What makes Sirin Token ICO unfair and unlawful is the massive amount of tech nonsense, product & services overpricing and misrepresentation displayed in the white paper and website.

The Sirin phone isn’t just one of those crowdfunded products that have inflated value and hyped claims; it takes the disproportion between $80m ICO funding, and the actual production itself, to the extreme, as shown by the figures: $16,666 USD price tag and $150 real product value; and this is one of the major claims of our class action.

A simple Google research on Sirin mobile phones displays several baffled reviews unable to make sense of how a low-quality phone can be offered at $16,666 USD (TheVerge.com: ”The most ridiculous $16000 phone”, – Androidauthority.com: ”Shocker: It looks like no one wanted to buy the $16,000 Solarin phone” ).

Even the standard features of this handset have been poorly implemented: the Android operating system is slow and buggy, the camera takes blurry pictures, and the product gives a general feeling of cheap materials at the touch. The phone is bulky, feels like a brick and clearly comes from a low cost manufacturing country.

All of the above would be disappointing but acceptable if the product had delivered the technology it was meant for, unfortunately, it did not. In fact, there was not even much technology in the idea of the project, nothing of what was stated is really worth the funds the team raised, nothing that can even be called innovative technology.

The first claim of the Sirin Labs phone is: Finney and Sirin blockchain will provide a seamless and safe experience to users; unfortunately that did not happen. The super-hyped built-in cold wallet is also sheer tech nonsense; a cold wallet is just a disk segregated from internet access, and saving code. Why do we need a new phone featuring this? Where is the innovation in this feature? Cold wallets are not supposed to be carried along inside phones, they are supposed to be stored in a safe place at home.

The second claim is call and email encryption. This is a technology already implemented by many software suppliers as a standard feature, but most compellingly it is not clear to us what is its application inside a phone: who types an email to send to someone the private key of his own Bitcoins? There is no need to pass the secret key of crypto assets, just send the coins to the beneficiary wallet: blockchain is cheap, fast and works 24/7.   

And what can you say about promises such as:

”FINNEY™ will provide users with our proprietary Token Conversion Service, which enables the seamless and automatic exchange between supported tokens and coins, eliminating the need to visit external exchanges”

which announced a new era for cryptocurrencies without the need for exchanges. Disappointingly, while we still need exchanges, we have not seen any use for Sirin Labs Token yet.

The deception continues with a number of services/claims, suggesting features for corporate use of Sirin blockchain, these are again a bunch of tech nonsense and hype mostly based on the promise of the launch of their own blockchain (promised right after the ICO), which obviously did not happen.

We believe the issuer has not accomplished any claims from the white paper, nor has it delivered any value with its products and services, which we believe are massively hyped and misrepresented.

Sirin Token has no utility in place whatsoever: phones are now sold to customers at 899 USD (payment with credit card, Sirin Token not accepted), and no blockchain has been implemented for the vaunted list of services Sirin Labs was supposed to offer.

Ether blockchain explorer displays no noticeable transactions, and the fact that is has lost 95% of its value confirms that no investors believe in the value of SRN.

We strongly doubt that ICO funds have been spent according to what promised in the white paper.

Particularly we do not believe that 54% of funds were allocated to purchase of inventory and 21% to R&D; instead, we believe the inventory purchased is junk materials from some low-cost country, and the R&D costs are inflated salaries to pay ordinary software development.

It is difficult to believe that funds have been allocated entirely to the purposes of the ICO as opposed to Sirin Labs Team interests. This circumstance, when combined to a general lack of product value, creates an unfair discrepancy between investors expectations and ICO team delivery.

The staggering answer to this question is NO. As Sirin Labs showed us :

• Their phones are sold/bought with USD, not with crypto coins,
• They did not implement their own blockchain because there was no reason for it
• The only reason Sirin token was created was to fill Sirin Labs bank account.

No, – Sirin token is just a duplication of the ERC20 token.

It is important to note the essential difference between crowdfunding and ICO funding.

Crowdfunding is always associated with a sale of a product ( or service); the delivery of the product itself generally fulfils the agreement between the parties.

In an ICO, investors buy coins over the promises stated in the white paper; the agreement between the parties is not fulfilled by simply the delivery of the coins, but instead it requires the success of the whole project itself as described in the white paper which is legally binding, no matter the underwritten limiting clauses.

It is clear to all, that Sirin Labs did not fulfil the promises made at the time of the ICO inception, and since they are not spending time or effort on those either, there is no reason for them to keep the funds received.