In the absence of concrete facts provided by The TIM Foundation, we extrapolated from the available information to determine what we thought would also be true. Many of our assumptions were based on fragmented and incomplete, or evolving information. New information since allows us to revisit some of those assessments.
The accepted rule with Whitepapers and Metrics has universally been that once one is published, investors are notified by email of any change to that paper. Relevant changes would also include all company publications on which investors may have or could rely - monitoring the many changes over the past six months has been quite the task, but we believe we can clear much of the air.
During the past few weeks, there have been numerous changes to the website, token metrics, and associated documents. There have been few explanatory emails to investors since the token's inception. Major changes to the TIM project include ensuring the token now conforms to Utility token rules. We remain unsure of the Token’s status. The Foundation says that the status of TIM as a security is a decision for the SEC and it will abide by any such future finding one way or the other. As a Utility designation is a new reality, pointing out what may have been or changed to that end is unnecessary. The prior focus of the company on geofencing, taxi, drones, financial and several others has morphed into a primary focus on payments and financial transactions. Taxi and the aforementioned others do remain the secondary focus.
We previously reported on the existence of multiple TIM tokens. We now know there is one TIM token, but due to multiple smart contracts, some wallets were displaying TIM3 instead of the universal token TIM, which they all are in fact. Fairly, one must assume each subsequent TIM version experienced changes. It’s likely these changes were completely innocuous, but, they also went unreported to the community, causing angst and some confusion, which hopefully is now cleared up. The net of this however is there is one TIM token and that is what investors are buying today.
New ads have also been made and old ones deleted or modified. Many of these changes have been minor housekeeping, but some have been material. For example, for many months before our meeting TIM - and for approximately 4 months thereafter, the focus of the Foundation had been on Taxi and Drone programs, as well as several other geolocation uses. The focus is now primarily on the financial markets potential. That prior focus having been represented for a long period as fully developed and ready for an ICO, many months later has left us with no footprints. Shouldn’t there be a fully developed taxi or drone application? An investor in a technology might reasonably expect to be able to run a fully coded blockchain application model demonstrating the technology in use - as a proof of concept. We understand the foundation pursuing new opportunities. What we do not understand is abandoning what should be a fully developed, fully coded commercial taxi application or some form of geolocation API or application. Why is it that after almost a year of development - sufficiently evolved to have given rise to taxi-based, Pro-forma token appreciation models, there is no evidence of a working phone app or something to show proof of concept? Based on the numerous either/or direction changes one might deduce that there is no underlying technology currently in creation - although two investors to date have claimed they witnessed the capabilities of the network. Perhaps TIM is a geolocation back-end searching for a fully developed front-end partner. It is possible an explanation can be found in the proprietary code. Perhaps there is justification for not making it public in an application before a patent issues. If true, knowing when that might happen may be important information. We don’t know the answer to this question.
All prior token valuation models being based on the Taxi, Drone and other uses should not be relied on by investors - TIM spokesmen have said these models are obsolete and were never an appreciation model even when relevant.
