Bitcoin Forum

But then again, I just don't like how these people frequently crap on Ethereum and then end up using the Ethereum platform. Though Samson Mow also said on Twitter that they could move to RSK or Liquid once they are able to.

This is exactly why I hate hypocrites. They trash something they are not part of and all of a sudden an ERC20 token is okay just because they have acquired something in their pockets. It shows how their judgement is easily corruptible.

What cobra twitted was spot on.

I love not being a Bitcoin Maximalist.

In my opinion: I don't see anything that much wrong with what they're doing. Sure they're pretty much shilling it, but they're selling ownership and equity of a real legitimate and regulated business, not some utility altcoin that gives you discount on exchange fees or something. It's no different than having an IPO like what typical stocks have done in the past. The only difference in this case is that it's done through the Ethereum blockchain for transparency(not decentralization) purposes.

Would people be giving them crap if they've done it the traditional IPO way? I don't think so.

why not if the project pays for a tweet from a Bitcoin maximalist

why not if the project pays for a tweet from a Bitcoin maximalist,

but I also think it would be dangerous for beginners to invest in a project that might one day be a scam because of seeing that tweet, one of which is John McAfee also often promotes the ICO project or other because it might be paid for by the project, so I think it doesn't matter to the tweet just the bad effect is that people who don't know and invest in the wrong project might be more dangerous

There seems to be nothing wrong with being a Bitcoin Maximalist for as long as you are really into it and you are utterly convinced of it. If Bitcoin is the one and only true crypto to you and the rest are all shitcoins, it is your view, but you don't have to crap on them day by day by day, and worse only to end up promoting one of them because there is a big amount involved.

If that is what you are, then what kind of a Bitcoin Maximalist are you? A fake one? A Maximalist when there is no opportunity? If that is what you are then you are indeed a hypocrite.

Oh boy it's my time to be controversial again.

In my opinion: I don't see anything that much wrong with what they're doing. Sure they're pretty much shilling it, but they're selling ownership and equity of a real legitimate and regulated business,

These people have built their rep by being beacons of Bitcoinness and relative rationality in a sea of squealing Carlos Matoses. It's just business but their business previously has been primarily about upholding that position.

If it were me I would regard that rep as more valuable than a rapid profit, even if it's fully legit. No one's going to die and I personally couldn't give a shit but many others will and memories are long, especially for those who reverse long-held behaviour.

This just shows how powerful money is :D. Even the most popular crypto enthusiasts are bowing down to these kind of shits.
They will do anything just for the money. They will shill/advertise a shitcoin just for the sake of money.

I remember when Roger Ver was a member of a project and the tokensale reached the hard cap easily (that was around 2017-2018 though).
At that time investors are dumber than they are right now and I think that nothing will fall into this kind of bullshit that they are doing especially when there are some people who are against this shitcoin.

There is nothing wrong with what they are doing though since you aren't sued for criminal cases in shilling a new project. In the end, it will depend on the investors if they will invest on it or not. These shillers are pure hypocrite and f*ck them all.

This is a classic case of a principled believer whose values get easily thrown away by a probable monetary consideration but we can't blame them  when they knew they could gain huge profits with their newfound alt stash especially if the project is also legit. Imho. :)

If a maximalist came across a project they actually believed in, beyond enriching themselves that is, they might regret having backed themselves into a corner by pandering to what Bitcoin obsessives want to hear. You're much better off retaining a light touch.

Andreas Antonopoulos has found the right balance. He doesn't dismiss non Bitcoin. He does call out the undeniable shit. He'll still be harvesting what he's grown many years after the sell outs have gone down in flames.

This is exactly why I hate hypocrites. They trash something they are not part of and all of a sudden an ERC20 token is okay just because they have acquired something in their pockets. It shows how their judgement is easily corruptible.

What cobra twitted was spot on.

These people have built their rep by being beacons of Bitcoinness and relative rationality in a sea of squealing Carlos Matoses. It's just business but their business previously has been primarily about upholding that position.

No one's going to die and I personally couldn't give a shit but many others will and memories are long, especially for those who reverse long-held behaviour.

