There are 3 main reasons this project is called a scam, the first 2 came out from 1 video.
.
MD5 Encryption
TXs delaying to reach the monitor
ICO rules changes on demand
.
Before going forward, I would like everyone to understand what an Alpha version is, and I will use Wikipedia: . "The alpha phase of the release life cycle is the first phase to begin software testing, In this phase, developers generally test the software using white-box techniques. Additional validation is then performed using black-box or gray-box techniques, by another testing team. Moving to black-box testing inside the organization is known as alpha release."
.
The "fault" of the team is that when you do an Alpha, you don't go public, this is not how Alphas work, even after Alpha, there is a closed-Beta before public-Beta. But they decided to go for it and even rush it to meet the schedule, and how I see it is because nowadays almost all ICOs are on paper they wanted added value for their ICO. Not going to judge if it was good or bad as a public opinion, but for me it was good because I can understand a few technical stuff.
.
- Let's start with MD5 Encryption. Like the guy on the video said, MD5 encryption can be hacked, and this is TRUE. What is also true is that this can be changed easily by the development team, and they even stated is in the upcoming update (256bit encryption). You can find this info here: https://credits.com/en/Home/New_Ins/2281 (check at the bottom the schedule for the 1-month updates). This is minor for me, a) because no one would hack a testnet, and b) this shows NOTHING for the dev team, it was an easy implementation to meet schedule with zero bad impact.
.
- At the same Video, the content creator said that his transactions did not appear in the Monitor, but then admitted, “after some time they appeared, or something like that”, and skipped it fast to the MD5 issue. So this was the part that people start calling that this is not a blockchain, Again from the same official source: https://credits.com/en/Home/New_Ins/2281 (check at the bottom the schedule for the 1-month updates). It is stated that this is a known problem in the ALPHA (- There will be a delay in the display of transaction data in Monitor).
I don’t know if these 2 bugs were in place before the video or after, but even if they got in there after the video is fine because it’s an ALPHA and devs will use our tests to find bugs so the team can fix them. Other bugs include some negative balances appearing only on online wallet (at least I wasn’t able to reproduce it on desktop wallet).
.
- Many hyped ICOs have problems the day of the fundraising, being gas wars, problematic smart contracts, whales you name it. I have not seen one ICO that everyone was happy, someone would feel cheated. We now know that the whitelist had its problems and they had to go for 0.5 public sale instead. What happened with Credits ICO was funny because even if they wanted to be this way, they wouldn’t pull that off. Let me explain.
I’m a result oriented person and the result of this ICO was that for 10+ hours, small guys had the time to invest, which is rarely the case (you could see 0.1-0.4 eth transactions going in, which means they didn’t even afford the max of 0.5) and after that, an almost 10 eth cap put in place for the bigger guys, which they had like 5 hours to get as much as they wanted. Total 15 hours of an ICO, that didn’t have gas wars and just worked. Yes, some people might lost the opportunity because they thought they had 2 days for their 0.5 whitelisted contribution, but sadly this was the group of people that are not happy by this ICO, as said before, you can’t have everyone happy. So I find the rule changes made after the difficulties, on point after seeing the result of the ICO.
That said, I was one of the people used 15+ wallets to get through their desired amount, and after raising the cap to 10 eth I felt dumb for all the effort I put, but I didn’t mind.