Puts a different slant on what actually happened with the parting of their working relationship
yeah.. assuming the article isn't completely sensationalist. I think in retrospect, listening to institutional investors opinion on OSTK managment antics, previous controversy (in and out of wall st) eg:
http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/11/14/8360711/index.htm http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/03/overstock-com-judd-bagley/ http://garyweiss.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/closing-file-on-criminal-and-junkie.html and actually taking the time to analyse any of the CEO's jumbled speeches "you may think you own stock but you don't".. let me tell you about cede and co etc.. which all seem to follow an identical prompt it becomes more reasonable to believe a less than amicable split occured due to a cloudy or misaligned future vision and lack of any real prowess in the field; for starters.., I along with others fell into the camp of supporting OSTK as they are a multinational and were talking the same book as us (and bitcoiners in general)..glossing over the less than favorable elements of the perceived relationship, and frankly that's just greedy and short sighted.
i think the news the split wasn't all rainbows and inicorns also lends credence to the theory that Overstock did indeed dump XCP on the market, immediately summoning the decline from 0.10 to near todays level
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.msg11707187#msg11707187https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.msg11707223#msg11707223 Byrne and co did a massive disservice to any investors of this project, and everything about it was handled simply awfully. Trusting investment decisions on this tweet
https://twitter.com/overstockceo/status/520254771890884608 and the announcement re:partnership at the inside bitcoins conference, then assuming that us as public investors would be privvy to the fact a silent pivot was done in the shadows ceasing the working relationship for OSTK to instead champion a competing project has resulted in huge losses for many who brought in on at the wrong time on good faith and had the rug pulled from underneath them.
My only early hint that things might have turned sour was noticing xnovas resolved ip location had changed from utah, and later a few politician non-answers or stuttered deviations from byrne when quizzed about medicis background stack, but i dismissed both as mostly irrelevant . Public investors only found out the real answers when coindesk decides to extract the story from the horses mouth, although there had been rumblings for a while. That was wholly inappropriate
.
In regulated markets this would have resulted in huge drama and lengthy legal battles. A relative corporate behemoth ran roughshod through the price of this promising technology, by making numerous misleading quotes .. here in crypto land we just have to suck it up, focus on the many other real merits of the project and work together to support it in any way, whether that if it is simply evangelizing, commiting to github, visualizing and fitting in use cases, or simply being active in the community.
I know there have been a few insinuations from "Medici CTO" on reddit that infer t0 might incorporate counterparty buta factoring in those vague comments seems like a fools game after all this nonsense. I hope we can once and all forget about Medici.