But at one point, you might have to put a price on that reputation of yours.

What? You seem to have the wrong end of the stick entirely.

See my recent thread topic:

Bitcoin maximalists are doing more harm to the crypto space than good ?
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5270150.0

HINT: Not all altcoins are shitcoins, however, I have yet to discover a shit-token that isn't or that has a valid use case.

::)

I love not being a Bitcoin Maximalist.

It gives me the wherewithal to be proud to say that I have never invested in any shit-tokens (and/or promoted any ICO, whatsoever).

I'm free to use privacy coins and good altcoins etc.,

Oh boy it's my time to be controversial again.

In my opinion: I don't see anything that much wrong with what they're doing. Sure they're pretty much shilling it, but they're selling ownership and equity of a real legitimate and regulated business, not some utility altcoin that gives you discount on exchange fees or something. It's no different than having an IPO like what typical stocks have done in the past.

I am not critical of the cash amount he wants to be paid. I reckon free stock option are granted for a consultancy work, or board membership you are not paid for, a common scheme in startups/newco with high mortality rate, as Dr. Back taught us multiple times during the last hours. The things change when you use your reputation (Mr. Lopp) to shill such Token.

If they claim to be running a by the book company, why bother with Ethereum token in the first place? Something tells me that this isn't in best interest of investors.

Really disappointed here in Lopp and Mow and the rest. They spent so much time shitting on Ethereum and tokens, and now they engage in one. Now they have to admit that Ethereum is not as bad as they say, otherwise how can they explain that they use it?

Yeah, why not promote something you used to stand against if you get money, huh?

Samson(or someone else related to that business) claims that it's for transparency reasons. While I have no idea how good or bad of an idea using Ethereum for this is, I'm just going to say that they know a lot better than me soo..

To me it's just a matter of how you look at things, although a problem may be created when people start to look at something with emotions and even go as far as taking an extreme view, immediately and totally dismissing anything else not in favor with his view as worthless shit. This is what Maximalism is basically all about.

But even with this, it's not really a big problem. To each his own. If someone is utterly convinced of Bitcoin and Bitcoin alone, then let him be. Sometimes it becomes a matter of principle, of belief, or even faith.

The problem really is when someone who proclaims himself a Bitcoin Maximalist and who endlessly disses any other cryptocurrency aside from Bitcoin ends up promoting an altcoin because of what he receives in return. Everything becomes a joke.  

Sounds like typical useless ICO - first invent a problem, then slap blockchain/token on top of it. I never heard "transparency" being some big problem in the field of finance, exchanges, equities, cash flows. Even if this projects works, it's still worse than the proper way of doing it with regulated securities, because there's always some risks to tokens - hacks, exit scams, bugs, failures of the underlying platforms, etc. And if that happens, I kinda doubt investors will be as protected as they are on fully regulated markets.

However, when it comes to Bitcoin and his own benefit, he is no so categorical and instead pretty okay with KYC idea and idea of being tightly controlled.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, it's not though. I think what they're offering is business equity, just through a blockchain(not saying it's a good idea).

This article explain quite well what has happened.
With the above sentence I mean it explain quite well why they decided to issue a token, why it is different both from an ICO or from an equity offering:

Bitcoin Maximalists Get Dragged for INX Hypocrisy (https://www.btctimes.com/news/bitcoin-maximalists-get-dragged-for-inx-hypocrisy)

Even if the title is quite promising, the article do not explain at all is why the hypocrisy. And then why the subsequent twitter shitstorm.
Thinking about the person involved in the newslet, it is not difficult to understand why.
Hypocrisy over hypocrisy.

Should we even care about this Twitter drama.Those "Bitcoin maximalists" can promote whatever shitcoin they want.This will most likely damage their credibility among their followers,but that's their own mistake and responsibility.Greed will ruin their life(and the life of all of us).I assume that they were paid(or bribed) to promote this token.I don't know how desperate for money they are,but this will ruin their social media presence.Anyway,that's not my problem.I don't use Twitter and I never will.

