Jocuserious, I read your request for transparency and Dan and Neil both posted. I didn't find anything wrong with Neil's post, in fact: it was quite professional given the situation. Are you posting this sheep nonsense in the hopes other sheep will follow? Perhaps you should pay careful attention to the facts rather than continue mud-slinging at the wrong direction. I understand that your peerplays tokens are at stake, but it may be better use of your time to try and uncover the truth rather than act like every single pump and dumper here, solely looking out for #1. The value of peerplays tokens will be stronger as a result of these discussions, not weaker. Remove the element of surprise from the value and it stabalizes. We were on a downward spiral for the past 3 weeks now and that would have continued until the 26th if I hadn't stepped up.
One love.
The problem is that some of your concerns seem to be misrepresenting aspects of what is going on. Many of these things occurred over the course of months, as I understand it, and as such there is plenty of missing context. For instance,
So he claimed he could bring in large investors in may? But that is when the crowdsale began (from my drunken recollection), and "once the crowdsale began he changed his story and told us that we first must build a "polished product" before he would be willing to introduce us to anyone." So he was upfront with you from almost the very beginning. But wait. He only asked to be on the project in May. Quite confusing. Someone's definitely lying.
Demanding a polished product sounds like he is waiting for work to be done (as in codework) rather than contributing to it. It would seem to be a fair assumption that at this point, he had to have known that Dan's company was going to be contracted for the creation of this 'polished product'
because that is what Dan said in his very first post in this thread. Further, not only is that a valid assumption, but a timeline for the creation of that 'polished product' was given and that time has yet to pass - in fact, the initial part of release is slated for two weeks from now - very much in line with what we were told at the beginning.
Further, from what I can tell, Neil has claimed that it was his idea. Well...everyone has ideas. You don't get credit for discussing an idea - you get credit for producing the reality of an idea. I don't see where Neil can claim this if he is not one of the people working on Dan's team. Which makes the following quote untenable -
Seems like you're of the opinion that you can steal someone's intellectual property without any recourse from the law. Once again, request for <facebook chat history>.
It's not like Peerplays is stealing Rawbots.
In fact, I would think that Neil saw Peerplays as a means to get Rawbots off the ground. He has been pushing for it for years and thinks that it could be on level with minecraft according to the following article (which was written in 2013) -
Depending on the timeline on when Peerplays was started and when Neil was brought on board, I would say that the motivation for appropriating the platform is pretty strong and that indicates potentially, to me, that Neil was never interested in doing anything but implementing Rawbots on technology that he knew he wasn't going to write.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I literally see nothing that makes me think that the core product, as planned from the beginning, is not going to be delivered. What I do see is a dev squabble that seems to be originating mostly from one direction, from an individual whose motives towards Peerplays are potentially not aligned with what the rest of the team have been doing.
I also think that if Neil believed that he had a case then his lawyers would have handled everything. Going around behind the scenes and threatening to make things public sounds like an attempt at extortion. He has lost all credibility with me and I find that unfortunate for the team.
He was right on one thing though, Peerplays did experience it's first hiccup and it wasn't because he wasn't aware of the bounties when
irresponsibly implying that Jonathon was moving tokens around haphazardly - which in and of itself should be a serious red flag regarding Neil's credibility.
Hi everyone,
At the present time, the peerplays founding team has faced its first bit of a bump in the road. Not to worry, Jonathan and I will figure things out, but in the meantime, Jonathan (freedom-ledger), don't issue anymore peerplays tokens.
http://cryptofresh.com/a/PEERPLAYSShows a supply of 203,930 PEERPLAYS (Why over the 200k alotted? You'll have to explain that one to me). Let's immediately stop the issuing of any more tokens until we figure things out.
Best,
Neil
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1462351.msg16087070#msg16087070That bump in the road was him.
Show Posts
