitate to decrease scores accordingly.

We have developed a new clear cut criteria sheet that we will be publishing publicly, so everyone will be able to see all scores and according requirements.

We feel that these asset improvements will be benefits to the whole nxt community.

[pf]

Haha damn, you guys will make and post a spreadsheet for me every week for free?

[jefdiesel]

Haha damn, you guys will make and post a spreadsheet for me every week for free?

Ideally we will get you to where post a spreadsheet yourself.
We may indeed track dividends and ROI across a sector.  If we see great movement in mining for example, we will compare some reports, and crunch some numbers, and let our subscribers know where the value lays and what's not doing as well.

The reports themselves won't scream buy or sell. BUT the information will be gleamed by our super computer in a hollowed out volcano (google), when it runs 8 weeks sector wide and sees some trends.. This is what the subscribers really are paying for.