Our opinions of several TIM member’s fitness for managing a project of this scope were largely based on what we gauged to be overt secretiveness, obfuscation and an intentional lack of transparency to investors. After much recent discourse with TIM people and many investors, a good portion of it not fit for print, we have come to the conclusion that while mistakes were made, much can be attributed to language and interpretation barriers. It is true that whatever country we are from or whatever language we each speak, we often times share a universal prejudice for our own language, expecting others to speak to us in that language. It took us a while, but after much discourse with the TIM group, we now believe that a good deal of the misunderstandings can be attributed to language. An international company operating in India, each with their own individual cultural standards and conventions, is struggling with the syntax and cultural expectations of investors from a hundred countries. Added to that confusion is the fact that many of these people are communicating in English, which they speak as a second language and much can be explained. We came to see this problem for what it is by watching the TIM Telegram group and witnessing one investor, also not speaking English as a first language, ask the same question several times until finally understanding the answer, only to have another, non-English speaking investor ask the exact question moments later. This then also required numerous answers. When we looked at the answers that had satisfied each investor’s question, many of those answers would have been thought unresponsive had any English speaking individual asked the same question. The light went on for us when we realized that many people around the world speak English passably as a second or third language, but they may never learn to write it structurally. Understanding our syntax and context rules can be downright difficult for Americans, let alone Asians or Russians. If it is said the Americans and the English are common peoples separated by a common language. As more and more blockchain opportunities now include investors from around the globe, perhaps we all need to become more understanding. I learned early on in life that effective communications always move from the top down. As investors, we must be aware of language considerations for our own protections, however, the real responsibility for clear and understandable dialog must always remain with these ICOs. Communication should be every investor’s first measure of any project. We pointed this out to the foundation when we began working with their original white paper. The paper’s syntax and adjective deficiencies are also mentioned by other news and review outlets.
With that said, unless we become aware of mitigating facts, we are putting the confusion to rest.
We suggest that any executive trying to run an ICO accept the above reality and avoid direct questions on Telegram and other social media. Accept questions in writing and follow the rules regarding changes to Whitepapers. Present one story, only after it is one story. Write it clearly in your white paper. If the project is not shovel ready, be straight up about your rollout schedule. Notify investors directly of all changes in a prompt manner, and be sure to remove any information that no longer applies.
Our initial opinion of TIM as an investment was based on token metrics we thought as being more a security - immediately ready for use. However, as stated above, it is a UTILITY Token now and that is what I will base my assessment of its risk and investment value on; since this information was verified by the team themselves just today.
Disclosure: I am not a fan of Utility tokens. That is not to say many do not represent legitimate opportunities. I know some assert that game theory, demand, and consensus drive value. As none of these are empirical measures I remain skeptical. Being old school, I am convinced that much of the current volatility in the today’s crypto markets arises from Utility tokens and consensus valuations being unreliable. Without a predictable secured method of base valuation or some mechanism for adding value, I am unconvinced Utility tokens represent a reliable appreciation model or are other than short-term opportunities more requiring strategy than conviction in choosing.
As a Utility token, we will acknowledge TIM is a hybrid, and with a few caveats, if they have a fully developed commercial application based on the Geo-tech, it is potentially a hugely important one. While other ICOs regularly claim their utility tokens MAY gain added value from branding and adoption of the underlying utility, blah blah blah - those rewards are seldom realized due to none, or lack of, commercial performance. To this end, the TIM team needs to be up to the task. Staking for security purposes and Mining will be the primary activities available to investors.
Another far too common cause for Utility failures is that the ICO’s and news outlets focus on the tech and speculate on potential uses rather than evaluating the business model; often resulting in unrealistic or perhaps even intentionally misleading predictions. TIM is not offering current revenue predictions. The original "Token Appreciation Model" was based on a taxi enterprise and since abandoned. Although the Taxi model remains part of TIM’s future goals, there is no evidence as to any viable taxi app ever existing. How old data factors into current appreciation realities is unknown. These market direction changes are not common among Utility ICO’s. With an adoption potential such as TIM’s, many matters may be explained.
With TIM’s future value largely dependent on company revenue deriving from billions of transactions on the TIM chain, we feel some pro forma data would be reasonable.
The public chain itself is "free for all to use", standard Ethereum transaction fees notwithstanding. Therefore, determining how this might affect future value is impossible. TIM is not promising future token values, as they may have in the past. TIM will drive a hugely one-off transaction token model, new geolocation technology, quantum security and transaction speeds approaching the speed of light by comparison to the best the blockchain can today offer. If the team is able to roll out and market a TIM geolocation application technology to achieve mass adoption by the financial world: our opinion is that TIM may eclipse Ripple as the world’s premier financial transaction protocol. I am not going to get into the weeds about the tech. Read the white paper.
