Talk:List of highest-funded crowdfunding projects

1658:

a sourcable USD values. For block chains, this becomes difficult, because the ICO are based in ETH. What was the conversion rate for ETH to USD on the date of the ICO? How much fluctuation over the course of the ICO? Is there a source to back it? Many of the entries added have stated only a quantity of ETH being raised, which makes their position in the list incorrect at best, as well as only being primarily sourced. There's a claim above that the USD to ETH conversion is frequently quoted in mainstream news, and yet most entries are missing them. Entries without sourcing need to be removed, this is a core policy of Knowledge. It's also clear some canvassing is going on, which usually happens from Reddit whenever someone applies policy and cleans up unsourced or improperly sourced entries in lists. To clarify again: If the sourcing is available, that's great. This list has seen a flood of projects however with no secondary reliable sourcing, or no sourcing at all, and the

1678:

quantity of ETH being raised, which makes their position in the list incorrect at best, as well as only being primarily sourced." I agree about the sourcing, but the currency that the token sale took place in has no bearing on whether it should be included in the list. USD is only used as a unit of account to allow for ready comparison between projects. The actual crowdfunding doesn't have to have been done using USD. "Entries without sourcing need to be removed, this is a core policy of Knowledge." I've been involved in numerous Knowledge discussions for years, and I've never seen this expressed as a core policy of Knowledge. Please correct me if I'm wrong with a link to a written directive. From what I've gathered, in the case where the existence of sources is highly plausible, the policy is to ask for other editors to contribute sources, and only if it's clear such sources don't exist, then remove them.

1760:. Ether has trading volumes close to bitcoin's so its price volatility is probably slightly above it, and still well below 20% per day. Second, the spot price of cryptocurrency is always known, so the USD equivalent of the contributions at the end of the crowdsale can always be calculated. Volatility in the price of the currency used in the crowdfund contributions is a poor reason to not include the project in a list of crowdfunded projects. Your "print money" argument for removal of these projects is a non sequitur. The tokens issued in exchange for a crowdfund contribution are no different than a API key or preorder voucher one receives when they participate in a crowdfunded preorder of a product. The fact that these tokens can be transferred and have market value has no bearing on the definition of the event wherein the funds were raised as a crowdfund. 1132:

value? If so, I don't see that being part of any definition of crowdfunding I've come across, or that has been used as a criteria for inclusion in this list to date. Moreover, a determination of what monetary value a project has that does not depend on what the market is willing to pay seems totally subjective and unconventional. If anything the blockchain projects have more credible monetary value than most of the other projects, given the tokens sold in the crowdsales are traded and have a market derived price. The same cannot be said for a preorder of a video game that is as of yet nonexistent. With respect to this: "where they claim a certain amount raised that is not in any known currency we can convert." Which currency are you referring to that you say cannot be converted?

1411:

articles you found in the mainstream media that mention the word "ponzi" and "blockchain" do not categorize all blockchain crowdfunding projects as ponzi schemes. One of them even holds up Gnosis as an example of a legitimate blockchain project, and Gnosis is on this list! If anything your own source argues against the position that you're making I ask that you please stop misrepresenting the sources you're providing in an effort to have blockchain crowdfunding projects removed from a list that by every definition, they are entirely qualified for.

347: 326: 357: 545: 524: 1377:

supporting evidence. I reiterate, The Financial Times and the Atlantic Monthly articles do not assert token sales are all ponzi schemes. And two articles from The Financial Times and the Atlantic Monthly asserting something, respectively, is not the same thing as "The Financial Times and the Atlantic Monthly" asserting something. This may be semantic nitpicking to you, but I think it's an important distinction, and that it's important to be accurate and not resort to hyperbole.

989:

its crowdfunding model has arguably entered a grey area of monetised preordering; and its status as 'the largest crowdfunded game' has seen a great deal of use as a marketing tool. For these reasons I would say that CIG's self-reported funding total has some serious conflicts of interest as a source, and certainly it merits scrutiny that a single editor is editing it into every article he can manage and aggressively removing any edits he sees as 'biased against Star Citizen'.

1708:

tagged several as needing citations. Several more still need tagging. There's no time limit on this, they can be removed immediately within policy, but I am not removing them as a courtesy for now. I will probably remove them in a couple weeks time, maybe a month, if the sourcing isn't fixed. As for whether or not USD is directly used as the currency for a crowdfunding project, I've never contested that. I am only stating that it must be

941:, which have themselves gleaned their information from primary sources such as companies' own websites. It is understandable that this can be problematic in certain Knowledge articles such as this one, because any third-party sources that we might use for the amounts that ongoing crowdfunding campaigns have raised so far will either be or quickly become outdated. Luckily, Knowledge policies are not set in stone, and we can establish a 1876:). These are investment schemes and clearly not crowdfunding in the traditional sense (where a product is pre-sold or users make charitable contributions). Even though their legitimacy is highly questionable, whether they are legitimate or not does not really matter for the purposes of the present discussion; being investment programs, legitimate or not, they should be on their own page/within their own category and not on this one. 825:-- An attempt to distinguish types would be welcome. I think it might be challenging but the key thing needed to do it will be building an agreed-upon view of what those types, and having a clear list of the characteristics of the various types. In other words, if a consensus can be achieved on the types and what constitutes each, then it would be rather trivial to add the column to the table, or handle it any of a number of ways. 1079:, Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Original Research is not allowed. In my opinion, any reference to a project home page is invalid. Then there is the question about references to Kickstarter pages, etc. Should they be considered third-party source? I don't think so. Kickstarter is not a third party in this case, they are one of the actors. 1493:" raised in a known currency we can convert. ". Why do you keep saying this? They raise Ethereum, which can be converted and the amounts raised are public ledger. Anyone can easily go to the ICO contract address and verify themselves that they have indeed raised that amount. That's a nonsense reason for removal. I agree with adding a warning to them though. Maybe not as a ponzi scheme but as a purely speculative investment. 650: 629: 452: 431: 254: 233: 202: 555: 1396:

their ‘high yield’ investment opportunities." I note also the Atlantic Monthly was titled "The Rise of Cryptocurrency Ponzi Schemes" and the FT article was titled "It's Not Just a Ponzi, It's a Smart Ponzi." So I'm not being hyperbolic: it is a fact that third parties are calling the ICOs Ponzis. One of us is misrepresenting the source material here, and it isn't me.

2429:. All the factual table content can be copied straight across (there's no copyright in non-creative content such as this), but none of the descriptions in the Notes column should be copied into the new version until and unless they have been thoroughly checked. A much simpler solution, if there's consensus for it here, would be to just remove that column altogether. 722: 1353:. The Financial Times and the Atlantic Monthly are verifiable sources that assert these things are investment products/ponzi schemes. The sources cited to support Ethereum projects' inclusion in this article are self-referential or barely better than press releases. Knowledge operates on the basis of reliable, objective third-party sources it can verify - 2970: 2388: 2513: 795:

is not donated but invested (i.e. with the main purpose of receiving more money in the future), receiving only the token bought (i.e. similar to a bond/share, which has no more uses beyond buying/selling). In (3) is even clearer the investment nature of it, as The DAO is a hedge fund by definition, and more similar to an

1742:

returns cryptocurrency tokens of its own which are then listed on exchanges and float in value. Basically it's printing money. For this reason I suggest removal of these schemes as they differ from crowd funds, which do not print money but which rather produce products which are given to or sold to the original backers.

2521: 1282:

classify as Ponzi schemes or legit investments." The Atlantic Monthly piece does not affirm that Gnosis isn't a scam, it merely suggests Gnosis "could be bait for an aggressive regulator" i.e. it's probably illegal. Investment schemes of questionable legality have no place on this webpage with legitimate crowdfunds.

3203:

I can see that this has been discussed quite a bit in the past. However, I would suggest that this page is pretty useless as is. All the blockchain projects listed here are not really legitimate crowdfunding projects. I believe those should be removed from this page, potentially moved to another page

1926:

The definition of "crowdfunding" should be construed narrowly so as to exclude investment scams. Per your comment the equity crowdfunding should be removed and Mayday PAC should stay. Prior to the inclusion of the Ethereum projects on this page, investment programs and ponzi schemes were not included

1712:

what the final total in USD (or converted into USD) was, as that is the basis for determining a position and inclusion in the list. If that cannot be provided, it should be easy enough to create a list devoted to "Highest etherium based crowdfunding" or similar as an alternative place to track these.

