Does it not worry you at all as an investor that Matlack and his team continually miss targets? Not only that but they miss targets then go completely AWOL and simply allow the date to slip by without any correction? Do you not think that explains partly why they’ve struggled to make this a success, and why there are so few investors left?

Don’t play games. You posted this:



Which clearly shows the fork date.

Matlack said this during his AMA:



What’s your opinion on this?

I find this particularly amusing because it seems like the only play here is to wait until BTC goes up and then ion will be great again - which, as I’ve said many times, has nothing to actually do with Ionomy. If you’re admitting that really you’re just using ion as a proxy investment to ride a wider crypto bubble and you don’t actually care about the company Ionomy, sure - go ahead. Doesn’t seem that clever, but whatever.

Anyway, wasn’t today meant to be the (latest) fork day? Or did Ionomy miss another major milestone, which is something Matlack said they would be better at this year?

How many times do we have to go over this before you understand? This retort about the all time high of ion is not and cannot ever be a valid example of ionomy as a company being a success. It had nothing to do with ionomy. I can’t work out if you still don’t get it at this point or if you’re just being deliberately obtuse - either way, it’s nonsense for reasons I’ve already discussed.


This is such an incoherent mess I have no idea what you’re actually trying to say.

Again, if you can’t work out why understanding how well the products they’ve already released to market have performed as an investor might be a important, I honestly don’t know what to say to you. I guess we know how good your due diligence is likely to have been, though.

Most of your response was waffle predictably based around the all time high of ion, which, as you know, has nothing to do with what I was attempting to discuss with you. You just like bringing it up because it’s a neat way of trying to frame ion positively and I assume a way you feel you’re most likely to entice new investors so you can eventually have someone to offload your bags to. Fair play.


I’d like to explore this a little more. Firstly, I never suggested that the metrics should be limited to one game, and certainly not just download numbers. You may have misinterpreted, or you may be trying to avoid the point. I’ve asked you many times how many users ionomy has - how many active game participants, how many people use the platform - both of which I would assume are key drivers for success for ionomy’s business model.

It’s obvious you either don’t know these figures (and when the games were running with leaderboards, it wasn’t hard to work out), or you’re avoiding trying to discuss them because you realize that they don’t paint ionomy in a positive light.

You’re welcome to suggest that you’ll measure success or failure in 2021, but you’ve said this many times before and simply kicked the can down the road in the past. You’ll do exactly the same thing again next year.

Meanwhile, here’s a screenshot of the game ionomy appears to believe is going to eat a chunk of the mobile drag racing game market. Presumably this is the best screenshot they could get, because they included it in their weekly email this week. Make of that what you will.



Image link is here if it doesn’t display: https://i.gyazo.com/458612290733ce9802bd09a627f28595.png

Edit: It’s also pretty amusing that they appear to still be advertising pwrrrrrrr:grruuddddddd in the game. Wonder if they’ll change that before release? They haven’t changed their website yet, so I’d assume they won’t bother. 

Yes, again, I’m totally aware of what I’ve written in the past. I genuinely do think you and Shark, and most if not all altcoin investors are absolutely off your respective rockers. I do think some of the things you and him write are pant wettingly funny at times. I’m happy to own that label, even if it makes me an asshole, since I’m entitled to an opinion. As are you.

However, I’m also entitled to ask questions. If you’re too wrapped up in your little package of altcoin cultism to be able to differentiate between a valid question and the dreaded ‘FUD’, that honestly only makes these interactions more amusing in my eyes.

I’m assuming the fact that you haven’t answered my questions and been able to show evidence is because there isn’t any, which is what any reasonable person would conclude from your constant desire to reframe everything in a way that suits your happy clappy, ion will prevail agenda.

By the way - you must have forgotten again - that ‘very profitable’ ion period was purely coincidental and had nothing to do with ion at all. Just to make that clear.

Have a good week, Korvas.

Thanks. As it happens, though, I’m quite familiar with what I’ve written in the past.

Anyway, it’s good that we’ve moved back to this - is this where you’re going to finally address this and refute, with evidence, the points I’ve raised? Can you show me data to prove that Ionomy’s games were/are thriving, for example?

To be clear, this isn’t ‘FUD’. This is a valid discussion. It might make you uncomfortable, but it’s valid nonetheless.

No.

What you actually said after that was:


Look, I understand that the way this played out in reality doesn’t fit the shiny happy everybody clapping hands and making millions of $s narrative that you want to spin this with, but the reality is:

- Ionomy asked for donations
- Ionomy took donations
- Ionomy sent donations to Korean exchange
- Exchange went bust, taking the donations with them
- Some of those who donated weren’t happy

You’re mistaking raising valid points, based on facts and observations of Ionomy over 3+ years, as being a ‘witch hunt’. I don’t expect you to understand this, but there is a difference.

You have an extremely low bar for a witch hunt. I’m simply using evidence to present questions about something that actually happened. It’s funny how you suddenly remember it now despite telling me I had entirely misunderstood in your reply before, isn’t it?

