Like I said, marketing. There are simply a lot more people that are aware of Ethereum and paying attention to ICOs on Ethereum. Would you rather advertise something to people who are already likely to buy your product or people who don't know about your product yet?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Dan wants to use ETH because it provides the ability to use a smart contract to run the ICO. This is a good thing and very rationale. Once the contract is started it cannot be stopped, everything is fair and legal, etc. etc.
Bitshares would require block.one to issue EOS tokens directly as Bitshares does not have the ability to run smart contracts (EOS is the Graphene smart contract platform).
But... ETH is not likely to be able to handle the transaction volume of the EOS ICO. So Bitshares might still be the better option, even if it isn't as slick.
Oh, I see. Makes sense.
But I'll bet the marketing angle must have crossed someone's mind at some point when making the decision to use ETH.
Has any other ICO used the Ethereum blockchain to create a product that competes with Ethereum?
Not directly (that I'm aware of). That's why I expect to see ETH whales DDOS the network and game the ICO to gain substantial control of the EOS token distribution.
I think it can be the first billion dollar ICO... I better get ready 🤔😀😂
I think the best idea would be to let people who know to get there EOS first, then advertise to those who do not know later.
That would be nice if those of us who heard about it first could be first to buy, but I don't think it's the fairest way to distribute.
True. I redact that comment. If BTS owners were able to participate in the ICO via BTS in addition to ETH, this would allow long-time supporters of the Invictus ecosystem to have more options in aquiring EOS. And at the same time, noone could say distrubution was unfair.