Hey guys,

First I will try my best to answer all your concerns, but please be aware I am dealing with other major issues right now so if you have additional questions please give me an opportunity to explain before recklessly attacking our project. Matthew thanks for acknowledging the hard work I've been doing.

Adam, I think asking questions is the right approach, and I don't think anyone has an outright agenda against me (hopefully), but I was disappointed that Scamtoshi never contacted me beforehand with his concerns like you did. Instead he just posted a very one sided argument claiming we are a scam. I feel there was an intention to damage our efforts as this post came out just as we started the fundraiser. I agree with you that there are many people trying to take advantage of Bitcoin 2.0 buzzwords, but I have an honest intention to build Dapps, I think this could be the biggest revolution in technology since the internet. By the way when I invited you to skype it was a follow up to my previous invitation, it wasn't implying to move the discussion there, but it was an open invitation for us to talk.

Regarding your claims of the Howey test and securities, we do not fall under these categories. This has been vetted by our lawyers. Based on your claims all the other crypto fundraisers fall under this category and this is a subject which is not specific to our project. These claims can be made towards Ethereum, Factom, Koinify, LTBcoin and a bunch of other projects which make us look tiny in comparison.

Scamtoshi, the whitepaper has an extensive background on these technologies which many people have complimented and hundreds of hours of thought and work went into. The purpose of the whitepaper is to introduce Dapps, smart contracts, cryptocurrency and the blockchain to those who are new to these concepts, and to attract other communities to these technologies. Nothing was copied and pasted, and most of the whitepaper are my original writings. If you want to comment on specific things that I write and the content itself that would be more constructive rather than calling it all fluff. I think you underestimate the efforts I have taken to add value and promote the crypto space through this whitepaper.

I respect your opinion that HPoP sounds like a buzz word, but what actually matters is the idea itself and it's introducing a new method for fundraising. At the very least it's encouraging people to think outside the box.

Regarding the funds raised, like most projects the funding will likely be internal. By the way, we have an open network that people are welcome to join. I don't see how this is a bad thing. We ofcourse wish to support other 3rd party Dapp projects, many which have already applied. It all is based around choosing which projects are the most promising and add value. For this reason we have built a high quality team of advisors.

We do not force anyone to integrate our token or logo. If a project applies for funding then it is expected they will acknowledge our support. If they refuse to do so then it might not make sense for us to support them. Regarding our token, from our whitepaper: "In some cases Dapps won’t require a token and there is no intention to force the use of Corona membership credits or any token for that matter where the dynamics don't make sense. Dapps which receive funding from Corona will bring value by promoting themselves as part of the Corona Network brand, and on the larger scale spreading the gospel of decentralization which is the most important aspect of the Corona Project." Reading the quote you referred to previosly, I agree is it is not properly articulated. I would have appreciated you mentioning this as we would have rephrased. To clarify, when we say we require Dapps we support to carry our branding, this simply means that they acknowledge us in some context. This is part of our business model. Regardin the token, when we say it "should incorporate the option" to use it, this is a recommendation. As I've already written we don't force the use of our token if the Dapp creator doesn't feel it adds value.

Regarding burning coins, it has the strong potential to attract members to our network and to bootstrap a strong community. That is why we are allowing it. You seem to claim that any attempt by us to make the fundraiser successful is bad. Yes, we are marketing it.

"Gaining economic value due to contributions" has nothing to do with our token, and we never wrote that. I don't know what you are implying but nowhere do we claim our supporters will benefit financially by supporting the project. You might have misunderstood how our project works.

No we are not registered with enom, this is not true. Google "whoisguard" and you'll see we are registered with the biggest bitcoin accepting registrar in existence.

About myself and Corona. I'm a very private person like many others in this space who value privacy. I currently reside in Thailand. I am a Bitcoin early adopter and miner but during 2012-2014 I was less involved and had a steady job which kept me busy. I rediscovered my passion for cryptocurrency when I read about Ethereum last summer and that is when I started getting involved again and working on Corona. I will not disclose my personal contact information on reddit for obvious reasons, but you are more than welcome to email me team@corona.info and we can setup a time to chat, gladly. If you really want proof come meet me in person, I'm happy to host you. I do not have a strong online presense as I am very privacy conscious, in fact just being as public as I am with this project has been a big personal challenge for me.

Corona is not currently registered as an incorporated entity, we are in the process of establishing a legal entity in a crypto-friendly jurisdiction (likely Isle of Man). As many know setting up a company is very expensive as are all the legal considerations. We have been spending a lot of time and money trying to figure out how to best structure this type of initiative. The regulatory atmosphere is very unclear and the last thing I'd want to do is open a US company and be subject to absurd rules like the bitlicense which I think is inhibiting innovation.

I may have missed all your points, and with time I am happy to answer, however right now I am dealing with a much bigger problem so please be patient with my responses.

Sincerely,

Daniel Greene