You’re clearly not interested in addressing the actual points here though, so there’s no point in continuing this discussion - anyone can clearly see that you’re avoiding the underlying issues I’ve raised because they’re awkward for you and don’t present ready opportunities for you to whitewash everything with your all time high rubbish.

No, I didn’t understand wrong. That’s exactly what happened:



If you can’t work out why it might potentially be more of a concern now than when they had all their fresh ICO funds in 2017 and they’ve still yet to produce anything successful, I don’t know what to say.

Also, if you could avoid wall quoting Wild’s crazy bull crap that’d be great.

By the way, what happened to this:

From what I understood from posts I've seen, it may have been a Korean exchange but it was closed down soon after the donations were taken. Besides, you're missing the point - I suspect deliberately - which was that it appears that they had to ask for money to fund that from their community. As I said before, you can't with any confidence say that you fully know the financial situation of the team as they never discuss it.


Right, so the fact that they've so far produced nothing in 4 years of work that's ever appealed to more than what, 50 or 60 people at the absolute peak is a sign of success in your eyes? And from this you conclude that they'll somehow now pull a magic rabbit out of their hat and start producing something that'll bring in 1 million users?

Would this be the same 'fully funded' Ionomy that at some point in 2018 asked some of it's community members to donate 0.5 BTC each to get Ion listed on an exchange? The truth is that you likely have no real idea of their financial situation because they don't talk about that stuff beyond vague 'we have enough money' noises occasionally.

I could understand the agility argument if it was backed up by any wider success in the past at all, but it's not. Going all the way back to it's inception with XPY.io, this team has so far delivered nothing that has appealed to an audience bigger than a small subsection of a subsection of the alt coin community, and has had to keep revising and redesigning it's core offering as it uncovers flaws and missteps in it's delivery. This is not the signature of a focused, agile team. This is the signature of a team who have to keep changing their goals and project aims because they consistently underestimate both the true scope of their work and the skills needed to deliver it to a standard that actually appeals to people.

You know, the more I read your posts, the more I’m utterly convinced that you have literally no idea what you’re talking about, and are simply clinging to a vision you’ve been sold by the ionomy leadership which you are now too stubborn to drop.

You’ve changed your goalposts so many times it’s almost sad at this point; here’s a few examples, in case you’ve forgotten.

Apparently x years of work were ‘starting to come to fruition’ even back in 2018...




2019 was also going to be good, apparently:


There’s also always ‘more to come’ from the games...





Let’s not forget that cake codes/bitmaker nonsense was meant to be a big thing, too:


And the games and pweeeerrrrrrr:gruuuudddddd were going to cause mad growth:


Anyway, there’s always the mythical parabolic growth to look forward to:


TL;DR

I don’t think anyone should listen to what you say, as you clearly don’t have a clue.

On another note, I notice that the magical GameGrid still hasn’t launched, which is confusing because I thought Matlack was adamant that it would launch in January, and before the latest fork. I thought they were going to be better at hitting timelines this year?

I just want to bring you back to the present a little bit here, Korvas, but before I do:

When you bring the all time high of Ion up, which of course you are bound to do as often as you can, please also make sure to mention that that value had absolutely nothing to do with the success of Ion as a project at the time. It was simply a function of bitcoin’s rise at the time. If you profited from it, well done - but please don’t present it as something that ionomy achieved as it was simply luck.

So let’s instead talk about what ionomy have achieved so far. Maybe you can outline for us the success of the games, and how popular their leaderboard and competitions have been? How many engaged players and users they’ve captured, along with what must be an overwhelming number of productive indie game devs by now, surely? How they’ve got a strong track record of great communication with their community and outstanding and effective advertising and marketing  campaigns that have driven explosive growth?

You know - the sort of stuff that you should easily be able to demonstrate if your claim that they are market leading is, in fact, the case.

The man is either extremely stoned or very drunk most of the time he posts; on top of all that he’s obviously as thick as two planks. Sadly, when he comes back off his temp ban his behavior isn’t going to change. Honestly, I don’t think he’s able to comprehend that his ‘plan’ is bullshit, no one is googling ionomy and finding his posts, and literally no one cares what he thinks, least of all the ionomites and Matlack.

Hilariously I think he actually believes that by tacking his crazy posts on the end so they're always the most recent post, he's getting more people to read his bullcrap. Most people probably have him on ignore by this point anyway, and there's probably not many that actually read this topic any more regardless. Basically all his effort (if you can call it that) is going into a void where literally no one cares or has any desire to engage with him.

Oy, again with the disingenuous arguments about price?

The quote was about the success of Gravity. How did that go? How’s it going now? How many players has the project got across its three titles? How much revenue are those players bringing in? You claimed a couple of pages back that this was a market leading project. Explain how they’re leading and dominating the market in crypto gaming, please.

