Where's the question? I'm seeing judgement from an uninformed individual. You're just arguing for the sake of it, you're clearly an Anderson. You might even be my little brother.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Where's the question? I'm seeing judgement from an uninformed individual. You're just arguing for the sake of it, you're clearly an Anderson. You might even be my little brother.
Just because he was sensational and uninformed about it doesn't mean the post didn't raise question about Block.one and their funding.
I am absolutely not arguing for the sake of it.
This is where I think people need to get more in tune with how business functions, especially the creation of massive new ones that require a lot of marketing, labor, research, and the buying of legendary low level coders.
Investors are required and investors aren't charities, they except a ROI, or Return On Investment. That's the name of the game. They take a gamble to help a company bear fruit, they can either win or lose. If they win, awesome, if they lose, they suck it up and move on.
My point is this is business and also an insane project. It does not come at a small price tag. The marketing at Consensus alone had to have been astronomical. That was in the center of Time's Square, center-stage billboard included.
Sure. People need to learn more overall, I agree.
It sure is an insane project. With all the hype and marketing coming before the code and "yellow paper", why is so much of the early investors money going to marketing? There are completely legitimate questions to ask about the funding of a startup.
You paint this as if it is irrational to ask any questions about where the funding is coming from.
Strong points by you. There are a lot of weird aspects and red flags with the EOS sale and project. As with when any ICO or crypto project, people need to do their due diligence and go in with an open mind, rather than an open wallet.
For the record, my opinions are actually coming from in depth research (extreme due diligence) as well as speaking with core devs as well as the creator both in person and in depth online over a very long period of time. Also have done the same over the past couple years regarding the core team's past projects.
On the subject, why does the core team have past projects at all? Why aren't those past projects current projects?
To give some perspective, maybe I should ask you why you currently no longer have your first job? Why you don't have your first girlfriend/boyfriend? Why you no long want to be what you wanted to be when you grew up when you were 5 years old? People move on from things. They grow, they progress; out with the old and in with the new. However, these projects, in my eyes, reach a bit beyond those very real human traits.
The ways these projects were designed, the people who "gave birth," to them aren't needed after a certain point. They're self-sustaining, self-governing "entities," if you will. Stan, Dan's dad likes to call them "unmanned companies," which I think is pretty proper terminology.
If you study how the chains are governed, how they evolve, how it's decided which way development moves, etc. it's like a well-oiled, nicely governed machine.
From my understanding, they develop projects (e.g. BitShares, Steem, and now EOS), get them to the point of reliability and self-sustainability/governance, and turn them loose. If you truly think about it, they're leaving some seriously ingenious projects at the mercy of those who take it upon themselves to ingrain themselves in the project by playing a vital role, be it in the form of witnessing/governance, ongoing development, marketing, etc. It's genius.
They're forward thinking individuals, always noting flaws of past projects as well as other people's projects and then evolving on those flaws, addressing them. I'm glad they move on to new projects. Human beings can only be spread so thin, it's unrealistic to think that they'd remain involved in so many projects.
No I'm not painting this as an irrational inquiry. I'm painting this as "this is stupid to claim to know facts about something that you do not know about." The guy was claiming to know what was going on behind the scenes and acting as if it was some kind of nefarious plot, staged to scam people. That is FUD, the definition of it.
Well what he said about there being other investors - he was spot on. I don't think very much of what he said was baseless. There were some interesting points that he elaborated on into hypotheticals. You might disagree - that's what these comments are for.
I wasn't disagreeing with that at all, that's obvious about the number of investors. I don't see the big deal in that.
I was addressing his overall idea of there being some sinister plot to effectively rob the smaller fries, such as us. In telegram and on here he was making it out like it's a giant elaborate scam and it was all a setup to make the fat-cat 100 investors even fatter while sacrificing us. That's what I thought was goofy, he simply does not know that and was grandstanding about it.
Yep. I can see that. There has been much more flame in the telegram. Not many are qualified to be making the statements that they are making.