Jameson Lopp proclaimed himself a cypherpunk. It is a movement that has been advocating privacy and use of cryptography for years, it is on their ideas bitcoin is built, because it is based on cryptography and gives people a right "to selectively reveal oneself to the world." https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html

KYC is opposite to ideas of cypherpunks, because it doesn't allow you to selectively reveal yourself, to the contrary it forces you to reveal your identity completely in order to have a control over you.

Jameson Lopp, as a cypherpunk, was criticizing KYC when talked about DeFi and Libra:



However, when it comes to Bitcoin and his own benefit, he is no so categorical and instead pretty okay with KYC idea and idea of being tightly controlled.

https://i.imgur.com/R1sHAo6.jpg
https://help.inx.co/hc/en-us/articles/360015783180-Can-I-buy-INX-tokens-without-going-through-KYC-

I am really disappointed-- on the basis the content excerpted in this thread: https://twitter.com/francispouliot_/status/1298423415594840066

Long before cryptocurrency existed I was regularly asked by friends to help them understand investments, taxes, and finance stuff-- since I'm the sort of person that finds numbers and contract terms fun.  If cryptocurrency had never existed and a friend came to me asking about an investment with INX's terms I would strongly caution them away from it;  I might even say it smells like a scam.

-- because if it's a scam or not depends critically on unknowable post issuance management decisions: Do they actually pay out income or do they shovel all income back into operations and grow the company until they ultimately sell it out from under the token holders? AFAICT nothing about the terms suggests that they're particularly incentivized to ever pay the token holders even if their revenue becomes substantial, much less obligated.  I think at a minimum to be equitable there would need to be an option-like component to the terms which in the event that the company was sold token holders would receive a share of the companies' gain in value minus the dividends already paid out.  Otherwise, I think an argument can be made that the management is legally obligated to the shareholders to rip off the token holders in this manner.

Even with that I'd still probably caution against the investment due to how complex and unusual it is and the potential for gotchas.

The fact that it is issued on some cryptocurrency system just makes it a little less trustworthy (potential for technical snafu), taps into an established market of read-made victims, and imports a collection of people incentivized to pump a sketchy investment.  None of this helps but it is not the most fundamental issue.

Some people have pointed out that unlike many ICO's this one doesn't appear to be an outright scam.  I think it would be more accurate to say that it's not necessarily true that it is a scam, maybe it turns out to be one, maybe it doesn't.  Then again, if someone were making a really attractive offering in a market of scammy products you would expect them to put in a real effort to make it extremely clear that their investment isn't a bad one.  They haven't done that and I think that is a pretty bad sign.

So, sure, while they might meet a "not certainly a scam" bar, that is an extremely low bar and the fact people think this is noteworthy is really just an indictment of the ecosystem.

That well respected Bitcoiners are sticking their names on it-- for what sounds like more or less an immediate $250k payment-- is really disappointing to me.  If INX merely goes as poorly as explicitly permitted by the contracts their reputations should be justifiably trashed-- because it'll be impossible to tell if the holders weren't paid because the company tunnelled out real profits as payroll and other expenses vs just failed in the marketplace.  Considering the failure rate of businesses, even if all intentions are good, the odds of it going poorly can't be extremely low.

So to me that says that they assign a fairly low value to their reputations, or that they believe that it's likely that even if it fails and takes everyone's money they won't take a substantial reputational hit from it, or that they're being foolish and don't actually see what an inequitable setup the whole thing is.  I think the first two are likely and the last isn't likely. All of them are bad.

I don't know if other people have similar thoughts but this is my impression.

That's what I'm saying, why do investors need a blockchain token for equity instead of the traditional approach? There's not much advantages but there are risks. If this method was clearly superior, you'd see a lot of big names doing this, but it has been 5 years since Ethereum launched and no big companies or traditional exchanges rushed to adopt it for their operations. And 5 years is a lot in tech, it's more than enough time to adopt new frameworks and protocols if they clearly have advantages.

