Asking these kind of technically critical questions is what if have been missing on waves ico back in the days.
I see only two questions from Tempus unanswered:
(...)
Most of Tempus's long posts consist of something else, so it would be useful to lay out the questions in clear manner. We're quite busy though, so I may have missed valid questions.
See, I have good news for you: I won't bother you anymore. I'm okay with the answers you gave, even if there are still a lot of points I have a different opinion about and also some questions that are unanswered. But, I'm just responsible for me and I made my decision if or if not to invest.
But let me tell you also this:
Besides the fact that you guys did not prepare basic informations like a Whitepaper, and besides the fact that you list a lot of "headline-incentives" to buy the ICO in the Ann without detailing it out to give more information which would give more trust, it's especially the way you react on questions that makes me suspicious. I see dishonesty in that.
Because: While I'm obviously critical I never was personal offensive or not on topic. I don't take things personal but I take things serious. As an Investor I try to be as professional as I can be. I want to know if I see reasons to believe in a project and that means especially in the team before I give away my money and take the normal risk that is given even in the best projects. We are in a high-risk-market but it shouldn't be Las Vegas. And it shouldn't be about donations to guys who need money. It should be an agreement: Investors give money and take the risk to lose it, what is always possible. And those who get it, do their best to deliver what they've explained in detail before. You didn't do your part.
You want money before doing the basic work which would give trust and would already give a lot of answers. And because of that you have to face questions. And those questions could be opportunities to line out what this is about. But you chose another "strategy" and it's the opposite of honesty.
You say not directly to me but indirectly about me:
"I see only two questions from Tempus unanswered: (...)"
One post before you started with this:
(...) you claimed NONE of your previous questions were answered, and that's grossly incorrect and provocational statement. It makes you look like a troll, better ignored (...) What you did was this:
1. Claiming I did something what I never did
2. ...to say that would be
"grossly incorrect and provocational" 3. ...to justify the implication I would be a
"troll"4. ...to have reason to say
"better ignored"And in my world that is "grossly incorrect and provocational". And because I said:
(...) I would appreciate it if you show proof (just quote where I said that), especially if you try to mix that up with words like "troll" to justify what you say with "better ignored"....you see reason not to address this request in the fact that it's not a question with a question mark.
And all the other stuff in my post is totally on topic. It's critical, yes. But again: You could use exactly that as opportunity to explain your project. You wouldn't have to do that as favor for me. You could use my posts to show your professionalism and I'm sure: Potentially Investors and also those who already did invest in your ICO would be interested.
But: Aaah, damn! I forgot to word it in questions with question marks!
And you know what you do. That's why it needs an additional reason:
"Most of Tempus's long posts consist of something else, so it would be useful to lay out the questions in clear manner. We're quite busy though (...) "You believe to see "something else" in my "long posts". As if it's a weakness to point things out and a strength to be superficial and ignorant. And I made the mistake not to lay out questions in a "clear manner", plus: you are busy.
It's always the same pattern. And man, you are busy? You should have done some work you did not until now. Nothing I see is in any kind professional or thoughtful. It's all rushed out. That's in best case the reason why you feel uncertain which is the reason to blame that on others. In worst-case you have to hide even more which could be anything. I won't list my considerations because that would be too speculative. But of course, before I would give my money and take the risk I consider all kinds of possibilities. I mean, we don't know each other right?
And you did that, blame it on others, even with your own partner!
Priority is: You are fine. Others have a lack of knowledge and you need to give an order the he gets back on his desk or in my case:
"grossly incorrect and provocational", "troll", "works for Factom", "better to be ignored", "it's about something else"
What do you believe how I would react if I would take that personal? For me it's just revealing. It's part of the lack of professionalism that is obvious. And the best idea is nothing if the team behind wouldn't be able to deliver or if the team behind acts dishonest. And you show both. Not saying that I believe you plan a scam. But I believe that the team behind this project has a clear priority to make money first and there is a lot of risk that there will be a lot of justifications later to not deliver. Or if, that it will also show this pattern: Rushed out, not thoughtful, not accurate, lazy, without strategy, and so on. Maybe that will change, I can't know that. I can't even know if it's just about you or if you are just the public face for others behind the curtain. It's speculative but I say it as a little sorry in the case that you have to take something that's not just yours.
**************
Use this feedback to think about it. Money won't be a compensation for the pressure you will earn if you go on with that. Disappointed Investors are much worse than I am here. And it will be a lot of pressure in any case, because all ambitious projects involve a lot pressure even for the best teams around. Take a look at Ethereum and their security-problems and the DAO-mess, or the critiques Factom gets for a delay, or in the past because of Trolls who told lies about the Honduras-negotioations and so on. It's never easy. And we speak about really professional and big and skilled teams.
And just by the way: Factom made their ICO over a year ago. But to give trust to their Investors that they are not for the money before they deliver, they have three Milestones to meet before they get the 100% of the money. M1 is done. M2 will be hopefully soon. They got just 1/3 of the ICO-money until now. What I want to say with that:
They did everything possible to show that their focus is on delivering the project, which was detailed out and audited long before the ICO - to give trust to their Investors. And before you repeat I would work for Factom to implicate it's about
"something else": Use logic. Factom and this project are in no competition but totally different. It wouldn't make any sense for Factom to attack it and I'm in no relation to them - just as a simple Investor who not even bought into their ICO (wasn't aware of it). I only mention Factom because I see them as best example I know of for real professionalism. And I did the same with Factom what I did here. And I've seen how they reacted on critiques and on trolls and their lies. I never saw any signs for dishonesty but natural confidence.
And that is what hoped to find here as well, because I really like the idea of a decentralized exchange, but... yes.
I would like to thank you for your criticism, I am curious how the devs are going to respond
Show Posts
