Jonathan:
Please be aware that Neil does not speak for the actual Peerplays team. He asked to be a part of the team back in May, and we obliged because of his background and the promises he offered.
Care to provide proof of this statement Jonathan? Or a rebuttal to this Neil? This to me seems like there's no other explanation except for one of you is lying.
Jonathan:
However, since that time he has not contributed anything to the project, despite his recent claims to the contrary.
Proof?
There are several interviews with Neil's name and quotes from him. He's been a key part in the promotion of Peerplays. Has he simply refused to do work? Neil, Jonathan please <insert proof here>.
Jonathan:
At this time I can only say that Neil is only one guy in a huge industry. The way things are progressing, we are finding no shortage of doors being made available to us.
This reads as if you're saying "We don't need Neil at the present time, that's one reason for him being gone".
Then more truth comes out as I call out Jonathan on his lies.
Jonathan:
Neil did approach me last year with some broad ideas about building games on Ethereum, but thats where it ended. After my collegues and I designed the complete Peerplays gaming platform on Graphene without any input from him whatsoever.
Neil claims this:
I approached Bunkerchain labs in the fall of 2015 to build out peerplays. Jonathan and I discussed my ideas over facebook in great detail (over several months), including me providing documents, a simple prototype of the first game (simply to describe the idea - using peerjs) and answers to myriad of questions to help flesh the ideas out.
So are you claiming that you both discussed things relating to peerplays, but using the ethereum platform, and therefore it isn't the same thing as using graphene? Once again, there's enough contradiction here with me inserting another <insert proof here>. Because your statement simply implies that after your *seemingly* in-depth discussions with Neil, you understood his ideas to merely incorporate it within the graphene blockchain. Once again, proof here would be good.
he claimed he could bring large investors to the project and so we agreed to list him as a team member in May. However, 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 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.
Jonathan:
We almost cut him from the team at that time, but then he began to express interest in integrating his game called Rawbots into the Peerplays platform.
So you almost cut him from the team because he was upfront with you about needing a polished product from the very beginning. I have worked for some of the biggest tech firms in the industry, and I have never seen an acquisition/merger/partnership deal go well without a launched product and have a decent user base. Sounds like Neil, who's had over a decade of gaming experience and is the only qualified gaming person on the team, gave you sound advice and you were going to cut him over that.
Jacob:
My concern wasn't that you couldn't find another gaming guy, it was that no investor or gaming contact will touch this company if there's a lawsuit of any kind.
Jonathan:
Hi Jacob.. so just to answer your last question.. "we have contingencies in place to deal with that."
What contingency plans? running off with developer funds and moving to costa rica?
Jonathan:
Now just to be clear - the entire project, every single document, prototype, every piece of code, every article and social platform, literally everything was created by us. This is why his claims are so absurd. At this stage, we have chosen not to respond to his threats and rumours because we are not interested in having a public showdown with him. But to be frank, he has about as much chance of succeeding in a lawsuit as you or I would have claiming we invented Google.
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>.
I propose creating an open discussion whereby the claims that Jonathan made to me privately, bad mouthing Neil and he goes into a very defensive scared turtle mode. Which made me suspicious. Who is Jonathan protecting here? Himself or Neil? He's already slandered Neil in almost every capacity here, hoping that I would lobby for his cause. Then he starts bargaining with me:
Jonathan
You are welcome to do as you wish with your own tokens, but it is unclear to me exactly what you hope to achieve by launching some sort of public which hunt like you are suggesting. Do you feel that you have not yet received the opportunity to gain from your initial donation? Last I checked, Peerplays was up 7 or 8 times the initial price. I don't see where creating unnecessary drama would be helpful in any way.
Peerplays did go up and I'm still underwater on it. What difference does it make? I'm after the truth, changing the subject to convince me not to share damaging material after you're clearly being deceitful, seems quite suspect.
Jonathan:
I would only ask that you please respect my wishes, as well as Neils wishes, as well as the promise you made, and try to find some other way to be productive.
Now he acts as if Neil's his buddy and he's looking out for him.
I asked Jonathan both these questions:
1)Are you defending this lawsuit with crowdfunding money?
2) Could we make the budget transparent to all of us investors?
Both went unanswered, so I was left with no choice but to post our conversations.
Conclusion:
Jonathan, your own statements seem quite contradictory, which leads me to assume you're the one lying. But we'll never know because your "buddy" Neil seems to be keeping his mouth shut (at least to me). Neil, do yourself a HUGE FAVOR and post your facebook chat history online. Let us have an open discussion as to what happened. What is your motivation to be silent? Jonathan's done everything to throw you under the bus, not just with me, but probably others as well (like Jocuserious). Proof talks, post your proof now or shut the fuck up forever.
I see nothing in the transcripts that indicate anything beyond a dev disagreement of which Neil seems to be at fault. I can't really take someone seriously who has said that he will retain a lawyer and then doesn't trust his lawyer to handle things. It's just unprofessional.
The more important post in the previous page, for me, is Dan's. Looking forward to the 26th.
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.
