rpietila Altcoin Observer

[rpietila]

To be fair, James understands this and has contacted reputable, public, community members as regards escrowing the whole thing.

Will you buy?

No.

[JorgeStolfi]

In a commercial exchange, the party that delivers first has the right to know the identity and past history of the other party.  If someone asks you to pay upfront but refuses to identify himself, you should assume he is a scammer, and not have any business with him. 

You are confusing "rights" with "right to negotiate".  Either side can say no for many reasons.

That someone has the right to hide his identity, of course; but, whatever his excuse, the smart option for you is to walk away.

[nioc]

~980 BTC sold in the first 70 minutes of Supernet ICO on BTer. Not including NXT Asset Exchange volume

Busoni is raking in so much cash from trading/escrow fees lol

It's not on Poloniex.

[JorgeStolfi]

To be fair, James understands this and has contacted reputable, public, community members as regards escrowing the whole thing.

People buying at the ICO hope to get not just some SuperNET tokens, but shares of a functioning enterprise, with solid software, that they can profit from.  Escrows will not guarantee this.

I hoped that people had learned the lesson with Neo&Bee, but...

2000 BTC raised in less than 2 hours
everybody getting the official price
and some few lucky sellers making instant 2x to 5x

[darkota]

~980 BTC sold in the first 70 minutes of Supernet ICO on BTer. Not including NXT Asset Exchange volume

Busoni is raking in so much cash from trading/escrow fees lol

It's not on Poloniex.

Oh my mistake. Youre right.

[Jungian]

Where can I short dogecoin?

[sdersdf2]

Hmm... that was interesting (as predicted / discussed earlier):

After careful deliberation, we have decided to not participate in the SuperNet ICO. I understand that a large community is excited about SuperNet, and since we were initially announced as the ICO host, I wanted to take a moment to explain how we came to arrive at this decision.
 
For the past couple of days, we’ve been in discussions with our attorneys about hosting the SuperNet ICO. As several community members pointed out in this very thread, the sale of SuperNet tokens could be interpreted as the sale of unregistered securities. Our attorneys came to the same conclusion and have since advised us against taking part in the SuperNet ICO for this reason.
 
Further, one of our ICO requirements is identity verification (https://www.poloniex.com/icoRequirements); this requirement exists to protect investors and to lend credibility to the ICO. Despite several attempts to convince James the importance of revealing his identity, we were ultimately unable to reach an agreement that satisfied both parties.
 
We needed time for due diligence, to carefully assess the legal implications of taking part in SuperNet, and also the time to set up our backend systems to support it. James was very eager to get this going, however, so he chose to go with another host before we could communicate to him our findings and final decision.
 
We have since communicated with James, and we wish him the best of luck.

This worries me more. If he wanted to set up something legitimate, why doesn't he want to reveal his identity? Personally if I invested in this I would be more confident and less worried if I knew the identity of the man who set it up.

I believe he is worried about personal safety. I don't know what his plans are for crypto, but he has expressed a distrust for the powers that be... understandably so. we are not talking about opening a supermarket chain here, but rather revamping the financial industry. some may not like this


just a perspective...not right nor wrong

That's a fair point - I'd be more comfortable if he and others who've refused such verification came right out and said that. It does point to the need for another, perhaps more decentralised, solution for identity/reputation.

[coins101]

Hmm... that was interesting (as predicted / discussed earlier):

After careful deliberation, we have decided to not participate in the SuperNet ICO. I understand that a large community is excited about SuperNet, and since we were initially announced as the ICO host, I wanted to take a moment to explain how we came to arrive at this decision.
 
For the past couple of days, we’ve been in discussions with our attorneys about hosting the SuperNet ICO. As several community members pointed out in this very thread, the sale of SuperNet tokens could be interpreted as the sale of unregistered securities. Our attorneys came to the same conclusion and have since advised us against taking part in the SuperNet ICO for this reason.
 
Further, one of our ICO requirements is identity verification (https://www.poloniex.com/icoRequirements); this requirement exists to protect investors and to lend credibility to the ICO. Despite several attempts to convince James the importance of revealing his identity, we were ultimately unable to reach an agreement that satisfied both parties.
 
We needed time for due diligence, to carefully assess the legal implications of taking part in SuperNet, and also the time to set up our backend systems to support it. James was very eager to get this going, however, so he chose to go with another host before we could communicate to him our findings and final decision.
 