1657:

It's very difficult to address multiple out-of-order mid-discussion replies. Since some people seem to be misunderstanding: Knowledge requires reliable sourcing. I don't know that Coindesk has been accepted as such, but its a start. This list sorts and is listed by USD, so it's very important to have

875:

sourcing issues across many of its entries, so what is to be done about this? We can't just leave '3rd party source required' tags on each claimed funding total indefinitely; if a claim cannot be sourced, it must be removed and replaced with one that is reliable. The Star Citizen entry especially has

1891:

Neither source calls all token sales ponzi schemes. And you're right that these are nontraditional crowdfunding projects (like you mention, most crowdfunding has historically been used for pre-ordering hypothetical products), but they're crowdfunding nonetheless, by definition. The term crowdfunding

1599:

Blockchain based crowdfunding meets the definition of crowdfunding and thus is appropriate to include in this page. Just because it uses nontraditional payment systems doesn't put it outside the definition of crowdfunding, which is agnostic to the technical mechanism of value transference. There can

1330:

The excerpt you're quoting from the FT opinion piece doesn't say all token sales are scams. It gives the opinion that fraudsters have taken advantage of the token sale model. Moreover, the same FT writer has been harshly criticizing Bitcoin since 2013, so you're being highly selective in your choice

1281:

The entire point of the Financial Times piece is to show that ICO promoters are combining various MLM and gamification tactics to create Ponzi games: "For instance, they could mix multi-level marketing, token sales, and games, to realize complex smart contracts, which would be very hard to correctly

1266:

That is false. Neither of your links call all token sales ponzi schemes. In fact, the first link you provided clearly calls one of the projects on this list (Gnosis) legitimate, and an example of a token sale that is not a scam, and none of the examples of scam token sales it lists are on this list.

1131:

I don't understand your criticism. Just to clarify, you're saying there is no credible corroboration of the amounts raised? With respect to this: "which don't have clear and obvious monetary values", are you claiming the criteria for inclusion in this list that the project being funded have monetary

3092:

There's an entry in this list called "Tuttle Twins" - it's an animated series for kids, it really was crowdfunded, but the source linked goes directly to their website, which no longer provides the $ 3,700,000 anywhere that I could find. Further, if that number is accurate, it should appear 84th on

2139:

for most blockchain entries in a USD valuation. Note: Block chains shouldn't be removed while this discussion is running. Those who have been removing them based on a claim that consensus to split exists need to pause. Removing the blockchains without starting the new list shouldn't have been done.

1982:

This isn't a list for donation crowdfunded projects. This is a list of crowdfunding projects. There can be a list for donation crowdfunded projects, but that would be a subset of this one. There is absolutely no consensus on your recommendation. It's actively being discussed. I would appreciate you

1395:

that "these projects are increasingly resembling classical ponzis, with the losses borne by ordinary blue-collar Americans," and "ICO fundraisers leverage the confusion around ‘blockchain technology’ to swindle uninformed consumers with false promises, dubious claims, and dishonest terms related to

988:

sources in the form of Kickstarter or other funding platforms. These can at least be presumed not to have a vested interest in the funding totals of specific projects. Star Citizen is exceptional, for a few reasons: its crowdfunding income has almost entirely been collected by the developer itself;

961:

available in order to comply with Knowledge's content policies. If we establish this as the new consensus for this article, then it would apply to all of the other entries as well. In other words, as long as a project's crowdfunding campaign is ongoing, the project is notable enough to have its own

794:

It is controversial and rises debate to compare (1) the "typical" Kickstarter-like crowdfunding with (2) cryptocurrency crowdsales (e.g. MasterCoin) and (3) with investments in a hedge fund (TheDAO). In (1) people donate money to support a project receiving rewards/perks in return. In (2) the money

2884:

Does anyone have an easy way to update that list of numbers? There are clearly several entrys that have no sources avalible and need to be removed. Also some have numbers on there that the sources say are much lower. Of course it is missing lots that have real sources. Should I just compile a list

2552:

In the example above the red highlighted text is a phrase of 30 words. And not any kind of words - it's not an art of a journalist but simply a text that, most likely, the journalists were copying from the presentation of the products. I'm sorry but I find it exaggerated to make such an issue from

1311:

The FT article doesn't say all, it says most: "And herein lies the issue with ICOs. Currently, they exist in the crevices of the law, exploiting an ambiguous state to the benefit of fraudsters. That may not always be the case, because the law will eventually adapt to limit the ambiguity. But while

1296:

The FT article doesn't call all token sales ponzi schemes. Your earlier claim is a mischaracterization. The Atlantic Monthly article doesn't claim that either, and praises Gnosis on several counts, which would be extremely inconsistent with a belief that it's a scam or ponzi scheme. In any case, a

901:

The last one posting a magazine link towards an article about SC reaching 100 millions is an excellent example of that. I was observing the crowdfunding amount in that period, and I know for a FACT that those articles didn't pop up until the OFFICIAL SC counter reached 100m itself (and if you want

3114:

ZrCoin has a variety of issues here - the source given does not claim they reached their ICO goal of $ 3.5m, and no source is given for the $ 4.2m number in the article. They have claimed, to different outlets at different times, $ 3.7m, $ 7m, and eventually $ 16m was raised off of the ICO. Their

2018:

Disagree. These are not crowd fundings, these are (likely illegal) investment scams and they do not belong on this page. Saying that all ICOs belong on the page because some ICOs are legitimate is like saying that "all pyramid schemes should be listed on this page because some pyramid schemes are

1707:

policy. Many of these entries have been unsourced, badly sourced, and tagged as such for a long time. Many have been reverted the moment they were added without a source (By numerous different patrolling editors). While an IP initially removed all the block chains, LarsPensjo has undone that, and

956:

that would indicate that the Star Citizen website's counter is incorrect, I see no problem with using the Star Citizen website's counter as a temporary source for the amount that the Star Citizen crowdfunding campaign has raised so far. However, once the Star Citizen crowdfunding campaign ends, I

2937:

Unless I'm just being particularly unobservant, there's no key to the color coding in the "funds raised" column of the chart. It would appear that red is for unmet goals and green for met/surpassed goals, but that doesn't seem to be consistently applied nor does it explain uncolored boxes. Could

2158:

There are numerous mainstream media reports on the USD equivalent values raised. If a project cannot have its USD value raised verified, then it should be considered for removal. But making a blanket generalization about blockchain projects, many of which have verified USD values for their funds

1115:

This list is becoming increasingly populated by what most amounts to self-sourced Ethereum based block chain projects, which don't have clear and obvious monetary values. I don't have a solution, but starting a discussion in case anyone has ideas. For example, some of the recent entries are only

1094:

As far as confirming the exact amount raised, Kickstarter and Indiegogo are independent of the subject. The subject cannot change the amount raised at a whim on these pages. The total is what users have actually contributed. Compare this to referencing Star Citizen's official website, which they

962:

Knowledge article, and there are no reliable sources indicating that their website's counter is incorrect, then we can assume good faith and use the crowdfunding campaign's own counter as a source until the campaign is over and a reliable third-party source has been found. How does that sound? --

2126:

I missed that Flibber2388 had added this RfC section, and had posted the following as a new section for a split discussion, so am merging it in: This is a new fresh section to discuss a proposed splitting of Ethereum based block chains to a different list. The basic rationale is that it is very

1544:

Like has been explained to you several times, we CAN convert the amount raised to a currency we can use for comparison. Ether's price is widely available, from reputable sources like Coinbase. It can be readily converted at dozens of exchanges around the world with a aggregate trading volume of

1410:

The blog post in question is not a credible source. It's a Bitcoin personality, with no journalistic credentials or credibility, writing a post on his personal blog. Again: there is no basis, in the form of a preponderance of evidence, for your claims about blockchain crowdfunding. Even the two

1376:

The claim that token sales are all ponzi schemes is very much just your opinion. Even the two articles you cite, and falsely mischaracterize as representative of media opinion in general, do not say that all token sales are ponzi schemes. Your statements are simply wrong, and totally lacking in

895:

First of all, IMO it's an stupidity to talk about third-party sources to begin with, and that tag should be removed in favor of "Kickstarter/IndieGoGo-confirmed", or something like that. Do you think that companies usually allows other agencies to investigate how much money they have spent on a

2306:- There is no reason to restrict the filter. If other lists are needed with other filters, they should go to a new page. It is wrong to change the purpose of this page. Using the blockchain to get money is just one way. There are other ways, e.g. using Kickstarter. This page includes them all. 1741:

It is impossible to verify those figures as the cryptocurrency FX rates fluctuate wildly (+-20%) on a daily basis. These are not really crowd funds insofar as they are conversions of one cryptocurrency into another - in exchange for depositing the bitcoins or ethers to the project, the project

