Show Posts
Thanks for your reply Electric. I concur with your comments regarding the volatility of this token and the effect of the spike on the community's confidence in the project.
As far as your comments on transparency are concerned, I would certainly agree that any company would be foolish to promulgate information about R&D in the form of weekly updates. However, that is a matter of commercial confidentiality aimed at protecting intellectual property and so on from competitors wishing to gain a competitive edge. I'd regard that more as disclosure than transparency. My concern regarding transparency - and, ironically, I accept that I may not have made it sufficiently clear - centres on the extent to which the LIFE team have been candid and honest about what lies behind the project, not the minutiea of product development. It seems to me that they need to be more open and direct. They also need to disambiguate their communications in order to resore some confidence in LIFE. To import you car analogy for my purposes, obviously no manufacturer would reveal development details ahead of a product launch. However,it is a matter of record that the largest car maker in the world, Volkswagen, deliberately contrived to deceive its customers and the wider consumer base, by misrepresenting the ecologigal credentials of their diesel models with false emissions data. It is a policy that has cost them dear. Not only have they suffered reputational damage, but will certainly take a huge financial hit when the legal actions currently underway in the US come to fruition. Had they been honest with their customers, they would not have sought to lie to them. But having done so, it would have been far better to have acknowledged their culpability and engaged in damage limitation at an earlier stage. LIFE's no VW, but if they want people to buy into their vision at this embryonic stage, the team must be completely straight about themselves and their project.
I can understand why you choose to compare LIFE with Apple and car manufacturers, but the token is not a product that can be considered alongside a phone or a car. It has a digital existence and a value and status that are determined exclusively by the importance attached to it by the community. There is no underlying intrinsic value to LIFE and it is not properly fungible as some other asset classes are. To that extent the success or otherwise of the token and the project in general is intinsically connected to the team, so much so as to be to all intents and puposes indistinguishable from it. Everybody who buys LIFE is taking a punt. There's nothing wrong with that. But there is something wrong with a company that presents a compelling image, but fails to engage fully with the supporters who can make or break it. It is at best lazy and at worst dishonest.
Your point about the adopters carries weight, but in my view only from the perspective of the originators of the project. A group of people coming together to create a cryptocurency would seek to make their creation as credible as possible. They would want the venture to appear solid and substantial, and the window dressing provided by the adopters would be essential in validating their proposition. They might also wish to imbue it with some kind of USP, like a charitable component. Something like that would give the project a patina of respectability. Where I part company with you is in accepting that this is sufficient to instill confidence in prospective buyers of both the token and the team. What kudos or growth is likely to accrue from an association with a few new businesses that haven't yet got off the ground themselves? Furthermore, why would anyone choose to throw money at a group of guys who've had a light- bulb moment and are asking us to believe that their little start-up will be worth hundreds of millions of pounds in a few months? I would not be so focused on this point but for Jon Bushnell's upbeat and frankly fantastical assurances about LIFE's incandescently bright future. His glass isn't half full, it's positively overflowing!
Let's just examine some of his comments. Currently LIFE's market cap sits in the range between $6million and $9million. Albeit that it's a hypothesis, Mr Bushnell indicates in the La Bulle Crypto interview broadcast on 16th December 2017, that In June 2018 the market cap might be circa £600million or more than $1billion. That assumes more than a hundred fold growth rate to get it to that point from the lowest current value. It is absurd to posit that this may materialise in four months, particularly looking at the current trajectory. However, it is even more ridiculuous to have made that prediction in mid December 2017 when the market cap was circa $5million. The recording actually took place on the 6th when the market cap was less than $2million. He asserts that it's just mathematics, while ignoring the fact that any rise in value is predicated on continued interest from a growing community of speculators. That's the seed bed that forces growth, not a misplaced faith in exponential curves. He goes on to suggest that a major marketing campaign is in prospect. He blithely reassures us that LIFE will be seen 'everywhere'. He references TV, radio and other media . He even drags in Hollywood at one point. Apparently LIFE will be 'placed in a variety of places, all over the place.' Maybe they'll stick the logo on Kim Jon-un's next rocket or get it embroidered on Meghan Markle's wedding dress, who knows? He also comments that the 'banking system is flawed in terms of trust'. That's certainly true, yet faced with a tanking market cap, he is doing little or nothing to restore confidence and trust in LIFE by communicating directly and honestly with its supporters. His position is becoming increasingly invidious.
Electric, you sound like the kind of guy who's got his head screwed on and is just looking at LIFE as a high risk component of a balanced portfolio. I hope you don't lose money on it, but I'm guessing you can take the hit. For everyone else, I think the coffee's finally precolated. You need to wake up and smell it. Then you can decide to drink it or tip it down the sink. Old Hat, just be cautious and don't risk what you can't afford to lose. Even using Electric's criterion of judgement, you are self-evidently not an idiot, as you are clearly full of doubts. And don't worry, your English is excellent. 10sat, great comment. I think you might just be a philosopher to rival the greats!
