|
Market cap 291 BTC. Must be that Bentley.
|
|
|
|
I think these are very likely scenarios.
I think these are delusional scenarios. |
|
|
|
@mmeijeri post under mine : I don't think so, its impossible to pump this
Fooling himself into believing he's fooling others? |
|
|
|
Look, i made tried to make it clear with the "saving kittens" bit. If a slaughterhouse lists "saving kittens" as a part of its business model, it neither stops being a slaughterhouse, nor does it explain how it intends to make money by saving kittens.
And yes, many hypotheticals could be created where Neo is a good thing. Sure, money could be made with honest money services -- it happens. Unfortunately, nothing in the Neo prospectus describes how it plans to go about doing that. Don't send your coin to strangers who make nice sounding vague promises.
OK, that makes sense. |
|
|
|
To sum up: Uninsured pegged accounts with all the drawbacks of conventional banks + uninsured. Extra fees for using Bitcoin. Not a bank.  You keep coming back to the pegged accounts. That's the only part that had the disadvantages of a bank. I'm talking about the rest of their activities. Also: even the pegged accounts could have limited counterparty risk to the peg itself, with the peg itself being conditional on the BTC being released to Neo. Then they still couldn't have run off with your BTC. |
|
|
|
Care to sum up their goals, along with how profit was going to be generated by achieving those goals? The TL;DR i could see is all of the bad qualities of a bank ("running off with the fiat") were compounded by "the customer is 100% uninsured."
That only applies to the pegged accounts. For BTC accounts the promise was Bitcoin payments with the convenience of electronic euro payments, including protection from theft, combined with a protection from bail-ins. In order to run a profit they'd have to charge fees, just like banks. |
|
|
|
@mmeijeri: As I said, "...everything other than..."
I wasn't sure you had the right number of negatives in there. I don't understand how you can complain Neo was going to have the bad properties of banks. Their goals were sound. |
|
|
|
I'm referring to everything other than the ridiculous "because having your own bitcoin wallet is hard" wallets.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Having your own bitcoin wallet is kind of the point of Bitcoin, so you don't need a bank. At the same time it's totally true that having your own bitcoin wallet is hard. Fortunately, multisig wallets can help with that. And that's exactly what Neo said they were going to do. It was a great idea, it's still a great idea, others are working on it too, several have even deployed it already. It's very different from what banks do, in the sense that they cannot run off with the money. On the other hand, from a usability perspective it isn't so different. It gives you the best of both words. Neo was a great idea, but clearly Danny Brewster was not the man to run it. I'd love to know WTF went wrong. |
|
|
|
@mmeijeri: If Neo said that along with being a bank, it would also rescue kittens, would that make Neo any less of a bank?
Well, I'd say they wouldn't really have been a bank. Or are you referring to the pegged accounts? |
|
|
|
And you are eager to fund a bank because profit.
They said they were going to hold funds with multi-sig. |
|
|
|
Your MP lovefest on twitter shows and it's pretty disgusting display for the casual audience.
What MP lovefest? |
|
|
|
|
We don't have a problem with FUD here, we have a problem with pumpers who'd love to be dumpers, and with messenger shooting.
|
|
|
|
Interesting about that Cyprus Mail article, apparently, they did have customers.
Could have been some of their staff too. |
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure I agree that's what the word means, but in any event that's not what I meant. I meant don't ignore rumours. Lots of people on r/bitcoin (pretend to) do that if the rumours are negative, or even worse, try to get others to do so. Every time there's bad news coming out of China there are people who want to put up posts saying "rumour X is false" without evidence instead of "X is just an unconfirmed rumour". Real events are often preceded by rumours, even though many rumours turn out to be false.
|
|
|
|
An investor who ignores rumours (rather than treating them as unconfirmed reports) is a moron.
that's bullshit. anyone that regards all rumors as credible is an idiot. I didn't say an investor should treat them as credible, that would be stupid. I said he should treat them as unconfirmed reports. Simply ignoring or dismissing rumours is utterly stupid. You're always trading based on uncertain information. |
|
|
|
I live in a world where facts are important and rumors are unimportant.
An investor who ignores rumours (rather than treating them as unconfirmed reports) is a moron. |
|
|
|
Further, presumption of innocence is the basis of most criminal, not civil, law.
More importantly, presumption of innocence is utterly stupid as an investment policy. |
|
|
|
But don't you think that we, that believed in him and the Neo idea, deserve an explanation why he simply disappeared on 18 March? Was he disappointed for some reason? Any health problems? In any case he is the CEO of a listed company and cannot simply disappear leaving hunderds of shareholders, employees, investors, friends and people who believed in him in the dark and with millions in losses.
Exactly. The death threats are despicable, but it is nonsense to suggest nothing is wrong and that it is all price manipulation. There are many dubious characters in the Bitcoin world, so I'm sure attempts at price manipulation happen all the time, but the fact remains that this is extremely bad news. |
|
|
|
|
You know it's bad when investors start inventing excuses for the CEO's behaviour.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