1015:

Projects that have a vested interest in their campaign's funding total are indeed something to look out for, but we can't assume that a project has lied about their campaign's funding total just because they use it as a marketing tool. I don't think we have any basis to dispute Star Citizen's

1943:

1. There is no basis for any of your claims: blockchain crowdfunding is not a scam. The sources you provided in purported support of this claim that they're scams don't even say that, and those are only two sources among hundreds that discuss blockchain crowdfunding. 2. As I demonstrated, the

1677:

These are excellent questions and I agree need to be discussed and answered. I would just urge you to keep an open mind until others have had a chance to respond. Lack of citations does not imply credible sources don't exist. With respect to this: "Many of the entries added have stated only a

1027:

If it can be reliably sourced that part of a campaign's funding total comes from monetized preordering, then that fact can be included in the entry's Notes section in order to avoid giving the impression that the funding total is entirely based on a model of crowdfunding that does not include

1896:

calls investment schemes with many participants 'crowdfunding', and these are strictly equity investments. As another example of the conventional usage of 'crowdfunding': several organizations, such as the The National Crowdfunding Association of Canada, have the term 'crowdfunding' in their

1508:

If we cannot convert the amount raised into a currency we can use for comparison, then we can not accurately place them on this list. That's a pretty simple statement. Either way, the greater bulk of these had no source at all, or only their own website. They are non-notable projects with no

2250:

Your comment about these being pyramid schemes is completely baseless. These are crowdfunded projects. If there is going to be a list for only charity crowdfunding, it should be a separate page. The title of this page does not discriminate between which kind of crowdfunded project the list

2127:

difficult to source a valid USD conversion of the amount of Ethereum raised in the ICOs. We can, in most cases, source the amount of Ethereum raised, but getting a valid and reliably sourced conversion to USD, for which this list is based in, is difficult. The blockchains would be split to

1789:

You're grossly misrepresenting what those articles say. I explained that in the discussion. It's also off-topic, as this discussion is about whether the USD values for the crowndfunds are verifiable, not whether there's support (there isn't) for your belief that token sales are all scams.

2681:? Any CopyVio Left? i hope nobody is doing this out of spite for the wretched ICO's, we can be objective here.. the ostensible reason was CopyVio so just shoot the instances of copyright violation, we don't need to shoot the ico's, UNLESS Knowledge has a policy AGAINST ico's, do we? —-— 3000:

Wyrmwood Gaming has hit 4.82 million on their new kickstarter for a new gaming table today in less than 24 hours with 58 days remaining in the campaign. It't to soon to know the final number so im not adding it to the table just yet, though others feel free if i never get back to this

2159:

raised, doesn't have any justification. If anything, there can be new pages that are subsets of this list, for different kinds of crowdfunded projects, but I don't see rationale for not including a particular kind of crowdfunded project - those on the blockchain - in the general list.

2517: 2908:? The game was originally sold via a 2015 Kickstarter campaign which raised $ 386,104 from 4,904 backers. and after strong early reviews, a second Kickstarter campaign was launched on April 4th and delivered in November which raised about $ 4 million from over 40,000 backers. 2231:

and crowdfunding, despite broad similarities in the methods employed and consumers targeted by each method. There is also the question of whether ICO schemes are even legal, which would go some way to explaining why good third party sources Ferret seeks are difficult to find.

1822:

I agree that projects need verifiable sources for the US dollar value of the funds raised. Some of the blockchain crowdfunding projects already have credible sources, but we need to work to get more of them sourced, and remove the ones that prove impossible to source.

1297:

ponzi scheme is a well defined concept and token sales don't meet the definition. There are also numerous other news articles that discuss token sales and do not characterize them categorically as 'ponzi schemes'. Your claim is simply misleading and poorly supported.

3069:

my family 🔥🚉 for contact with you get a chance please let me know what you think 🤔 for payment on eat it up to be able it tryes to open the office at my house at office at my phone app every time it is only option atm 🏧 for payment on Paypal to be able to do it⛽

2885:

and make a lot of changes at once? Or am I missing easy formating and edditing option. Cause as it stands pretty much anyone can go in and add a company with no sources and pretty much no one will take it out cause it takes 20 minutes just to update the numbering.

1425:

Some ICOs are scams, some are not. But it is not the case that all of them are scams. That is the purpose of using a reliable source for citations. If you are not happy with an entry, add a "citation needed" tag, and remove it after a while if none is provided.

2023:

is a completely different product which doesn't work like the donation-crowdfunded projects which traditionally populated this list. Because of both the newness and the legal uncertainty surrounding ICO projects, consensus to move blockchain projects to

2592:

Great. IMO, this is a very good example of extreme interpretation of the copyright rules - not copying even a phrase that was made for marketing and which their creators are actually happy to see copied. Anyways, I complied with this requirement and I

2509: 1931:

projects, where money is freely given with no expectation of profit in return. People are induced to give money to ICOs and other investment scams because of the promise that they will be made rich. As a result, and as evidenced by reporting in

164: 3115:

public-facing materials simply state that "ICO successfully completed!" but no numbers are given on their website, and because it appears the project was abandoned in 2019, it's possible final or accurate numbers may never become available.

1808:, and having verifiable USD values that can be utilized for the list entries. That applies for any entry in the list, not just blockchains. Blockchain entries in particular have simply been problematic as a group as far as sourcing goes. -- 1095:

fully control. They can put any number they want there, however they want. There's no way to verify it. Keep in mind that most of this discussion section dealt with Star Citizen, and the promotional pushing of a now-blocked editor. --

732: 2002:

This is a list of crowd funding projects, which is not restricted to certain categories. If there is a need for a list limited to donation crowdfunded, please go ahead and create such a page. Do not change the purpose of this page.

1513:

sourcing. Anything added back needs to have solid sourcing, not just a link to the project's own page. I'd even go so far as to say there should be a requirement that the project itself be notable first, and have its own article. --

2334:

what was the result of the three previous discussions on this talk page? i do not see anybody summarizing them to indicate a definitive course of action to do next to resolve the issues raised here.. has any Admin taken a look? —-—

2724:

I had an IP go to my Talk page recently in relation to this issue. Can someone please go to their Talk page and explain the situation to them? Someone who's had more experience with this article than myself is preferred. The IP is

2227:("ICO") is a sale of an investment product and not a crowdfund in any traditional sense. Including ICOs on this page is likely to confuse readers. It is as inappropriate to combine ICOs & Crowdfunding as it would be to combine 846:

I concur that this page has limited value with these two entirely different types of crowdfunding projects listed together. This list (that I have no connection to) is much closer to what people think of when they think of

2276:

to me looks like it includes ICOs and possibly a large number of other undesired items like PACs. Just saying that if it's a list of highest funded crowdsourcings with no other filter, then it seems all fair game. The

1944:

definition of crowdfunding is not limited to pre-orders of products. It refers to how the funds are raised, and not for what purpose. This can be seen in numerous instances of usage in legislation and in media reports.

1060:

You mention "grey area of monetised preordering" and accuse me of fanboyism only because I take care of updating the crowdfunding amount of several SC-related articles. And you call ME biased. How fantasticly ironic :P

753:* Could this column be made much wider? Ideally the contents of any column would take up no more than 2 lines. * Could some of the text and links in the Notes column be moved to the pages for the projects themselves? 1545:

nearly $ 2 billion a day. This is an established market and the currency is highly liquid and convertible. The $ USD equivalent of the ether is frequently quoted in mainstream news and is not a subject of controversy.

876:

been marked as such for four months with no sign of a source, despite having an editor updating it daily and showing very possessive behaviour towards it; the first 3rd-party source I could find on its funding was

55: 3093:

the list rather than 101st. Not sure how to tag this, as I believe the user likely cited the number when it was listed on the website and it was since removed - I don't believe that the source was always wrong.

1774:

See "Financial Times/Atlantic Monthly" discussion above. These blockchain crowd funds are being described by disinterested, reliable third party sources as Ponzi schemes, not as API keys or pre-order vouchers.

1361:

as the sources that support exclusion of blockchain projects generally (FT, Atlantic Monthly) are far stronger than those that are frequently used to support inclusion of a particular project (e.g. CoinDesk).

158: 700: 2173:

I'm not opposed to well sourced entries for USD valuation being kept here. Beyond that, I think the three participants here have said what they can, and we need some outside third party views. --

3292: 690: 3232: 308: 298: 2774: 2135:, as appropriate. A link to the new list would be inserted into the lead of this list. The goal is not to remove blockchains from Knowledge lists, but to address the inability to meet 3287: 3184:

When listing the end dates by descending order, the dates are listed in reverse alphabetical by their MONTH, not reverse chronologically. This does not happen for the ascending sort.

