Show Posts
Kind of funny how you use the word objective, while the only one in this conversation who isn't biased to this project (or to any competitor) is me. The only one refusing to be objective here is you, since you are paid to contribute to this project and to this thread.
I am calling the launch methods (relaunch after miners crashed, lack of instructions, wallets) very shady, I am also calling the description of the previous ANNs shady together with the "no premine/no instamine and fair launch" and I am also stating that every investor who dares to touch the project on exchanges will get dumped on while you are converting STEEM to BTC to fund your work. I am also calling the lack of information about these in this (now 4th) ANN shady. I am being 100% objective while stating this and I have exactly 0 hidden agendas while doing so, because I am not invested in any competitor project and I am just here because I follow the development of altcoins.
You got a problem with my objectivity? How about yours? I will keep repeating these things until you start to understand them. Nothing you stated in the half page wall of text you responded before actually invalidates or answers these points. You can write "b-b-but we need funding somehow.... w-w-we mined them and we also work for them" all you want, but that doesn't change the fact on how your shares were mined or how you fail to give proper information for any potential investor in the current ANN thread.
To say something positive aswell, the project itself, the codebase and everything else would be good and it would have a future. The way you chose to run the "funding" of the project (which is also explained in the blogpost) is against the general idea of crypto-currencies and fairness. So many projects didn't need to do it, so many developers managed to rent miners (hash) or whatever, because they knew that they will stick to their project and it will be worth a lot more.
You keep making false claims:
1. There was one ANN thread for the initial launch
2. There was one for the relaunch
3. There is this thread (this thread is really about steemit.com vs the steem blockchain)
4. I haven't made any other threads (so your facts are wrong).
Second you keep making false claims about the need for relaunch, anyone who looks at the github commits will see the legitimate hard-fork-creating bug that necessitated the reset.
Third you admit that you will just keep repeating yourself rather than help to define terms
Forth by your definition, objectivity is impossible for anyone who gets paid, while you defend your objectivity with ad hominem attacks.
Fith you keep making false claims about our ownership, which has been transparent and stands at 57% at this point in time (not the 80%+ numbers you throw around).
Quote
I am also stating that every investor who dares to touch the project on exchanges will get dumped on while you are converting STEEM to BTC to fund your work.
Aside from the "derogatory" / "inflammatory" use of the word "dump" to describe the process of selling our stake to make profits that we can reinvest in ourselves to continue improving steem. We will sell our stake, take the profits to cover our work. But you ignore entirely the value of the work we have and will continue to do. But just to make you happy, I have no problem adding a line to the main page revealing that steemit owns 57% of all STEEM at this point in time.
.
