let me explain to you a bit why this may have been a bad idea.

- the state of development is very early. this was a project slapped together by a bunch of phd students in summer of last year. all they have is some self-reported results from an internal testnet. just a blog post that goes "OMG we achieved x transactions/second" as an experiment. some code was recently released. yet nobody has had the chance to verify their code is correct. more importantly, nobody knows if their testnet experiments will translate to results in the real world.

- the team is primarily current or former phd students and some professors working on it as advisors. they have nobody who has led a successful major blockchain enterprise before. they have nobody who could be considered a star developer or business leader in this space. they have nobody who is a great communicator or networker (and no, that asian slut doesn't count). as many know, academics are great at writing papers and doing theory, but this doesn't mean they are good at shipping code. or, meeting deadlines.

- sharding. apparently this is a concept more involved than BLP reading an article and jizzing his panties. apparently there are multiple versions of sharding, and ZIL and ETH are working on different kinds. the researchers at ZIL did publish the first article presenting their version in a journal 2 years ago, but it has since evolved as a concept as different teams adapt it for use. ZIL claim they will have one version of sharding working before ETH has its version, but there are various trade-offs involved, and it's not as simple as saying "Wow look! ZIL is gonna be first!" when ZIL's sharding won't support a turing-complete smart contract language, for instance, so they're not directly comparable.

- to reframe things a bit, ZIL's public raison d'etre is a central piece of tech that will provably work or provably fail. it spawned from innovative research, but the team is unproven at implementation. if it fails, for any of the reasons above, the project is demolished at this central point of failure as they have nothing else going for it. it'scurious that despite their claims of creating the next-gen public blockchain the major players in the blockchain space, be it star developers, public figures, or institutional backers, are noticeably not there.

now of course, this is crypto, and anything can happen. ZIL may catch on and get memed into a top 10 position. it may succeed on its own merits and skyrocket in price. just note that my "FUD" has contained more substantive info than the grand sum of the ZIL shilling on this board for the last few weeks, and that you put $100k into a coin at a billion dollar valuation because BLP moralistically jerked his clitdick to completion at the word "sharding."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3874822&forum_id=7#35267899)

the telegram group has 16k and prior to the public release of the tokens zil was trading otc for 6x+.

poast ur eth address plz

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3874822&forum_id=7#35267930)

unfortunately for xo, a penchant for overt homosexuality and academic prestige-chasing doesn't generalize as well, so dr. dong may not be as popular off board as he is on board.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3874822&forum_id=7#35268545)

You may be 100% right in your analysis but crypto can be totally irrational for extended periods of time. So get that pump machine running so I can LAMBO TO THE MOON!!!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3874822&forum_id=7#35270214)