1960:

This places all ICOs in a very different category from garden-variety donation crowdfunded projects, which makes it misleading to include them here. ICOs have their own page, over at

750:

It's hard to skim down this list because of the huge breaks between entries, which is caused by long blocks of text in the very narrow Notes column. A couple of suggested solutions:

3143:

Some of the figures are in the 500 million USD range. Was this money crowdfunded from people hoping to get the product one day, or much of it paid once the product was available? -

1964:. Given that Ferret and BTCGeek both recommend listing ICOs on a page of their own (general blockchain discussion above), it appears we have reached consensus on that question. See 896:

game/project? Magazines and such almost always obtains the information FROM THE COMPANIES THEMSELVES. What "third-party" source is that if not an echo of the official statement? ¬¬U

3277: 3237: 601: 3227: 2660:

has removed some of the violation, is it safe to remove the tag? I notice that the article is now clean of copyvios from the 3rd link and very little remains from the other 2.

1756:

First of all, any currency can fluctuate wildly in a single day. The average daily volatility of bitcoin is nowhere near 20%. It looks to be more like 3-6%, with spikes to 9%:

803:

includes investment-type or equity-based crowdfunding, others argue to keep (2) and (3) in the table. I'd suggest just to at least differentiate both types in the table (maybe

274: 3272: 2046:

There is no support for your claim that these are "likely illegal investment scams. You're simply making things up and misrepresenting what your own sources are saying.

3046:

The source cited in that page lists the project at $ 170,000,000 USD based on the 2013 exchange rate. Seems like it would be pretty high up on the page? This wiki page

830:

So if such a distinction is worthwhile, suggest someone start a discussion on this Talk page about those type with a goal to see if a consensus might be achieved.

1035:. Article talk pages such as this are not the appropriate forum to discuss other editors' behavior; the appropriate forums are the other editor's talk page and/or 2826: 2822: 2808: 1897:

organization's name, and deal exclusively with equity crowdfunding. Finally, there is already a non-blockchain related equity crowdfunding project on the list:

1804:

For the record, I'm not really interested in the question of whether or not blockchains are ponzi schemes or anything like that. I'm only interested in meeting

1562:

All ICOs should probably go into a new page of their own, with cross-linking between the two. Ethereum ICOs can then become a special category in this article.

261: 238: 3297: 2758: 35: 2619:

but I removed them just to make completely sure there is no copyright violation. My edit was recently reverted, anyways, and that's probably a good idea. —

179: 2938:

someone who has more familiarity with this article add a key or note to the bottom of the table, or if it exists perhaps make it more prominent? Thanks!

146: 90: 1459:

No blockchains should be re-added without reliable secondary sourcing that proves their claims of an amount raised in a known currency we can convert.

3247: 666: 611: 413: 403: 2775:

https://web.archive.org/web/20151117030200/http://www.nltimes.nl/2015/10/28/vegetarian-butcher-hits-e2-5-million-crowdfunding-target-for-new-factory/

2616: 2371:

Are you going to decide a closing statement on this? I don't really see a clear consensus that can be read without a closure making a statement. --

3174: 3282: 3252: 506: 140: 3262: 3242: 3185: 3166: 2778: 496: 96: 3140:

to represent money received before first release of something. If people buy the finished product I wouldn't say the money was crowdfunded.

2128: 1727:

I've added sources for #4 Status and #6 TenX, for the USD equivalent amount raised. I'll try to add some more over the next couple of days.

3051: 2915: 657: 634: 136: 3267: 2939: 1494: 577: 379: 3071: 1616:

I can get behind that. It removes a lot of difficult to source or compare entries from this list. What would be the list name though?

3257: 2954: 2804:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

186: 2025: 1965: 1617: 1312:

the academics say blockchains “might really be the next ‘disruptive’ technology”, and consider the fraud to be only a side effect,

2525: 1920: 1873: 1249: 1175: 1031:

If you suspect that another editor has a conflict of interest, please follow the advice that is outlined in the last section of

472: 2784: 984:

Most other projects on the article don't have third-party sources either, which is its own deficiency, but they almost all have

877: 2583: 2539: 2434: 1696: 110: 41: 1869: 1245: 2132: 568: 529: 370: 331: 115: 31: 1600:

be an additional page that only displays blockchain crowdfunds, but that would be a subset of this list, not outside of it.

2099:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2699: 2353: 2325:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1116:

sourced to their own sites, where they claim a certain amount raised that is not in any known currency we can convert. --

152: 85: 3122: 3100: 2890: 2869: 2272:- It looks problematic, but unless the list is redefined to 'highest kickstarter efforts' or something, the big tent of 213: 1937: 903: 468: 464: 459: 436: 76: 2281:

is going to still have to find some outside valuation source, but other than that I don't see a reason this would be

1478:

If there is a reliable second source that also states the amount in a regular currency, then it should be accepted.

1217:

Fair enough, but I'll add the "citation needed" mark and give the original authors a chance to add more information.

2794: 2651: 2579: 2535: 2477: 2430: 2194:) it's impossible to accurately measure the funds actually raised and therefore rank-order the projects correctly. 2191: 2458:

At least one of the entries Justlettersandnumbers has pointed out is a kickstarter. It's not just blockchains. --

1392: 3027: 911:

Also, the last "3rd-party" crowdfunding amount I found is 131m from a Polygon article. So kudos for effort, pal.

728: 17: 2825:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

3213: 3193: 3189: 3170: 3152: 3126: 3104: 3079: 3059: 3010: 2987: 2962: 2947: 2923: 2894: 2874: 2741: 2719: 2704: 2672: 2632: 2610: 2587: 2566: 2543: 2495: 2467: 2453: 2444:

The blockchain project shills are to blame for this, just FYI everyone. This is why we can't have nice things.

2438: 2406: 2380: 2358: 2315: 2298: 2260: 2241: 2203: 2182: 2168: 2149: 2117: 2087: 2055: 2041: 2012: 1992: 1977: 1953: 1914: 1885: 1832: 1817: 1799: 1784: 1769: 1751: 1736: 1722: 1687: 1671: 1649: 1629: 1609: 1590: 1571: 1554: 1539: 1523: 1502: 1487: 1472: 1435: 1420: 1405: 1386: 1371: 1340: 1325: 1306: 1291: 1276: 1261: 1226: 1205: 1179: 1155: 1141: 1125: 1104: 1088: 1070: 1048: 998: 994: 971: 920: 889: 885: 839: 816: 783: 765: 3055: 2919: 2289:

that it is considered one and even then ... Star Citizen was also being tossed about as a fraud at one point

3209: 2943: 2419:

I've blanked this page because of repeated copyright violations from various sources, going back at least to

1498: 3118: 3096: 3075: 2886: 2860: 2766: 2726: 1692: 796: 120: 2958: 2028:

was reached. You should not have reverted my changes implementing that consensus with multiple reverts per

1196:. The burden is on you to provide sourcing for the content you want, otherwise it can be removed again. -- 576:

articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2779:

http://www.nltimes.nl/2015/10/28/vegetarian-butcher-hits-e2-5-million-crowdfunding-target-for-new-factory/

2762: 1066: 916: 3006: 2982: 2844:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2832: 2449: 2294: 2237: 2224: 2199: 2113: 2105: 2037: 2020: 1973: 1961: 1881: 1854: 1780: 1747: 1645: 1637: 1586: 1535: 1401: 1367: 1321: 1287: 1257: 933:. I don't think anyone here is trying to pick on Star Citizen in particular. Knowledge is meant to be a 761: 219: 2765:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2445: 2290: 2233: 2195: 2109: 2033: 1969: 1933: 1877: 1776: 1743: 1641: 1582: 1531: 1397: 1363: 1317: 1283: 1253: 852: 356: 346: 325: 2911: 2668: 2501: 2491: 2487: 2311: 2307: 2008: 2004: 1927:

in this list. This is because investment programs and ponzi schemes are fundamentally different from

1483: 1479: 1431: 1427: 1222: 1218: 1187: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1084: 1080: 859: 3002: 721: 3148: 1044: 990: 967: 942: 938: 881: 172: 66: 665:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

544: 523: 378:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

273:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

3205: 2282: 1936:, regulators are seriously considering whether ICO schemes are illegal. There are also questions 1160:

Coming from Ethereum is not a criteria for being deleted. Please use the usual recommendations.