This article explain quite well what has happened.
With the above sentence I mean it explain quite well why they decided to issue a token, why it is different both from an ICO or from an equity offering:

Bitcoin Maximalists Get Dragged for INX Hypocrisy (https://www.btctimes.com/news/bitcoin-maximalists-get-dragged-for-inx-hypocrisy)

Even if the title is quite promising, the article do not explain at all is why the hypocrisy. And then why the subsequent twitter shitstorm.
Thinking about the person involved in the newslet, it is not difficult to understand why.
Hypocrisy over hypocrisy.

there is a lesson to be learned here though. people should never trust anyone who is asking for money. whether it is obvious begging or elaborate begging also known as fundraising also known as ICO which has aliases such as STO, IEO, and nowadays DeFi.

I'm so glad I unsubscribed from all of the crypto twitter a few years ago. Of course I never took any financial advice from it, but it's much healthier to not follow any celebrities in general, especially on social media platforms that don't promote quality discussion.

I find crypto Twitter very useful myself. It's far better to have a self curated news source on there than any of the piece of shit news sites. You fairly rapidly learn who's a moron and who isn't and it's the information they come up with faster than anyone else that's interesting, not their opinions.

In retrospective, 99.9% of those news and ideas feel insignificant, and if truly big thing happens, I'll see them posted on this forum or on reddit. There's really not much going on in crypto, despite the fact that each news site makes a dozen of articles per day. Even the really big news from the past, like "China (un)bans Bitcoin" really didn't have that much effect on anything. And it's easy to waste so many time reading pointless discussions on twitter, and the only people who benefit from it all are influencers, aka shills.

A breakdown of different types of cryptographic tokens and the controversies generated by their proponents.

Most Bitcoin evangelists are small timers preaching to the choir. Bitcoin's greatest marketers are central bankers.

Jameson sorte a self defence blog post.
You can read it here:

 On Shitcoins and STOs (https://blog.lopp.net/shitcoins-stos/)

On a different note tweet: he might be a shitcoin shiller, but how can you not love statements like this?

I didn't risk reading an article to avoid being frustrated again, but my guess here is in the article Lopp explains that he had a very good reason to start shilling for shitcoins.

On a different note tweet: he might be a shitcoin shiller, but how can you not love statements like this?
https://twitter.com/lopp/status/1300156269202993154

I don't see anything surprising here. I see this kind of hypocrisy every day and I'm used to it.

I've seen this done by John McAfee he used to shill Bitcoin very much even telling people that Bitcoin will reach $20 k this year, only to call Bitcoin a shitcoin later on, this is really expected, these people just realized that there are a lot of money from creating your token from Ethereum and where the money is, that's where they go.

The difference here is that even McAfee himself will happily acknowledge that he's a drug soaked buffoon. The subjects of this thread have been casting down holy edicts, verdicts and decrees from their self appointed Mount Olympus for many years.

Jameson sorte a self defence blog post.
You can read it here:

On Shitcoins and STOs (https://blog.lopp.net/shitcoins-stos/)

Warning: as suggested on Twitter, a little bit of mental gymnastic required when reading this (guess much more had to be applied writing it).

Here is an email I wrote about this a few days ago:

i do think outspoken bitcoin maximalists ought to learn from lopp's mistakes. if you make your bed, be prepared to lie in it. if you spend years incessantly talking shit about everything that is not bitcoin, expect some blowback when you start shilling tokens. you can't build up a reputation and following that way then turn around and leverage it for ICO profits without pissing people off. hypocrisy is detestable. there's no way around that.

I see what you're saying in general, since their motivation behind this particular instance does seem to be profit-driven.  But again I'd emphasise that making a name for yourself by telling people when a shitcoin is a shitcoin shouldn't preclude them entirely from talking about other projects.

LET IT BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD "There's Bitcoin and then there's shitcoin." -jameson lopp, july 2019

I'm pretty dismissive of most altcoins, but I'd like to think, if there was a niche in the market that I was particularly interested in which Bitcoin doesn't cater to and I discussed a project that does, that people wouldn't be lining up to call me a hypocrite.