The TIM ICO is hoping to sell 110,000,000 tokens @ $.15 each ($19,000,000) with a life cap of 1.1 billion tokens. If TIM becomes all it claims this might well be the best investment opportunity in years. Future token value for investors would seem to be dependent on the pace and scope of adoption of a developed commercial use. If they achieve sufficient adoption goals, (unpublished) the remaining 900,000,000 tokens will be minted and put into circulation over the next 3 years. Staking must end when the hard (life) cap is reached, and this would allow for up to a 10:1 ROI if the ICO sells out.
Utilizing the TIM blockchain for private use requires vesting. Entities, such as banks must hold a specified amount of TIM to make use of the TIM blockchain’s capabilities. Others use is 100% free: we are not sure where the line lies. Investors holding TIM tokens can become involved in staking to bring further security to the protocol. (TIM has said Staking will bring security, but did not clarify if the definition of staking is correct in the sense that a reward will be obtained by the stake.) There are questions concerning how staking and mining will be paid-out once the 1.1 billion cap is reached and no more TIM tokens would be available for payment. (No firm information is available.) Other than Staking and Mining, the future value may well depend on trading and demand. Should blockchain use and token demand rise, it is likely some exchanges may list the TIM token in the future. This alone should effect values favorably. Currently, the Foundation has no plans to list its token for trading according to the latest Q&A. This may be a valid strategy to ensure the startup performance.
At present, TIM requires private users to hold a stake of (10,000) TIM. This amount will likely be changed by the company in the future. The TIM token is divisible to many decimal places and perhaps those individual pieces can be used instead of full tokens to meet future needs should 1.1 billion tokens not be sufficient to accommodate demand arising from mass adoption, adding another dimension to future value.
An argument can be proffered for increased value if the technology works as advertised and if the company meets its adoption estimate-to-actual model, whatever that may be. We can make no guess by how much value may increase in the future. There was a time we understood what would make TIM tokens worth hundreds of dollars by December. Without fully understanding the new model or metrics due to necessary secrecy and changing metrics, we cannot make such value predictions now. Keep in mind this is not because we don't feel comfortable: it is literally due to the fact the information needed to give a sound number is not offered on any public TIM source we can find. Logic would suggest the team did not alter its focus midstream to pursue the financial world’s transactions only to achieve less token value, but we will all have to wait to see the truth of that logic.
In fairness to investors, we can also make an argument for a decline in value. If the team does not achieve its adoption targets or begin actual operations on a timely basis, then the existing supply will outstrip demand and price might fall while the book value remains @ $.15. In such case, the rules of supply and demand would govern. Unless goals are achieved (as TIM is a use token) the token value could fall to $.01 or less until adoption and demand drive price. Hopefully, another metric will govern this rule and create a "security" for investors.
It is impossible for anyone to predict what will happen with TIM unless you know something the public does not. We can say what first attracted us was TIM’s geolocation tech being used in a broad spectrum of real-world applications, not primarily financial transactions or even the ones the foundation had mentioned. We may only guess as to what the future for this amazing technology might be. Currently, we do not know the time interval after the ICO before TIM will begin meaningful commercial operations. With the value for any investment being dependent on operating a sustainable concern, without knowing when revenue begins, our best conclusion is this: if the stars align and the team performs - TIM is likely a longer-term investment. There is no surety we can offer as to its prospects if you are a short-term player. The geo-tech is real from what the foundation reports, making the investment potential real.
If you have questions about this opportunity all answers should come from the team, as success or failure rest solely with their collective acumen.
We have certain professional differences with the Foundation, we accept and conclude these may also be the result of a language barrier, allowing all parties to be right from their perspective. We have avoided slanderous accusations, but many have been made in our direction. We hope for substantive retractions and apologies in the future when the smoke clears.
Disclaimer: None of the above information is investment advice of any kind. Please do your own research and make your own determination before investing in ANY token!
If you are interested in the tech read this TIM Reddit Article Regarding Tech.