Anything else, about price and hypothetical scenarios in which you might have benefitted from a purely coincidental rise in crypto value across the board, are not relevant to this discussion, which is about the success of Ionomy as a project so far in it’s core mission - crypto integrated gaming.

Merry Christmas to you too, by the way - as much as you wind me up on here sometimes, I wish you the best.

Yes. I literally said I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. It doesn’t make what I said less accurate.

Perhaps you’d instead like to refute what I said by pointing me towards some statistics to show how many users ionomy’s games have and what their growth has been like over the last year - you know, the things that actually matter if this project is to be regarded as a success? I’m sure it’ll be easy for you to demonstrate using actual evidence that they’re leading the market in the crypto gaming space, right?

By the way, you’re a bit of a stuck record yourself. Your post history is full of nuggets of delusional gold. Let’s remind ourselves of this little gem, where you came oh so close to being self aware but you seem to have somehow disregarded your own prognosis:


Anyway, on to removing the spin from their latest mail shot:

A few 2019 highlights

Here are just a the few items the team checked off their list during the past year:

* Atomic Token Protocol (ATP) for immutable, permissionless tokens on the ION blockchain - which no one uses yet, and likely no one actually cares about beyond a few guys in an isolated discord channel.
* Dark Matter presale established ingenious price discovery procedure - which almost no one was even aware of or cares about, let alone took part in.
* IIP6 voted on to begin a new era of deflation for the ION supply - by all of 90 people at the absolute most.
* POTX verification protocol developed to act as a deflationary driver for ION - which again, no one outside of the ionomy team and their most invested followers seem to care about.
* ionosphere newsletter launched - seriously, they wrote a newsletter? Is including this how desperate they are to show they’ve been doing stuff? I notice they didn’t mention the embarrassingly cringy ionomy podcast, which went about as well as you’d expect.
* GameGrid was created and tested with final deployment just around the corner - and their so called ‘premium partner’ for this venture was no where to be seen since April.
* The original ionomy Studios title Crypto Gravity returned! And no one cared.
* ION listed on Bittrex Global - big whoop.
* ION trading was added to the STEX exchange - big whoop.
* ION markets at STEX, Bittrex and CREX24 exchanges are now tracked on Coinmarketcap - big whoop.
* ION markets at STEX, Bittrex, Upbit Korea, and Upbit Indonesia exchanges were added to Coingecko - big whoop.
* ION trading was added to CREX24 - we get it, you finagled your way on to some exchanges. Doesn't seem to be getting you much volume though, does it? Could it be that... no one cares?

It's been a busy year!


I haven't really been following the Wagerr thing that closely, but it seems like (from what I've read) their so called 'premium partner' in the bizarrely silent 'Lucky Tap Games' is likely a result of Matlack and co's involvement in Wagerr as well as all the other supposedly slightly shady stuff that might have gone on. I would say, however, that in this case Ionomy doesn't really even sound too good to be true - it's always mostly been airy fairy stuff that's always been destined to struggle.

TL;DR:

Matlack: We’ve made mistakes in over promising and under delivering before. This time it will totally be different.

Also Matlack: Our new token system will drive value within weeks of going live.

This, right here, is an example of why I struggle to take this team seriously. Matlack consistently just tells people what they want to hear, and that’s a real problem. It may not be 'hype' in as overt a way as Garza used to spew out, but every single one of their hangouts or times when he speaks publicly has examples of him either saying something will happen (x will launch by y date - a good example of this is GameDock, which was this massive thing that was supposedly launching in June, but seems to have dropped off the map) or using massively over enthusiastic language to describe their progress ('we're really excited, we've had loads of interest and we're in contracts with 6 different companies', for example, which is paraphrased from a hangout earlier in the year). Broadly, these are either never delivered on time or at all in some cases, or end up being extremely underwhelming if they ever do happen. This goes all the way back to xpy.io, where they used to speak in grandiose language about how they'd make xpy great again by adding features to their little platform. This is a serious problem that he needs to improve on in the future, because anyone who does any amount of serious research into their history will be put off by this.

Ultimately it doesn’t really matter in ion's case because he’s speaking to an audience of tens at most at this point, and it’s pretty obvious by now that that is unlikely to change, probably ever - but it’s irritating that people don’t call him out on this more often.

The other thing that bugs me is the fact that they and their most ardent followers put far too much emphasis on this idea that they are somehow a ‘success’ by default simply because they haven’t pulled the old crypto vanishing act. Outside of crypto, this is a ludicrous notion - the idea that you’re successful and worthy of investment on the basis of just still being there after 4 years, treading water. They’ve shown almost no growth or wide ranging success for any of their product launches so far, which is what investors should really be focusing on.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll likely say it again: there is nothing in this team’s track record that suggests they possess the skills required to make this a success. This AMA did nothing to change that.

Well, I think we’ve stumbled upon a good example of why no one from ionomy wants to engage with you here, haven’t we?

I am actually putting you back on ignore now, take care and try and drink a bit less before you post, eh?