We have since communicated with James, and we wish him the best of luck.

This worries me more. If he wanted to set up something legitimate, why doesn't he want to reveal his identity? Personally if I invested in this I would be more confident and less worried if I knew the identity of the man who set it up.

I believe he is worried about personal safety. I don't know what his plans are for crypto, but he has expressed a distrust for the powers that be... understandably so. we are not talking about opening a supermarket chain here, but rather revamping the financial industry. some may not like this


just a perspective...not right nor wrong

Issuing some form of securities to investors is a jurisdiction by jurisdiction issue.  

If you own or live on an island in international waters, you can issue securities to whomever you like, you just can't promote them to countries that require you to get regulated in their jurisdiction before conducting financial promotions or accepting investment from their citizens.

If he doesn't live in the USA, Europe, or other countries that have tight regulatory controls on investment securities, he can put up a website that has terms and conditions stating people in xyz countries are not allowed to enter or participate.

Payment being in crypto, if he establishes a business plan and puts together some protections on the investors money, then investors that are not ruled out because of jurisdictional constraints can send crypto such as Darkcoin which provides privacy to investors from their transactions being recorded on a public ledger.  Traffic analysis by marketing types can also be avoided by DRKs IP obfuscation.  He then just has to ensure he records details and conducts transactions in accordance with local laws.

Darkcoin is being integrated with an open bazaar deployment, not sure of the details. This should have some form of reputation mechanisms.  

Alternatively, why not use Kickstarter?

This is not advice or financial promotion. If you believe it is, then you should seek professional and legal advice before you act on any of the above.

Always do your homework before investing in anything https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=579976.0

[Este Nuno]

I don't understand why people are trying to use the anonymous angle to attack him. As rpietila said, he's not asking to be the sole controller of all the superNET funds. And when you're involved in handling as much money as he does it makes perfect sense to want to protect yourself and your family.

[illodin]

This worries me more. If he wanted to set up something legitimate, why doesn't he want to reveal his identity? Personally if I invested in this I would be more confident and less worried if I knew the identity of the man who set it up.

Because he doesn't have to, enough people will pay anyway.

[jwinterm]

This worries me more. If he wanted to set up something legitimate, why doesn't he want to reveal his identity? Personally if I invested in this I would be more confident and less worried if I knew the identity of the man who set it up.

Because he doesn't have to, enough people will pay anyway.

Apparently, since he's raked in several thousand btc today. I actually went and looked at the supernet pdf after today's ICO, and was not surprised to find that it's all vaporware at this point, but was a bit surprised that he says upfront 30% of supernet will be used essentially at his discretion.

[rpietila]

Since the subscription is anonymous, and can be bought with BTCD, a coin that the same dev also controls, we have to keep the possibility in mind that the number of non-insiders participating may be very small, yet it looks like a great success.

Not wanting to label anyone a scammer without proof, but so far everything fits in a con also, so keep this in mind.

James has always been courteous to me, so it is difficult to continue reminding of this uncertain but probable and serious possibility.

[Este Nuno]

This worries me more. If he wanted to set up something legitimate, why doesn't he want to reveal his identity? Personally if I invested in this I would be more confident and less worried if I knew the identity of the man who set it up.

Because he doesn't have to, enough people will pay anyway.

Apparently, since he's raked in several thousand btc today. I actually went and looked at the supernet pdf after today's ICO, and was not surprised to find that it's all vaporware at this point, but was a bit surprised that he says upfront 30% of supernet will be used essentially at his discretion.

Where do you see that? As of now officially(from the thread at least) he only has 1% of funds to use at his discretion. He just said that anymore than 1% would have to be requested to the stakeholders and then put to a vote.

[Este Nuno]

Since the subscription is anonymous, and can be bought with BTCD, a coin that the same dev also controls, we have to keep the possibility in mind that the number of non-insiders participating may be very small, yet it looks like a great success.

Not wanting to label anyone a scammer without proof, but so far everything fits in a con also, so keep this in mind.

James has always been courteous to me, so it is difficult to continue reminding of this uncertain but probable and serious possibility.

The amount of BTC and CNY seems to be significant. Lots of NXT too, but that's to be expected.

[visual111]

Since the subscription is anonymous, and can be bought with BTCD, a coin that the same dev also controls, we have to keep the possibility in mind that the number of non-insiders participating may be very small, yet it looks like a great success.