812: 81: 2829:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

2845: 2737: 2693: 2402: 2347: 2083: 1567: 1358: 1062: 912: 62: 2785:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150619051949/http://blog.tilt.com/top-10-crowdhoster-campaigns/

2482:

Please give a detailed example how one of the notes violates a copyright. E.g. You linked to

2977: 2715: 2463: 2376: 2256: 2178: 2164: 2145: 2051: 1988: 1949: 1910: 1893: 1828: 1813: 1795: 1765: 1732: 1718: 1700: 1683: 1667: 1659: 1625: 1605: 1550: 1519: 1468: 1416: 1382: 1336: 1302: 1272: 1201: 1193: 1151: 1137: 1121: 1100: 771: 757: 2852: 2628: 2606: 2562: 1463:

must be met, and a bunch of primary sourced only promotion entries should be kept out. --

934: 930: 855: 560: 362: 1192:

I didn't do the original removal, but since you've put it all back, please be mindful of

3144: 2811:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2228: 1391:

I introduce the blog post quoted by the FT article, an open letter on Hacker Noon that

1350: 1040: 1036: 963: 958: 662: 2851:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

3221: 2788: 1032: 835: 822: 808: 779: 2730: 2682: 2678: 2661: 2395: 2366: 2336: 2273: 2076: 2029: 1865: 1563: 1346: 1316:." Objective third parties say the things are scams. So should this encyclopaedia. 1241: 1076: 1021: 1017: 953: 904:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tMAP0fg-AKScI3S3VjrDW3OaLO4zgBA1RSYoQOQoNSI

804: 800: 649: 628: 1905:

Crowdfunding refers to how the funds are raised, not what the funds are used for.

1357:. There is also the issue of source quality - listing these ICOs right now may be 2798: 902:

proof of that, just compare any article's time and date with the data from here:

2818: 2795:

https://archive.is/20140118065513/https://fundanything.com/adamcarolla?locale=en

2711: 2459: 2372: 2286: 2278: 2252: 2220: 2174: 2160: 2141: 2136: 2047: 1984: 1945: 1906: 1901:, and another 'nontraditional' crowdfunding project that is not equity funding: 1824: 1809: 1805: 1791: 1761: 1728: 1714: 1709: 1704: 1679: 1663: 1621: 1601: 1546: 1515: 1464: 1460: 1412: 1378: 1354: 1332: 1298: 1268: 1212: 1197: 1147: 1133: 1117: 1096: 949: 3028:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/wyrmwood/modular-gaming-table/description

2905: 2817:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2657: 2620: 2598: 2597:

the descriptions of the elements in the list that I've added some time ago. —

2571: 2554: 906:). So unless it's KS/IGOGO stuff, there's no stuff like "third party sources". 880:

from The Guardian, and I will be editing the article in accordance with this.

550: 352: 270: 2574:, content you add to Knowledge must be written in your own words, not copied 2075:. The change will be made once the article is clear of copyright violations. 1757: 937:

of information, summarizing information that has been gleaned from reliable

451: 430: 3204:

if need be, and this page restricted to legitimate crowdfunding projects.

1919:

Both sources refer to token sales generally as ponzi schemes. As does the

554: 253: 232: 831: 775: 573: 375: 807:), with a new column, so they are not to be confused with each other. -- 265:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to 1898: 266: 945:

for what procedure to follow in problematic articles such as this one.

746:

Can we improve the table layout by making the Notes column much wider?

2953:

I second your proposal. The color in the chart makes no sense to me.

1662:

to add such sourcing falls on those who want the entries added. --

853:

https://crowdfundingblog.com/most-successful-crowdfunding-projects/

799:

of a company searching for investors. As the current definition of

3047: 3042:

Maybe there is a reason why, but I don't see any mention of this:

1075:

There should be no references to Original Research. According to

790:

Classify crowdfunding types, weird comparing apples & oranges

3043: 3158:

Missing The Planetary Society's LightSail Kickstarter campaign?

716: 195: 26: 957:

think we should replace their website with the most reliable

2524:. Identical text is highlighted in red. The tool can't read 1983:

not engaging in blatant misrepresentation of the consensus.

2710:

The copyvio tag has no relation to the ICO discussions. --

2615:

Most of the notes were actually copied from another list -

2190:- as the price of Ether/Bitcoin is so volatile (dropped by 1902: 3163: 2769:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

2486:. How is the note for this entry violating any copyright? 1252:). If listed they should be listed with a health warning. 471:, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the 2251:

constitutes, and as such, it should include all of them.

1892:

applies to investment schemes as well. For example, the

374:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the 2594: 2530: 2505: 2426: 2421: 2129:

List of highest funded Ethereum initial coin offerings

171: 2019:

legitimate." This approach ignores the fact that the

1640:

has a page already. A far better home for this list.

1016:

self-reported funding total until someone provides a

3199:

Many Entries are Not Legitimate Crowdfunding Efforts

3044:

https://en.wikipedia.org/BD_Bacat%C3%A1#Crowdfunding

2223:

