@tobson2, thanks for the answers. I'll reply on
your post a bit different.
Your quotes in bold.
What could have been stolen in that moment is all the money which is not covered by an escrow, which is at least still enough for a CEO to survive for a long time. Besides that the escrow only holds the money until all tokens are minted, so it's more our call when we've finished it.The problem is that you guys would have run into a contradiction that leads to confusion (and all kinds of other side-effects) in any case, which should have made you calling that off. What I mean is this:
Theoretical Scenario 1 - 100% in escrow:
You do your PR stunt and then you call for better ICO-standards (which include escrow of course). But at least part of your delivered message was, that you’ve even done an exit-scam despite having escrows. Since nothing was so powerful like the first message you’ve done damage to a security measure you try to preach now.
Theoretical Scenario 2 - 0% in escrow:
You do your PR-Stunt and what Yassir said would have been true (could have stolen all funds), and then call for high ICO-standards. In that case the contradiction would be that you have not met the high standards in your ICO you are demanding others to meet.
Executed Scenario:
What you did is a mixture of both. Some was in escrow, other money wasn’t (as far as I know it was especially FIAT that was not under escrow what would add another contradiction). That makes what he said in his video a) untrue (would have been easy to steal ALL funds) and b) it also contradicts the call for higher ICO-standards because obviously you have not totally met them yourself.
Most important is c) What you’ve left behind is just a lot of confusion and anger, also because you can not control how this case was and is reported and how it will be reported in future, how individuals interpret it and to what conclusions they come. You seem to expect mostly rational interpretation but that itself is not a rational expectation.
No that would not be fair, because the product plan is still valid, the token economics didn't change at all.
1) You’ve damaged your own reputation. One of the biggest issues here is that even the purpose and goal of your project is to manage other peoples money. You didn’t just undermine the trust of your Investors but also already existing and potentially future customers.
2) To promote your coming ICO-advisory-service you’ve used the imbalance of power between you and your Investors. That’s why I use the word „hostage“, because they couldn’t and still can’t do anything. And you do that while they didn’t buy this Savedroid-plan to become ICO-advisors. They’ve bought into what you’ve promised to develop.
3) ICO-Investors have to face all kinds of risks, buying into all kinds of scams for example. But also the risk that a team simply is not good enough to deliver in some or all ways. And of course: All teams, even the best ones, make mistakes. That’s natural. So, let’s call your stunt a mistake… but at least I can’t see it as natural because it was intentionally and targeted own Investors, Supporters and Clients and the whole usecase and targets the only fundamental value that backs all others: Trust
No I would not agree to that
You can see the „Savedroid is a scam headlines“, you can see „Savedroid has executed the most stupid PR-stunt ever“ whenever you google your own company. You can see comments of own Supporters and Investors on all social platform your project is represented, which clearly show that many have lost trust - but you don’t agree that a damage of trust and credibility is the case. I hope for you guys that you’re just dishonest.
The investors have bought the tokens, as already mentioned the token economics and the product roadmap didn't change at all. Buying a token is NOT buying the full savedroid company.Of course not. But if the existing team would do advisory service: It is not what your Investors bought into. If you should finance this new advisory service with the money you’ve raised: The money wasn’t meant for that. Plus: The trust issue that was caused due to an egomaniac but still intentionally PR-show.
That's our hypotheses, noone can of course predict the future.
Yassir said in the interview (about the price risk because of the stunt): „I don’t see it that way, otherwise we wouldn’t have done it. It was a crucial criterium for that action.“. That implies that you guys were totally sure that it will have no negative impact on the price, because & obviously: You have done it. Now you say: Of course, no one can predict the future.
Don’t you recognize the contradiction? If you (and your team) would have come to the insight of unpredictability before the stunt - you wouldn’t have done it or what Yassir said was just a lie and you simply didn’t care. Both conclusions are not in your favor.
No we didn't expect that somone harms himself as that also didn't happen in previous real scams. We've investigated these scams a lot and checked what happened there. Besides that I hope that never anyone will invest so much money, that it's worse harming himself, neither for a scam, nor when a token-price drops which is not unlikely in this high-risk market.Suicides because of fraud and huge financial losses happened, it's just not that easy to identify:
Financial Loss and Suicide
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3431736/About MMM:
"This led to wide spread panic in the nation and even attempted suicides.[8] On December 14, LASEMA (Lagos State Emergency Management Agency) of Lagos State pleaded with Lagosians to dial their emergency number if they spot anyone trying to commit suicide. LASEMA took this action due to the number of suicides MMM caused in Russia[9]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMM_GlobalThing is: It would be irrational to assume that it didn’t happen just because you were not able to find articles about it. Those who have lost somebody because of such a situation have other problems than to run to the media to make it public.