Not wanting to label anyone a scammer without proof, but so far everything fits in a con also, so keep this in mind.

James has always been courteous to me, so it is difficult to continue reminding of this uncertain but probable and serious possibility.

You are a scam probably and with serious possibility.

Feel free to delete, you have my permission.

this is not very constructive...

i keep an eye on jl's posts when i see them and have invested in some of his ideas (and made some tidy profits). i find his posts humorous and informative but it would be unwise of me to ignore the possibility that he is running a long scam

there is so much money going in his direction right now. he has certainly set the game up well, i just hope he is a benevolent force in the cryptoworld

[pa]

Since the subscription is anonymous, and can be bought with BTCD, a coin that the same dev also controls, we have to keep the possibility in mind that the number of non-insiders participating may be very small, yet it looks like a great success.

Not wanting to label anyone a scammer without proof, but so far everything fits in a con also, so keep this in mind.

James has always been courteous to me, so it is difficult to continue reminding of this uncertain but probable and serious possibility.

Based on his recent contributions to the XMR, BBR, and SuperNET threads, I find James to be creepy and untrustworthy. Perhaps it is just a coincidence that his dramatic alienation from Monero, which supposedly led him to create SuperNet and pump BBR, coincided with the recent chain spamming and corrupt block attacks (and the associated anti-Monero shilling/sockpuppetry). As Monero survived the attacks, he turned on a dime and presented himself as Monero's high-minded defender against sniping by some of his SuperNET/BBR/BTCD minions. It all rings false to me, an elaborate charade.

Prior to the attack, BBR was being left behind, in large part because its dev CZ was anonymous and and suspected by some (see the rethink-your-strategy thread) to be one of the CN/Bytecoin scammers. BBR was likely launched as a way to regain a foothold in the CN space after the scam was exposed and Monero gained momentum. BBR was positioning itself as "the other" non-scammy CN coin, but just as it became obvious that Monero was building a decisive lead, along comes SuperNET and the deus ex hackina. Then, in Monero's darkest hour, from both James and CZ we hear calls for solidarity with their Monero brothers and letting bygones be bygones. BBR and Monero would henceforth walk hand in hand, a beautiful synergy.

They come across as arsonists, first at the scene to help put out the fire, who get themselves hailed as rescuers, and slyly ingratiate themselves with the homeowner--waiting for the chance to wreck maximum havoc.

[gitbknowsall]

Since the subscription is anonymous, and can be bought with BTCD, a coin that the same dev also controls, we have to keep the possibility in mind that the number of non-insiders participating may be very small, yet it looks like a great success.

Not wanting to label anyone a scammer without proof, but so far everything fits in a con also, so keep this in mind.

James has always been courteous to me, so it is difficult to continue reminding of this uncertain but probable and serious possibility.

Based on his recent contributions to the XMR, BBR, and SuperNET threads, I find James to be creepy and untrustworthy. Perhaps it is just a coincidence that his dramatic alienation from Monero, which supposedly led him to create SuperNet and pump BBR, coincided with the recent chain spamming and corrupt block attacks (and the associated anti-Monero shilling/sockpuppetry). As Monero survived the attacks, he turned on a dime and presented himself as Monero's high-minded defender against sniping by some of his SuperNET/BBR/BTCD minions. It all rings false to me, an elaborate charade.

Prior to the attack, BBR was being left behind, in large part because its dev CZ was anonymous and and suspected by some (see the rethink-your-strategy thread) to be one of the CN/Bytecoin scammers. BBR was likely launched as a way to regain a foothold in the CN space after the scam was exposed and Monero gained momentum. BBR was positioning itself as "the other" non-scammy CN coin, but just as it became obvious that Monero was building a decisive lead, along comes SuperNET and the deus ex hackina. Then, in Monero's darkest hour, from both James and CZ we hear calls for solidarity with their Monero brothers and letting bygones be bygones. BBR and Monero would henceforth walk hand in hand, a beautiful synergy.

They come across as arsonists, first at the scene to help put out the fire, who get themselves hailed as rescuers, and slyly ingratiate themselves with the homeowner--waiting for the chance to wreck maximum havoc.

This seems like alot of conspircy theory, any proof to back these claims ? ips of the spamming nodes. Conversation logs that can be verified ?