point above on raise amounts, it strikes me that an

1703:, which I've linked several times, is a part of the 661:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 572:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2821:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 1940:as to whether these schemes are legitimate or not. 3293:Mid-importance WikiProject Cryptocurrency articles 2789:http://blog.tilt.com/top-10-crowdhoster-campaigns/ 2108:products be included on this "crowdfunding" list? 1238:I recommend removal of Ethereum blockchain entries 2483: 1620:? This avoids it being tied to Ethereum only. -- 18:Talk:List of highest funded crowdfunding projects 3233:Mid-importance Finance & Investment articles 2285:. Pyramid schemes falls to the same must show 1146:Another day, another Ethereum project added. -- 44:for general discussion of the article's subject. 3157: 3288:List-Class WikiProject Cryptocurrency articles 2807:This message was posted before February 2018. 2799:https://fundanything.com/adamcarolla?locale=en 2071:RfC expired. The result of the discussion was 283:Knowledge:WikiProject Finance & Investment 3238:WikiProject Finance & Investment articles 2026:List of highest funded initial coin offerings 1966:List of highest funded initial coin offerings 1618:List of highest funded initial coin offerings 286:Template:WikiProject Finance & Investment 185: 8: 3278:Mid-importance WikiProject Business articles 3228:List-Class Finance & Investment articles 2759:List of highest funded crowdfunding projects 2528:, which may be where the content added with 2508:to find these. The ones I've identified are 36:List of highest-funded crowdfunding projects 1695:is the policy I'm referring to, which is a 463:, an attempt to structure and organize all 2909: 1161: 623: 518: 425: 320: 227: 201: 199: 2757:I have just modified 3 external links on 1923:which the FT piece refers to extensively. 1758:https://www.bitmex.com/app/index/.BVOL24H 731:on 9 September 2013 (UTC). The result of 3273:List-Class WikiProject Business articles 3048:https://en.wikipedia.org/Prodigy_Network 2617:List of video game crowdfunding projects 1345:This isn't about my opinion, it's about 1240:. Reputable sources call these projects 467:. If you wish to help, please visit the 3162:Shouldn't this list include LightSail? 3020: 2133:List of Ethereum initial coin offerings 871:It is clear that this article has some 625: 520: 427: 322: 229: 2677:what exactly remains as an issue here 1864:Reputable sources call these projects 1853:Remove blockchain entries and move to 1020:indicating that it is incorrect (see 7: 3050:says that it raised $ 200,000,000. 3038:No mention of the Bacata skyscraper? 2095:The following discussion is closed. 849:Highest Funded Crowdfunding Projects 675:Knowledge:WikiProject Cryptocurrency 655:This article is within the scope of 566:This article is within the scope of 457:This article is within the scope of 368:This article is within the scope of 262:WikiProject Finance & Investment 259:This article is within the scope of 3298:WikiProject Cryptocurrency articles 2064:RfC on blockchain project inclusion 681:WikiProject Cryptocurrency articles 678:Template:WikiProject Cryptocurrency 218:It is of interest to the following 34:for discussing improvements to the 3164:https://en.wikipedia.org/LightSail 2516:(but more probably something like 948:Since the Star Citizen project is 25: 2761:. Please take a moment to review 289:Finance & Investment articles 3248:Mid-importance Internet articles 2968: 2425:in 2013. It can be rewritten at 2386: 2321:The discussion above is closed. 720: 648: 627: 553: 543: 522: 450: 429: 355: 345: 324: 252: 231: 200: 56:Click here to start a new topic. 727:This article was nominated for 695:This article has been rated as 606:This article has been rated as 501:This article has been rated as 408:This article has been rated as 303:This article has been rated as 2996:Wyrmwood Gaming Modular Tables 2895:15:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC) 817:20:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC) 766:11:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC) 586:Knowledge:WikiProject Business 388:Knowledge:WikiProject Internet 1: 3283:WikiProject Business articles 3253:WikiProject Internet articles 3175:17:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC) 3153:09:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC) 2875:17:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC) 1071:00:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC) 1049:17:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC) 999:19:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC) 972:18:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC) 921:14:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) 890:13:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC) 669:and see a list of open tasks. 592:WikiProject Business articles 589:Template:WikiProject Business 580:and see a list of open tasks. 391:Template:WikiProject Internet 382:and see a list of open tasks. 277:and see a list of open tasks. 53:Put new text under old text. 3263:Low-importance List articles 3243:List-Class Internet articles 3194:06:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC) 3080:20:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC) 3011:13:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC) 2742:03:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC) 929:Let's keep this discussion 481:Knowledge:WikiProject Lists 61:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 3314: 3268:WikiProject Lists articles 3214:20:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC) 3127:06:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC) 3105:06:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC) 3060:22:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC) 2948:23:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC) 2924:08:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC) 2838:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2754:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2720:12:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC) 2705:09:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC) 2407:14:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC) 2381:12:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC) 2359:09:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC) 2088:21:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC) 952:and nobody has provided a 658:WikiProject Cryptocurrency 612:project's importance scale 507:project's importance scale 484:Template:WikiProject Lists 414:project's importance scale 309:project's importance scale 2963:20:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC) 2933:Color coding explanation? 2673:06:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC) 2633:22:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC) 2611:19:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC) 2588:12:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC) 2567:07:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC) 2544:06:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC) 2496:04:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC) 2468:13:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC) 2454:13:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC) 2439:11:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC) 2316:17:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC) 2299:00:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC) 2261:09:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC) 2204:13:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC) 2192:50%+ in the last 48 hours 2183:11:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC) 2169:09:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC) 2056:09:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC) 1993:09:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC) 1954:09:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC) 1833:10:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC) 1421:10:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC) 1262:00:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC) 1156:22:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC) 1126:12:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC) 694: 643: 605: 538: 500: 445: 407: 340: 302: 247: 226: 91:Be welcoming to newcomers 3258:List-Class List articles 2988:11:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 2578:from copyright sources. 