As far as your comments on transparency are concerned, I would certainly agree that any company would be foolish to promulgate information about R&D in the form of weekly updates. However, that is a matter of commercial confidentiality aimed at protecting intellectual property and so on from competitors wishing to gain a competitive edge. I'd regard that more as disclosure than transparency. My concern regarding transparency - and, ironically, I accept that I may not have made it sufficiently clear - centres on the extent to which the LIFE team have been candid and honest about what lies behind the project, not the minutiea of product development. It seems to me that they need to be more open and direct. They also need to disambiguate their communications in order to resore some confidence in LIFE. To import you car analogy for my purposes, obviously no manufacturer would reveal development details ahead of a product launch. However,it is a matter of record that the largest car maker in the world, Volkswagen, deliberately contrived to deceive its customers and the wider consumer base, by misrepresenting the ecologigal credentials of their diesel models with false emissions data. It is a policy that has cost them dear. Not only have they suffered reputational damage, but will certainly take a huge financial hit when the legal actions currently underway in the US come to fruition. Had they been honest with their customers, they would not have sought to lie to them. But having done so, it would have been far better to have acknowledged their culpability and engaged in damage limitation at an earlier stage. LIFE's no VW, but if they want people to buy into their vision at this embryonic stage, the team must be completely straight about themselves and their project.
I can understand why you choose to compare LIFE with Apple and car manufacturers, but the token is not a product that can be considered alongside a phone or a car. It has a digital existence and a value and status that are determined exclusively by the importance attached to it by the community. There is no underlying intrinsic value to LIFE and it is not properly fungible as some other asset classes are. To that extent the success or otherwise of the token and the project in general is intinsically connected to the team, so much so as to be to all intents and puposes indistinguishable from it. Everybody who buys LIFE is taking a punt. There's nothing wrong with that. But there is something wrong with a company that presents a compelling image, but fails to engage fully with the supporters who can make or break it. It is at best lazy and at worst dishonest.
Your point about the adopters carries weight, but in my view only from the perspective of the originators of the project. A group of people coming together to create a cryptocurency would seek to make their creation as credible as possible. They would want the venture to appear solid and substantial, and the window dressing provided by the adopters would be essential in validating their proposition. They might also wish to imbue it with some kind of USP, like a charitable component. Something like that would give the project a patina of respectability. Where I part company with you is in accepting that this is sufficient to instill confidence in prospective buyers of both the token and the team. What kudos or growth is likely to accrue from an association with a few new businesses that haven't yet got off the ground themselves? Furthermore, why would anyone choose to throw money at a group of guys who've had a light- bulb moment and are asking us to believe that their little start-up will be worth hundreds of millions of pounds in a few months? I would not be so focused on this point but for Jon Bushnell's upbeat and frankly fantastical assurances about LIFE's incandescently bright future. His glass isn't half full, it's positively overflowing!
Let's just examine some of his comments. Currently LIFE's market cap sits in the range between $6million and $9million. Albeit that it's a hypothesis, Mr Bushnell indicates in the La Bulle Crypto interview broadcast on 16th December 2017, that In June 2018 the market cap might be circa £600million or more than $1billion. That assumes more than a hundred fold growth rate to get it to that point from the lowest current value. It is absurd to posit that this may materialise in four months, particularly looking at the current trajectory. However, it is even more ridiculuous to have made that prediction in mid December 2017 when the market cap was circa $5million. The recording actually took place on the 6th when the market cap was less than $2million. He asserts that it's just mathematics, while ignoring the fact that any rise in value is predicated on continued interest from a growing community of speculators. That's the seed bed that forces growth, not a misplaced faith in exponential curves. He goes on to suggest that a major marketing campaign is in prospect. He blithely reassures us that LIFE will be seen 'everywhere'. He references TV, radio and other media . He even drags in Hollywood at one point. Apparently LIFE will be 'placed in a variety of places, all over the place.' Maybe they'll stick the logo on Kim Jon-un's next rocket or get it embroidered on Meghan Markle's wedding dress, who knows? He also comments that the 'banking system is flawed in terms of trust'. That's certainly true, yet faced with a tanking market cap, he is doing little or nothing to restore confidence and trust in LIFE by communicating directly and honestly with its supporters. His position is becoming increasingly invidious.
Electric, you sound like the kind of guy who's got his head screwed on and is just looking at LIFE as a high risk component of a balanced portfolio. I hope you don't lose money on it, but I'm guessing you can take the hit. For everyone else, I think the coffee's finally precolated. You need to wake up and smell it. Then you can decide to drink it or tip it down the sink. Old Hat, just be cautious and don't risk what you can't afford to lose. Even using Electric's criterion of judgement, you are self-evidently not an idiot, as you are clearly full of doubts. And don't worry, your English is excellent. 10sat, great comment. I think you might just be a philosopher to rival the greats!
Some people would call me crazy but I seen these warning signs after I invested at first and started asking questions. This all Didn't make sense and Jon himself was a warning sign. Hope people do wake up and see the fools gold that's presented as real gold. I heard they are scrapping the whitepaper and how founders have stepped down/back. Which is all in all a big warning sign. What people bought into including myself at first was all a big sham. A quickly written formula which I believe Life team already cashed out. Now they are looking for someone to put the pieces together before the riot starts. Even then it's a big task because almost everything on that whitepaper is false. I don't know if they lived up to anything on their white paper. Good Luck to all in this cryptosphere but be careful and be mindful of this lesson which is called Life.
