bitshapebd, I won't demean myself by acknowledging what I suppose in your world constitutes a 'put down', except to state that I gave up doing homework several decades ago. Having said that, I think I'd give your comments a generous two out of ten. I clearly have the advantage of you in that I know these people. I know where they live. I have met them. I have known two of them for more than ten years. Have you? My comments regarding PLH are easily verifiable. I would urge anyone less mesmerised than you clearly are by LIFE's grand illusion - replete as it is with stickers and Converse trainers - to be very wary.

Just been reading Jason Dean's unintentionally hilarious article in Hidden Hills magazine. No investigative journalist he. The great leader Bushnell has shared some very bold plans for Pure Living Homes with Mr Dean.

What started in July 2017 as a way to create sustainable housing has quickly blossomed into a larger mission. "We didn't want to be the landlord that just sucks up hard-working people's money in terms of rent," Bushnell says. "We're going to create sustainable housing, at the end of their tenancy, three to five years, we're going to give them cash back. So they can (use) that toward a deposit on a home."

All very encouraging, I'm sure. I don't quite know how this is going to happen given that Pure Living Homes is subject to a compulsory order to be struck off the register at Companies House and the company will shortly be dissolved. For the avoidance of doubt, PLH has not traded and has filed no accounts. This is the much vaunted principal adopter of LIFE - a paper company set up by a man who'd do or say anything to make a quick buck.  Take it from one who knows, Bushnell is not a major private landlord or even a minor one. Take a punt elsewhere and don't believe the hype.

Esdrase, other than the fact that the LIFE team always answers your questions, what else do you know about them sufficient to underpin your confidence and justify your speculation on this token?

Downhill like a fat man in a luge. Don't say you weren't warned.

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!

Thank you ElectricFox and madpoet for your carefully considered replies. Electric, you are right of course that stockmarkets and crypto are not the same - the latter being unconstrained by regulation. However, while it may be true that no fiduciary obligation exists, I suppose I'm old fashioned enough (perhaps naive enough) to believe in honest and transparent transactions. In law the LIFE team has no responsibility, that's true. My point isn't about the extent to which LIFE team can or should mitigate buyers' losses because of a legal obligation. It is about their capacity and willingness to demonstrate transparency in their offer in order that those buyers can make a properly informed and risk weighted decision. LIFE's adopters, Tarian, Cryptosaurus and Money Mindful are new ventures established by individuals known to the LIFE team, some of whom were employees or directors of RP Assure. They have yet to present their first set of accounts. I am not saying LIFE is a scam. I can't KNOW that, but equally no one else can know that it is not. The word scam implies a clear intention to deceive and profiteer. That may be the case, but it might also come to pass  that the venture collapses as a result of nothing more sinister than incompetence. What I am suggesting is that, on the balance of probabilities, in my opinion the project is more likely to fail than succeed in the medium to longer term. If you cash out before then and make a packet, that's great. I'll be cheering you for having made the right judgement call at the right time.  The LIFE team are very keen on peppering their twitter posts with aphorisms from the likes of Napoleon Hill and Helen Keller. The latter was certainly a magnificently gifted human being, but also a deaf-blind one. So I would say to others, seek to emulate her intellectual rigour not her impairments when arriving at a judgement of this project.

Electric Fox, I take your point about the word 'investor', but I think you're too hung up on the semantics. There are many investment options that are high risk. Futures, derivatives and short selling established stock all fill that category. Commodites can carry very high risk at times because of the bid/ask spread. Yes, they're riskier than buying a tranche of Microsoft or Exxon, but they are still investments. That said, if you prefer betting terminology, gambler it is. After all it was John Maynard Keynes who said:

'It is generally agreed that Casinos should, in the public interest, be inaccessible and expensive. And perhaps the same is true of stock exchanges.'

Perhaps that's even more true for the cryptocurrency jungle. As for the rest, and to answer Conan's very reasonable enquiry, there are undoubtedly many successful people who have struggled before hitting pay dirt. Richard Branson had a setback or two in his teens but was a millionaire in his early twenties. The point is, Bushnell is nearly forty and has some way to go before he buys a microlight, never mind a hangar full of Boeings. I suppose there's still a remote chance that he might stumble across the next Mike Oldfield.

The important questions to ask yourself are these:
 
Why do I believe LIFE is the token for me?
What is the basis of that belief?
How much do I know about the people associated with the LIFE project, other than what they have told me?
How well funded is the venture and have I verfified that to the fullest possible extent?
Is the LIFE team being transparent and honest?

You may be right to have faith in this project and you are refreshingly frank in acknowledging that the cryptocurrency market is essentially a casino. But you wouldn't buy a car without checking it out first. Just  keep in mind that faith is simply belief without evidence. And faith allied to the gambler's fallacy is a very bad combination.

As a point of clarification, there is a bankruptcy issue, although it applies to Mr Bushnell's previous venture, RP Assure Ltd, of which he was CEO and ultimate controlling party, rather than him personally. This company was compulsorily liquidated in 2016 following an insolvency petition from HMRC. For those of you outside the UK, that is Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs - essentially the same as the US IRS. To cut to the chase, RP Assure ran out of cash, was unable to meet HMRC's tax demands and continue trading, and was wound up. It happens to plenty of businesses, but Mr Bushnell's inability to achieve commercial sustainabiltiy with RP Assure should not be ignored if you are trusting him to take LIFE forward. Nor should his obfuscation of the true natue of his relationship with LIFE's 'adopters'.

Finally, not everyone buying cryptocurrency is a shark. There are plenty of honest minnows out there too. People risking a few hundred dollars in the hope of a return. They're the ones I'm primarily addressing.  Whatever you may think, there is substance to Livewryght's concerns. And, just for the record, these statements are made in good faith,with the reasonable belief that they are true. They are not intended to defame, calumnify,villify or traduce the LIFE team or its associated parties. They are, however, intended to shed light.

Just a word of warning. Investors do need to be wary of committing money to this project. Jonathan Bushnell's business history is characterised by failure more than success and this should inform your judgement in relation to LIFE. This venture may be different and its charitable component may appeal, but precedent should make you cautious. The crypto ocean is a home to sharks as well as dolphins. Mr Bushnell may not be a Great White, but he's probably not Flipper either. I'm happy to share what i know if it would be helpful.