It’s a simple thought: If you have >30k Investors you always have at least some who invested too much, in opposite to your „I hope that never anyone will invest so much money, that it's worse harming himself (…)“. More important: When it’s about thousands of people it’s stastitically safe to say that there will be some who may have psychological problems, like depression, are in all kinds of individual situations that may have additional effect.
That you guys took that risk, besides all others, leads me even more to the conclusion that you are not the right ones to teach anybody else about anything, because you didn’t think through the most important aspects and risks related to your stunt, or if, only superficially.
Of course some people will distanciate from us, especially the ones which have a motivation that the current status quo stays intact and no questions about that are asked. That is a not very subtle accusation to critiques and I consider it as a cheap excuse and probably even self-deception. If you don’t get why Savedroid is roasted that hard you must still be in the egomaniac fish-bowl that made it possible to believe in your „genius“ plan and to perform it.
Let me tell you why many distances themselves: Because you’ve damaged the only real value which is trust/reliability/credibility.
Another thing you guys obviously never have thought about: A community is not only valuable as money-givers. They are the ones who would be your marketing-base, those who explain your project and it’s goals to others. No project, no matter which kind, can have success without what is called network-effect. Kill that and you kill your project. Now take a look at those who try to defend you. Not many are left and those who are can’t explain anything because nothing really makes sense to them. They are just kind of forgiving or too unexperienced to understand the problem or trapped in a stockholm-syndrome-status because their money is still locked and they hope for some kind of happy end (good price to get out). Take a look at your telegram-channel. You’ve successfully pushed the smarter minds out and what is left are „moon-kids“ (when exchange, which exchange, when moon, when lambo).
We're surprised be the feedback of the FinTech-community, as this PR-stunt was not related at all to FinTech and only a critic at the crypto-scene.
Yeah, what a surprise. You, as a Fintech company, were not able to hit the target more precisely. But you really don’t understand their critique? You want to be something like a Crypto-Fiat-bank, you raise money, you trash all trust… what the hell did you expect? Applause? (more a rhetorical question). They must be embarrassed because you have achieved one thing: International headlines. Now they are scared that may have impact on their credibility as well because they understand one thing: Trust is only partially a rational result but more about subtle and often unconsciously impressions. You know the value of the „made in Germany - brand“ - you use it yourself for the „ICO-advisory coming soon“. Just turn that into it’s opposite and you understand the problem and why they are mad.
Of course we think about the brand, but don't think it'll have a long-term impact and the content at the end will survive.
Ok. Good luck by deleting Google, Reddit, Bitcointalk, etc. Hard to believe that you’ll ever make equally powerful headlines in a positive way to heal that. And to believe that you’ll make a change when it’s about your new goals to make this space „more sustainable“… you really have to wake up and stop your self-hypnosis.
And just btw: It’s always said that Crypto is so plagued by all kinds of fraud and shadiness, and yes, that is true. But the impression also results out of the fact that Crypto is more transparent. Things become more and faster visible. There is no lack of fraud in the established system as well. Main difference is that established systems already have all kinds of mechanisms to keep things more hidden. Regulation can even be part of that, because it can be deceptive („it’s regulated, nothing to see here“)
The communication was definitely not ideal and has to be improved, totally agree on that.
See, everything what is expressed is communication under the line. That even includes „a lack of“ at the wrong time, because also that is interpreted. And communication is not just about „what“ but also about „how“ and intensity, context and timing and even if done near to perfect, there are unknowns because everything is interpreted subjectively by individuals. Your PR-Stunt was „high-intensity-communication“ on a very deep psychological level and included a lot of unintended aspects you didn’t even think about. Since that action you have to face all kinds of reactions you would have to analyze deeply to come to good conclusions. And that is simply not possible for you because you’ve caused psychological complexity you can’t fully understand. If you could, you wouldn’t have done it.
Experience will teach you guys more humility. That’s also why I believe you should refund those who would choose that option, because at the moment you make them pay for the lesson you need, while the lesson you’ve given was very simple:
Misuse an imbalance of power to push those who can’t even react but put trust in you into disillusionment and humiliate them and you get what you get - Isolation. Even supportive posts show that.
Think through it on a psychological level and always think it into extreme scenarios, which is a method to make it more obvious/recognizable. You’ll see that you’ve done nothing of value but the opposite: You’ve performed an attack on value. Psychologically that is like breaking a natural law and when it’s about human topics (which are relations under the line), psychology is natural law.
Not that I'm aware of
Surprising. I would have believed that many call their lawyers and that especially those who hold equity in your company might have some leverage to sue. But my knowledge about legal stuff is limited.
That's definitely not true and we're already in contact with our legal department about these false statements. savedroid has NEVER sold or tried to sell user-data!Ok, good to know (if true). See, I’m nobody who wants to assume the worst in others. But even I always recognize, whatever I read of you or others of your team: Very hard to believe in anything. And I don’t even have a horse in this race.
