Although I intended to continue and publish part 2, given the findings, it's actually looking like this will be more like a 5 part series. The findings seem to illustrate patterns of secrecy, ambiguity and *possibly something more sinister. That is my opinion and it's not a fully formed opinion by the way, but given the claims made (don't worry I have screen shots of the original site's content for continuity and research purposes), secrecy is this companies worst enemy. Transparency is needed, otherwise given the current climate of illegitimate and in some cases, fraudulent ICO's, they run the risk of landing on one of the many scam ICO lists to say the least.

According to my findings, I still have not seen the niche solution they are providing, nor can I even identify the problem. Time will tell, and unfortunately, due to my hectic schedule and lack of liquidity ($ wise), my investigation will be delayed more than I'd originally estimated.

Intent: Find truth no matter where it leads. (plus I enjoy a good investigation)