If this INX token had been any sort of attempt at emulating what Bitcoin does, then sure, it would be a slam dunk, they'd be absolute hypocrites for promoting this.  But, this doesn't appear to be emulating Bitcoin in any way.  It's a different beast entirely.  The project seems to have different goals and a different target audience.

How many of you, over the years, have discussed the potential of blockchain impacting other industries and having different tokens for things like property deeds or other assets?  I don't see any difference between that and this, except that with this, they're actually building it this time.  If you want to pigeon-hole these people and believe that they're only permitted to talk about Bitcoin for the rest of forever while you believe you're still free to discuss the application of blockchain in other places, then maybe the hypocrisy lies with you.  I'd argue it's perfectly permissible to call a shitcoin a shitcoin whilst also still being able to experiment with cryptography in other areas where Bitcoin clearly isn't appropriate to use.  

I'm pretty dismissive of most altcoins, but I'd like to think, if there was a niche in the market that I was particularly interested in which Bitcoin doesn't cater to and I discussed a project that does, that people wouldn't be lining up to call me a hypocrite.

that is why after 5 years and thousands of tokens we have never seen a single one that is remotely good while we have seen many cryptocurrencies that have had some potential and a handful that were at least decent.

To be fair, Binance Coin (BNB) was quite decent before it moved to its own blockchain as it had an underlying and highly utilized functionality.

to be honest i don't call using a centralized token created by a centralized platform and only used internally in that centralized platform to trade against while the creator (aka Binance) makes millions by selling something they created out of thin air to have a "utility".

I'm not sure if it is anymore but for the longest time it could be applied by Binance users to reduce trading fees. In addition, its holders were offered extra perks like access to special parts of the exchange and invites to this or that event. That's a utility. Most Ethereum tokens (except for other exchange tokens) lack this aspect altogether.

all of these features could have been offered without any tokens.
what you are describing is more like the point system that most exchanges already apply. for example for the long term users that trade a lot they reduce their trading fee by some percentage. all the "perks" of BNB were like that to first advertise the platform and attract more users and second to sell BNB to users and make money from it. remember they printed BNB out of thin air and were selling it.

if a legitimate company wants to do what they do in this space they should do it through legitimate and regulated channels such as going to stock market. but they don't. why? because they can get away with scam if they create an ICO. there is no regulation, no law or anything else that can prevent or prosecute them from or after scamming people.

Great example why you shouldn't let influencers influence you and your brain. Money speaks words here - they've probably been paid well enough to say "fuck it" and jump in the other team's boat.
Yeah, why not promote something you used to stand against if you get money, huh?

there is a massive distinction between cryptocurrencies (we can call them altcoins) and tokens (that must be referred to as fund-raising schemes). a cryptocurrency could potentially be respectable and do what bitcoin doesn't like you said but the only purpose of a token (ICO, IEO, STO, DEFI,...) is to raise funds and nothing else.

if a legitimate company wants to do what they do in this space they should do it through legitimate and regulated channels such as going to stock market. but they don't. why? because they can get away with scam if they create an ICO.

there is no regulation, no law or anything else that can prevent or prosecute them from or after scamming people.
and it doesn't cost anything to create a token. it is not even that hard or time consuming. there is no innovation in it, it also doesn't solve anything at all.

SEC clearance was a near miracle

(...)

making this a public security, a publicly reporting company, a regulated company

Its unfortunately the world we live in. Most people in the world, will blindly trust their favorite celebrity, and lose countless money because of it. I mean, just take a look at the recent Twitter compromise, and how many people blindly followed the doubling scam that occurred. Instagram, used to be the worst for these sort of trends, but it seems Twitter is now the place for posting things with political motivations. I've also noticed Youtube infulencers/creators are now getting much more comfortable with ramming sponsorships, and brand deals without doing their own research on just what they might be talking about. A few big Youtubers have been caught out promoting scams for this exact reason.

I wish people just wised up, and understood that an infulencer has a price, and they will push any agenda on you if their price is met. Of course, there are some influencer ith a bit of integrity, but they are far, and few between.

This project appears different.