2323:Please do not modify it. 2242:20:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC) 2219:In addition to Ferret's 2150:20:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC) 2118:20:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC) 2097:Please do not modify it. 2042:16:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC) 2013:05:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC) 1978:19:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC) 1915:10:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC) 1886:16:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC) 1818:17:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC) 1800:15:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC) 1785:14:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC) 1770:09:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC) 1752:04:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC) 1737:10:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC) 1723:02:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC) 1688:01:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC) 1672:01:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC) 1650:20:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC) 1630:23:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC) 1610:00:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC) 1591:20:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC) 1572:21:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC) 1555:00:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC) 1540:20:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC) 1524:17:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC) 1503:16:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC) 1488:17:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC) 1473:13:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC) 1436:05:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC) 1406:19:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC) 1387:10:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC) 1372:21:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC) 1341:15:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC) 1326:14:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC) 1307:09:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC) 1292:04:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC) 1277:01:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC) 1227:19:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC) 1206:19:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC) 1180:18:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC) 1142:00:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC) 1105:18:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC) 1089:18:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC) 840:11:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC) 784:11:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC) 280:Finance & Investment 239:Finance & Investment 2750:External links modified 465:list pages on Knowledge 1894:United States JOBS Act 1509:secondary coverage in 1028:monetized preordering. 208:This article is rated 86:avoid personal attacks 3136:I would expect a sum 3132:Raised vs. brought in 2652:Justlettersandnumbers 2580:Justlettersandnumbers 2536:Justlettersandnumbers 2478:Justlettersandnumbers 2431:Justlettersandnumbers 2225:Initial coin offering 2106:Initial coin offering 2021:Initial coin offering 1962:Initial coin offering 1855:Initial coin offering 1638:Initial coin offering 1314:we are less convinced 111:Neutral point of view 3180:Sorting is Incorrect 2819:regular verification 2506:Earwig's useful tool 2415:Copyright violations 1938:within the community 1929:donation-crowdfunded 569:WikiProject Business 371:WikiProject Internet 116:No original research 2809:After February 2018 1697:core content policy 3119:WellRehearsedWhale 3097:WellRehearsedWhale 2887:Archersbobsburgers 2863:InternetArchiveBot 2814:InternetArchiveBot 2422:revision 572640865 2104:Should blockchain 2098: 1393:states on its face 1111:Blockchain entries 959:third-party source 214:content assessment 97:dispute resolution 58: 2986: 2926: 2914:comment added by 2839: 2703: 2696: 2357: 2350: 2096: 1182: 1166:comment added by 939:secondary sources 867:3rd party sources 743: 742: 715: 714: 711: 710: 707: 706: 622: 621: 618: 617: 517: 516: 513: 512: 460:WikiProject Lists 424: 423: 420: 419: 394:Internet articles 319: 318: 315: 314: 194: 193: 77:Assume good faith 54: 16:(Redirected from 3305: 3030: 3025: 2980: 2976: 2972: 2971: 2873: 2864: 2837: 2836: 2815: 2735: 2698: 2691: 2687: 2666: 2655: 2624: 2602: 2558: 2533: 2481: 2424: 2400: 2394: 2390: 2389: 2370: 2352: 2345: 2341: 2081: 1870:Atlantic Monthly 1246:Atlantic Monthly 1216: 1191: 724: 717: 701:importance scale 683: 682: 679: 676: 673: 652: 645: 644: 639: 631: 624: 594: 593: 590: 587: 584: 563: 558: 557: 547: 540: 539: 534: 526: 519: 489: 488: 485: 482: 479: 454: 447: 446: 441: 433: 426: 396: 395: 392: 389: 386: 365: 360: 359: 349: 342: 341: 336: 328: 321: 291: 290: 287: 284: 281: 256: 249: 248: 243: 235: 228: 211: 205: 204: 203: 196: 190: 189: 175: 106:Article policies 27: 21: 3313: 3312: 3308: 3307: 3306: 3304: 3303: 3302: 3218: 3217: 3201: 3186:184.182.113.209 3182: 3167:207.141.116.122 3160: 3134: 3112: 3087: 3067: 3040: 3035: 3034: 3033: 3026: 3022: 2998: 2969: 2967: 2935: 2902: 2882: 2880:The rank number 2867: 2862: 2830: 2823:have permission 2813: 2767:this simple FaQ 2752: 2734:(Jalen D. Folf) 2733: 2685: 2665:(Jalen D. Folf) 2664: 2649: 2647: 2622: 2600: 2556: 2529: 2475: 2420: 2417: 2399:(Jalen D. Folf) 2398: 2387: 2385: 2364: 2339: 2332: 2327: 2326: 2229:pyramid schemes 2101: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2080:(Jalen D. Folf) 2079: 2066: 1874:Financial Times 1859: 1250:Financial Times 1210: 1185: 1113: 1018:reliable source 954:reliable source 935:tertiary source 869: 805:even more types 792: 754: 748: 680: 677: 674: 671: 670: 637: 591: 588: 585: 582: 581: 561:Business portal 559: 552: 532: 486: 483: 480: 477: 476: 439: 393: 390: 387: 384: 383: 363:Internet portal 361: 354: 334: 288: 285: 282: 279: 278: 241: 212:on Knowledge's 209: 132: 127: 126: 125: 102: 72: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 3311: 3309: 3301: 3300: 3295: 3290: 3285: 3280: 3275: 3270: 3265: 3260: 3255: 3250: 3245: 3240: 3235: 3230: 3220: 3219: 3200: 3197: 3181: 3178: 3159: 3156: 3133: 3130: 3111: 3108: 3086: 3083: 3066: 3063: 3052:98.122.169.179 3039: 3036: 3032: 3031: 3019: 3018: 3014: 2997: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2934: 2931: 2929: 2916:217.23.119.157 2901: 2898: 2881: 2878: 2857: 2856: 2849: 2802: 2801: 2793:Added archive 2791: 2783:Added archive 2781: 2773:Added archive 2751: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2646: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2613: 2547: 2546: 2504:, you can use 2484:http://iex.ec/ 2473: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2416: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2331: 2328: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2301: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2245: 2244: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2153: 2152: 2102: 2093: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2065: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1924: 1899:Gut Weißenhaus 1858: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1739: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1613: 1612: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1542: 1491: 1490: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1423: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1144: 1112: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1029: 1025: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 991:Phantom Hoover 977: 976: 975: 974: 946: 924: 923: 908: 907: 898: 897: 882:Phantom Hoover 868: 865: 864: 863: 843: 842: 827: 826: 791: 788: 787: 786: 752: 747: 744: 741: 740: 733:the discussion 725: 713: 712: 709: 708: 705: 704: 697:Mid-importance 693: 687: 686: 684: 672:Cryptocurrency 667:the discussion 663:cryptocurrency 653: 641: 640: 638:Mid‑importance 635:Cryptocurrency 632: 620: 619: 616: 615: 608:Mid-importance 604: 598: 597: 595: 578:the discussion 565: 564: 548: 536: 535: 533:Mid‑importance 527: 515: 514: 511: 510: 503:Low-importance 499: 493: 492: 490: 455: 443: 442: 440:Low‑importance 434: 422: 421: 418: 417: 410:Mid-importance 406: 400: 399: 397: 380:the discussion 367: 366: 350: 338: 337: 335:Mid‑importance 329: 317: 316: 313: 312: 305:Mid-importance 301: 295: 294: 292: 275:the discussion 257: 245: 244: 242:Mid‑importance 236: 224: 223: 217: 206: 192: 191: 129: 128: 124: 123: 118: 113: 104: 103: 101: 100: 93: 88: 79: 73: 71: 70: 59: 50: 49: 46: 45: 39: 24: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3310: 3299: 3296: 3294: 3291: 3289: 3286: 3284: 3281: 3279: 3276: 3274: 3271: 3269: 3266: 3264: 3261: 3259: 3256: 3254: 3251: 3249: 3246: 3244: 3241: 3239: 3236: 3234: 3231: 3229: 3226: 3225: 3223: 3216: 3215: 3211: 3207: 3206:Paul Thompson 3198: 3196: 3195: 3191: 3187: 3179: 3177: 3176: 3172: 3168: 3165: 3155: 3154: 3150: 3146: 3141: 3139: 3131: 3129: 3128: 3124: 3120: 3116: 3109: 3107: 3106: 3102: 3098: 3094: 3090: 3084: 3082: 3081: 3077: 3073: 3064: 3062: 3061: 3057: 3053: 3049: 3045: 3037: 3029: 3024: 3021: 3017: 3013: 3012: 3008: 3004: 2995: 2989: 2984: 2979: 2975: 2966: 2965: 2964: 2960: 2956: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2945: 2941: 2940:68.168.176.65 2932: 2930: 2927: 2925: 2921: 2917: 2913: 2907: 2899: 2897: 2896: 2892: 2888: 2879: 2877: 2876: 2871: 2866: 2865: 2854: 2850: 2847: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2834: 2828: 2824: 2820: 2816: 2810: 2805: 2800: 2796: 2792: 2790: 2786: 2782: 2780: 2776: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2768: 2764: 2760: 2755: 2749: 2743: 2739: 2732: 2728: 2727:84.48.191.237 2723: 2722: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2701: 2695: 2690: 2689: 2680: 2675: 2674: 2670: 2663: 2659: 2653: 2644: 2634: 2630: 2626: 2625: 2618: 2614: 2612: 2608: 2604: 2603: 2596: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2585: 2581: 2577: 2573: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2564: 2560: 2559: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2545: 2541: 2537: 2532: 2527: 2523: 2519: 2515: 2511: 2507: 2503: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2493: 2489: 2485: 2479: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2451: 2447: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2436: 2432: 2428: 2423: 2414: 2408: 2404: 2397: 2393: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2378: 2374: 2368: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2355: 2349: 2344: 2343: 2329: 2324: 2317: 2313: 2309: 2305: 2302: 2300: 2296: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2280: 2275: 2271: 2268: 2267: 2262: 2258: 2254: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2243: 2239: 2235: 2230: 2226: 2222: 2218: 2215: 2214: 2205: 2201: 2197: 2193: 2189: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2166: 2162: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2151: 2147: 2143: 2138: 2134: 2130: 2125: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2100: 2089: 2085: 2078: 2074: 2063: 2057: 2053: 