An open response to CEO Min Kim, u/Minhokimme post 2 years ago:
Firstly, I would like to start off that this is not a personal attack, neither do I know you personally, this is strictly business and from what I can see out in the open. Secondly, and most importantly, accountability is key for growth in all business and a key element for leadership (I.e. for CEO’s), this has been expressed in numerous studies, but to keep it simple, we will reference Forbes:
Your post aimed to explore and examine why ICX is ‘falling more versus others tokens?’, you reflected on three main points: High-Beta, Lock in profits and fear of competition.
You first argued as a result of ICX being in a ‘high-beta’ stage, it seemed more riskier for investors to bet a huge stake on this token. You then went on to argue that ICX is a relatively younger project than other projects and that is why it is lagging behind (on price). You then expressed that you expect it to be listed on other exchanges to normalise its price.
In response to this, many projects such as Cardano (ADA), ChainLink and DOT (polkadot) are very much in the High-Beta stage pumping to ATH’s and have kept a relatively high position in the ranking since their ‘paper’ stage – all whilst being younger, if not the same age as ICX.
Lastly 2 years ago you recognised we needed to be on more exchanges, still till today ICX is not listed on a new exchange, all whilst much younger projects achieved a coinbase listing a long time ago.
Secondly, you argued that fund managers might have sold a large quantity to lock in profits; I would like to ask, what measures have you taken to bring in more Venture capitalists? Why did they not buy back in the next year? I have my own interpretations, but I will leave this to the audience.
Thirdly, you argued many feared the challenge of South Korean competition, this is not a sentiment I have come across, but what I have come across is sentiment that it has not much exposure to the Korean audience. Because at the end of the day, it is retail pumping the price, not VC, who can help maintain price.
In the comments section of this post, many Icon investors expressed their concerns that it is no longer getting the media attention and coverage, instead of acknowledging their mistakes you said “Blaming and generalizing on things like “marketing”, “communication”, “timeline”, “a person”, etc. are superficial reasons without much empirical evidence”.
Empirical evidence is not always a needed metric in a market of speculation, what has become apparent is ‘normative (approach) metric’: Projects that built in the bear market and employed large PR companies such as ‘Wachsman’ or ‘YAP global’ have created huge network effects by building large communities which has seen expediential growth. An example would be just this morning a friend of mine who’s an executive at a blockchain project which recently received funding morning a friend of mine who’s blockchain project has received funding from Eblock, Binance and Fenbushi would not build on top of icon despite its advantages, as he said ‘everyone is building on DOT and ETH now’, which emphasises how important ‘network effect’ is! Here is a report outlining how key onboarding/network effects leads to better development; ‘empirical’ evidence:
https://outlierventures.io/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/OV-Blockchain-Dev-Q1-2021-_v6.pdf
I have seen people getting kicked out for respectfully calling a tweet by Icon foundation as shameful , exemplifying how toxicity has been harbored in the community for anyone sharing a different view to what the foundation is doing.
Finally, I do believe you know how to market and how to spend; I saw this in the ICO when ICON was on every media, it brought in key YouTube influencers at the time and even big names like Don Tapscott. But it is unfortunate now that when the community needs this it is not given, but when the foundation needed it, it was provided in abundance.