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Since the subscription is anonymous, and can be bought with BTCD, a coin that the same dev also controls, we have to keep the possibility in mind that the number of non-insiders participating may be very small, yet it looks like a great success.

Not wanting to label anyone a scammer without proof, but so far everything fits in a con also, so keep this in mind.

James has always been courteous to me, so it is difficult to continue reminding of this uncertain but probable and serious possibility.

Based on his recent contributions to the XMR, BBR, and SuperNET threads, I find James to be creepy and untrustworthy. Perhaps it is just a coincidence that his dramatic alienation from Monero, which supposedly led him to create SuperNet and pump BBR, coincided with the recent chain spamming and corrupt block attacks (and the associated anti-Monero shilling/sockpuppetry). As Monero survived the attacks, he turned on a dime and presented himself as Monero's high-minded defender against sniping by some of his SuperNET/BBR/BTCD minions. It all rings false to me, an elaborate charade.

Prior to the attack, BBR was being left behind, in large part because its dev CZ was anonymous and and suspected by some (see the rethink-your-strategy thread) to be one of the CN/Bytecoin scammers. BBR was likely launched as a way to regain a foothold in the CN space after the scam was exposed and Monero gained momentum. BBR was positioning itself as "the other" non-scammy CN coin, but just as it became obvious that Monero was building a decisive lead, along comes SuperNET and the deus ex hackina. Then, in Monero's darkest hour, from both James and CZ we hear calls for solidarity with their Monero brothers and letting bygones be bygones. BBR and Monero would henceforth walk hand in hand, a beautiful synergy.

They come across as arsonists, first at the scene to help put out the fire, who get themselves hailed as rescuers, and slyly ingratiate themselves with the homeowner--waiting for the chance to wreck maximum havoc.

This seems like alot of conspircy theory, any proof to back these claims ? ips of the spamming nodes. Conversation logs that can be verified ?

Conspiracy theories only sound ridiculous when there isn't a known conspiracy already taking place.

Fact: In the week or so leading up to the attack, virtually every sock puppet there is was accusing XMR of spreading hate towards BBR and making it look like there was some big fight or rivalry between the coins. It was a very deliberate tactic. Most known XMR holders seem to either not pay attention to BBR at all, or hold BBR as well, and any negativity usually came from off-topic provocation by said trolls.

Fact: Both James and CZ had a recent verbal conflict with XMR supporters/devs.

Fact: Both James and CZ graciously offered support to XMR, in spite of "all the hate" that the XMR community had shown them. What a couple of classy, upstanding individuals.

I'm not making accusations. I'm simply saying that at this point, any suspicion is understandable.

[visual111]

Since the subscription is anonymous, and can be bought with BTCD, a coin that the same dev also controls, we have to keep the possibility in mind that the number of non-insiders participating may be very small, yet it looks like a great success.

Not wanting to label anyone a scammer without proof, but so far everything fits in a con also, so keep this in mind.

James has always been courteous to me, so it is difficult to continue reminding of this uncertain but probable and serious possibility.

WOW

I see you've resorted to spreading fud in your own thread.

Nothing wrong with assuming caution and suggesting others to do the same

[NewLiberty]

Conspiracy theories only sound ridiculous when there isn't a known conspiracy already taking place.

Fact: In the week or so leading up to the attack, virtually every sock puppet there is was accusing XMR of spreading hate towards BBR and making it look like there was some big fight or rivalry between the coins. It was a very deliberate tactic. Most known XMR holders seem to either not pay attention to BBR at all, or hold BBR as well, and any negativity usually came from off-topic provocation by said trolls.

Fact: Both James and CZ had a recent verbal conflict with XMR supporters/devs.

Fact: Both James and CZ graciously offered support to XMR, in spite of "all the hate" that the XMR community had shown them. What a couple of classy, upstanding individuals.

I'm not making accusations. I'm simply saying that at this point, any suspicion is understandable.

I never understood all the "you XMR guys hate BBR" and vice versa.  It seems divisive, and claiming it creates it where it doesn't exist and intensifies it if it does.

Take a lesson from the politicians.  If you have any confidence, you never even mention the "other guys".  It is only when you are floundering that you go negative.
Rise above this.  Focus on the goal, and that goal does not include tearing down anything you didn't make.  The kid that kicks over the other kids sandcastles is the one that is weak and afraid and needing to appear strong.