<image of ROI caculator and old Bryce tweet removed to not waste space>
Trade volume is not a relevant metric to determine the legitimacy of a project.
Neither is price--which is the result of the aforementioned low volume. Just because the price is lower in the bottom of a market cycle doesn't indicate his statement was incorrect, either. Note there was no time frame specified which *might* give you some sort of point.
Jeez. I will ask yet again, the question I ask the trolls in this thread which I don't think has *ever* been answered: if Bryce is a scammer, why has he met with and had positive, cooperative meetings with regulators including the SEC as documented multiple times on his twitter feed and in this thread?
Who cares? He managed to fool a few bureaucrats for a few minutes. He is very small time and wasn't on their radar. I guarantee you they don't remember meeting with him by this point. It was a PR move designed for scam defenders such as yourself to continue milking it years later.
You think its not possible to simultaneously be a scammer and have briefly met with some bureaucrats? If so, you're even less intelligent than I previously suspected.
Bryce Weiner is a well-documented crypto scammer. Tao is his latest scam. Of course, you will be the last to admit this, even when you actually have to pay people to take your Tao bags off your hands.
Nobody serious about business will ever use Tao, because as is similar with the ongoing Craig Wright / BSV saga, nobody wants to use a coin developed by a con artist.
Pete, it's telling that you resort to insults and misrepresentation so often in this thread. Not sure if it's a pattern with you elsewhere, but you'd do yourself a service to stay above the line in this diagram as you're only discrediting yourself to anyone reading this thread with an unbiased eye.
So let's go through this point by point, shall we?
Now, unlike you, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not intentionally misrepresenting the regulators he met with as "bureaucrats," in an attempt to downplay their status in the US government. Perhaps that word is used differently where you live, but the general meaning in the US is a minor official with little power. A sort of pencil pusher who enforces rules in a rigid fashion, not someone who passes laws, makes the rules, and is high up in the government.
Since I believe you're from the UK, I will be charitable and assume you are merely unfamiliar with the people and their positions in the US government.
First off, Bryce and his lawyer Tom Osinski met with Representative Mike McCaul in 2018.
McCaul is a member of Congress and was the Chair of the United States House Committee on Homeland Security at the time.
He is currently the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_McCaulHe is in a very powerful position that is high up in the US government, not just some petty bureaucrat as you appear to be implying.
In addition to meeting with Rep. McCaul, Bryce and Tom Osinski met with
Ted Budd, a member of the House of Representatives who sits on the Financial Services Committee:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_BuddIn response to meeting with Bryce, Budd wrote a letter on his behalf to the
Securities and Exchange Commission, which helped secure a friendly meeting between Bryce and the SEC.
You remember the SEC, right? You wasted your time filing a report with them about Bryce at my suggestion a few weeks ago. In case you aren't familiar with their function, I'll quote their Wikipedia entry:
The SEC holds primary responsibility for enforcing the federal securities laws, proposing securities rules, and regulating the securities industry, which is the nation's stock and options exchanges, and other activities and organizations, including the electronic securities markets in the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Securities_and_Exchange_CommissionSo he has lobbied and met with lawmakers with direct power over the cryptocurrency industry.
If he is the scammer that you and others claim, why would he do this? Why would the SEC take no issue with him and seemingly approve of his conduct? So back it up. Make your case. Give me a decent argument for your position, and stick to the top three layers of Graham's Hierarchy of arguments so we know you're making valid points.
What
specifically is the scam? What kind of scam are we talking about? Some form of fraud? What?
Who is he scamming? Is he scamming representatives the US government, or are you alleging that they are in on the scam?
If he was dumping coins for profit,
which there's no evidence that he is, why would he dump at the bottom of the market? Wouldn't he just be scamming himself at that point? If this were a pump and dump, wouldn't he have pumped the price up and dumped it at the top? That is how those things work, you know.
Do you have any specific evidence that he is running a scam, or are you just one of those silly Bitcoin maximalists who makes the absurd blanket assertion that all alts are scams simply because they're not BTC?
That kind of thing makes as much sense as saying that Internet Explorer, or Opera browser, or Safari, or Firefox, etc. are "scams" because they're not Netscape.
And
please, don't waste our time by posting the same old repetitive links to claims by traders who lost money when Bryce abandoned Razorcoin because his lawyer told him to, or any of the similar posts which have been endlessly spammed in this thread over the years.
Just because confused crypto traders shout "scam," does not make their claims valid. Just because the price or the volume are not above a certain level does not make the project a scam. Abandoning early crypto experiments and walking away from former partners do not constitute scams.
If those links were evidence of fraud or other illegal activity, he would have gotten into trouble with the SEC years ago, especially after falling under their scrutiny by approaching members of the House of Representatives and meeting with the SEC itself. I mean, come on. Seriously.
Convince me with a reasoned argument, sticking to the valid top part of the pyramid image above, and I'll be happy to discuss it with you like adults. OK?
I have been acting in good faith in this thread for years now, despite your insults and implications. I have provided evidence and rational arguments.
If you are acting in good faith as well, then surely you can do the same? If your position is valid, surely you can back it up legitimately? I mean, is that really so much to ask??