2049: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2039: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2022: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2010: 2006: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1967: 1963: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1942: 1941: 1939: 1935: 1930: 1925: 1922: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1912: 1908: 1904: 1900: 1895: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1883: 1879: 1875: 1871: 1867: 1866:Ponzi schemes 1863: 1856: 1852: 1834: 1830: 1826: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1782: 1778: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1767: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1740: 1738: 1734: 1730: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1720: 1716: 1711: 1706: 1705:verifiability 1702: 1698: 1694: 1693:Verifiability 1691: 1690: 1689: 1685: 1681: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1669: 1665: 1661: 1651: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1636: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1614: 1611: 1607: 1603: 1598: 1597: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1581: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1556: 1552: 1548: 1543: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1530: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1521: 1517: 1512: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1500: 1496: 1495:67.83.104.190 1489: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1424: 1422: 1418: 1414: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1403: 1399: 1394: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1369: 1365: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1338: 1334: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1304: 1300: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1259: 1255: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1242:Ponzi schemes 1239: 1236: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1214: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1189: 1184: 1183: 1181: 1177: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1123: 1119: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1073: 1072: 1068: 1064: 1050: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1023: 1019: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1000: 996: 992: 987: 983: 982: 981: 980: 979: 978: 973: 969: 965: 960: 955: 951: 947: 944: 940: 936: 932: 928: 927: 926: 925: 922: 918: 914: 910: 909: 905: 900: 899: 894: 893: 892: 891: 887: 883: 879: 874: 866: 861: 857: 854: 850: 845: 844: 841: 837: 833: 829: 828: 824: 821: 820: 819: 818: 814: 810: 806: 802: 798: 789: 785: 781: 777: 774:, good idea! 773: 770: 769: 768: 767: 763: 759: 751: 745: 738: 734: 730: 726: 723: 719: 718: 702: 698: 692: 689: 688: 685: 668: 664: 660: 659: 654: 651: 647: 646: 642: 636: 633: 630: 626: 613: 609: 603: 600: 599: 596: 579: 575: 571: 570: 562: 556: 551: 549: 546: 542: 541: 537: 531: 528: 525: 521: 508: 504: 498: 495: 494: 491: 487:List articles 474: 470: 466: 462: 461: 456: 453: 449: 448: 444: 438: 435: 432: 428: 415: 411: 405: 402: 401: 398: 381: 377: 373: 372: 364: 358: 353: 351: 348: 344: 343: 339: 333: 330: 327: 323: 310: 306: 300: 297: 296: 293: 276: 272: 268: 264: 263: 258: 255: 251: 250: 246: 240: 237: 234: 230: 225: 221: 215: 207: 198: 197: 188: 184: 181: 178: 174: 170: 166: 163: 160: 157: 154: 151: 148: 145: 142: 138: 135: 134:Find sources: 131: 130: 122: 121:Verifiability 119: 117: 114: 112: 109: 108: 107: 98: 94: 92: 89: 87: 83: 80: 78: 75: 74: 68: 64: 63:Learn to edit 60: 57: 52: 51: 48: 47: 43: 37: 33: 29: 28: 19: 3202: 3183: 3161: 3142: 3137: 3135: 3117: 3113: 3095: 3091: 3088: 3085:Tuttle Twins 3072:78.1.188.135 3068: 3041: 3023: 3015: 2999: 2973: 2936: 2928: 2910:— Preceding 2903: 2883: 2861: 2858: 2833:source check 2812: 2806: 2803: 2756: 2753: 2683: 2676: 2648: 2621: 2599: 2575: 2555: 2474: 2418: 2391: 2337: 2333: 2322: 2303: 2274:Crowdfunding 2269: 2216: 2187: 2131:, or simply 2123: 2103: 2094: 2072: 2001: 1928: 1861: 1860: 1656: 1634: 1579: 1561: 1528: 1510: 1492: 1458: 1331:of sources. 1313: 1237: 1162:— Preceding 1114: 1074: 1063:KurtMaverick 1059: 986:second-party 985: 913:KurtMaverick 872: 870: 848: 801:crowdfunding 793: 755: 749: 736: 696: 656: 607: 567: 502: 469:project page 458: 409: 369: 304: 260: 220:WikiProjects 182: 176: 168: 161: 155: 149: 143: 133: 105: 30:This is the 2978:The RedBurn 2955:71.205.7.98 2534:came from. 2526:this source 2446:Flibber2388 2291:Markbassett 2283:WP:OFFTOPIC 2234:Flibber2388 2196:Flibber2388 2110:Flibber2388 2034:Flibber2388 1970:Flibber2388 1878:Flibber2388 1872:) (per the 1777:Flibber2388 1744:Flibber2388 1642:Flibber2388 1583:Flibber2388 1532:Flibber2388 1398:Flibber2388 1364:Flibber2388 1318:Flibber2388 1284:Flibber2388 1254:Flibber2388 1248:) (per the 772:Danylstrype 758:Danylstrype 159:free images 42:not a forum 3222:Categories 3065:Rcat shell 3016:References 2906:Gloomhaven 2900:Gloomhaven 2870:Report bug 2729:. Thanks. 2502:LarsPensjo 2488:LarsPensjo 2308:LarsPensjo 2005:LarsPensjo 1903:Mayday PAC 1710:verifiable 1480:LarsPensjo 1428:LarsPensjo 1359:WP:TOOSOON 1219:LarsPensjo 1188:LarsPensjo 1168:LarsPensjo 1081:LarsPensjo 878:65 million 856:Plain Text 473:discussion 271:Investment 210:List-class 3145:Tournesol 3003:Ladyamphy 2904:Where is 2853:this tool 2846:this tool 2656:Now that 2531:this edit 2427:this page 2330:consensus 1921:blog post 1868:(per the 1701:WP:BURDEN 1660:WP:BURDEN 1244:(per the 1194:WP:BURDEN 1041:Dodi 8238 964:Dodi 8238 943:consensus 99:if needed 82:Be polite 32:talk page 3089:Hi all, 2912:unsigned 2859:Cheers.— 2700:contribs 2576:verbatim 2553:this. — 2354:contribs 1511:reliable 1176:contribs 1164:unsigned 823:Samer.hc 809:Samer.hc 729:deletion 583:Business 574:business 530:Business 385:Internet 376:Internet 332:Internet 67:get help 40:This is 38:article. 2763:my edit 2731:jd22292 2686:nimbosa 2679:jd22292 2662:jd22292 2595:removed 2396:jd22292 2367:Jd22292 2340:nimbosa 2304:Include 2270:Include 2217:Comment 2188:Exclude 2124:Comment 2077:jd22292 2073:include 1934:Reuters 1857:instead 1564:Btcgeek 1351:WP:NPOV 1037:WP:COIN 950:notable 873:serious 699:on the 610:on the 505:on the 412:on the 307:on the 267:Finance 165:WP refs 153:scholar 3138:raised 3110:ZrCoin 2712:ferret 2623:Ark25 2601:Ark25 2557:Ark25 2520:) and 2460:ferret 2373:ferret 2253:Amincd 2175:ferret 2161:Amincd 2142:ferret 2048:Amincd 1985:Amincd 1946:Amincd 1907:Amincd 1862:Agree. 1825:Amincd 1810:ferret 1792:Amincd 1762:Amincd 1729:Amincd 1715:ferret 1680:Amincd 1664:ferret 1635:Agree. 1622:ferret 1602:Amincd 1547:Amincd 1516:ferret 1465:ferret 1413:Amincd 1379:Amincd 1333:Amincd 1299:Amincd 1269:Amincd 1213:Ferret 1198:ferret 1148:ferret 1134:Amincd 1118:ferret 1097:ferret 1033:WP:COI 216:scale. 137:Google 2658:Ark25 2645:break 2572:Ark25 2030:WP:EW 1580:Agree 1529:Agree 1347:WP:RS 1077:WP:RS 1022:WP:AD 931:civil 478:Lists 437:Lists 180:JSTOR 141:books 95:Seek 3210:talk 3190:talk 3171:talk 3149:talk 3123:talk 3101:talk 3076:talk 3056:talk 3007:talk 2974:Done 2959:talk 2944:talk 2920:talk 2891:talk 2738:talk 2716:talk 2694:talk 2669:talk 2629:talk 2607:talk 2584:talk 2563:talk 2540:talk 2522:this 2518:this 2514:this 2510:this 2492:talk 2464:talk 2450:talk 2435:talk 2403:talk 2392:Done 2377:talk 2348:talk 2312:talk 2295:talk 2287:WP:V 2279:WP:V 2257:talk 2238:talk 2221:WP:V 2200:talk 2179:talk 2165:talk 2146:talk 2137:WP:V 2114:talk 2084:talk 2052:talk 2038:talk 2009:talk 1989:talk 1974:talk 1950:talk 1911:talk 1882:talk 1829:talk 1814:talk 1806:WP:V 1796:talk 1781:talk 1766:talk 1748:talk 1733:talk 1719:talk 1684:talk 1668:talk 1646:talk 1626:talk 1606:talk 1587:talk 1568:talk 1551:talk 1536:talk 1520:talk 1499:talk 1484:talk 1469:talk 1461:WP:V 1432:talk 1417:talk 1402:talk 1383:talk 1368:talk 1355:WP:V 1349:and 1337:talk 1322:talk 1303:talk 1288:talk 1273:talk 1258:talk 1223:talk 1202:talk 1172:talk 1152:talk 1138:talk 1122:talk 1101:talk 1085:talk 1067:talk 1045:talk 1039:. -- 995:talk 968:talk 917:talk 886:talk 860:talk 836:talk 813:talk 780:talk 762:talk 737:keep 735:was 269:and 173:FENS 147:news 84:and 2827:RfC 2797:to 2787:to 2777:to 2140:-- 2116:) 2032:. 1713:-- 832:N2e 797:IPO 776:N2e 756:-- 691:Mid 602:Mid 497:Low 404:Mid 299:Mid 187:TWL 3224:: 3212:) 3192:) 3173:) 3151:) 3125:) 3103:) 3078:) 3058:) 3009:) 3001:–– 2961:) 2946:) 2922:) 2893:) 2840:. 2835:}} 2831:{{ 2740:) 2718:) 2697:• 2688::. 2684:.: 2671:) 2631:) 2609:) 2586:) 2565:) 2542:) 2512:, 2494:) 2466:) 2452:) 2437:) 2405:) 2379:) 2351:• 2342::. 2338:.: 2314:) 2297:) 2259:) 2240:) 2202:) 2181:) 2167:) 2148:) 2086:) 2054:) 2040:) 2011:) 1991:) 1976:) 1968:. 1952:) 1913:) 1884:) 1831:) 1816:) 1798:) 1783:) 1768:) 1750:) 1735:) 1721:) 1699:. 1686:) 1670:) 1648:) 1628:) 1608:) 1589:) 1570:) 1553:) 1538:) 1522:) 1501:) 1486:) 1471:) 1434:) 1419:) 1404:) 1385:) 1370:) 1339:) 1324:) 1305:) 1290:) 1275:) 1260:) 1225:) 1204:) 1178:) 1174:• 1154:) 1140:) 1124:) 1103:) 1087:) 1069:) 1047:) 1024:). 997:) 970:) 919:) 888:) 851:: 838:) 815:) 782:) 764:) 167:) 65:; 3208:( 3188:( 3169:( 3147:( 3121:( 3099:( 3074:( 3054:( 3005:( 2985:) 2983:ϕ 2981:( 2957:( 2942:( 2918:( 2889:( 2872:) 2868:( 2855:. 2848:. 2736:( 2714:( 2702:) 2692:( 2667:( 2654:: 2650:@ 2627:( 2605:( 2582:( 2561:( 2538:( 2490:( 2480:: 2476:@ 2462:( 2448:( 2433:( 2401:( 2375:( 2369:: 2365:@ 2356:) 2346:( 2310:( 2293:( 2255:( 2236:( 2198:( 2177:( 2163:( 2144:( 2112:( 2082:( 2050:( 2036:( 2007:( 1987:( 1972:( 1948:( 1909:( 1880:( 1827:( 1812:( 1794:( 1779:( 1764:( 1746:( 1731:( 1717:( 1682:( 1666:( 1644:( 1624:( 1604:( 1585:( 1566:( 1549:( 1534:( 1518:( 1497:( 1482:( 1467:( 1430:( 1415:( 1400:( 1381:( 1366:( 1335:( 1320:( 1301:( 1286:( 1271:( 1256:( 1221:( 1215:: 1211:@ 1200:( 1190:: 1186:@ 1170:( 1150:( 1136:( 1120:( 1099:( 1083:( 1065:( 1043:( 993:( 966:( 915:( 884:( 862:) 858:( 834:( 811:( 778:( 760:( 739:. 703:. 614:. 509:. 475:. 416:. 311:. 222:: 183:· 177:· 169:· 162:· 156:· 150:· 144:· 139:( 69:. 20:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index