Interesting answer. But my problem with your complaints is not that you have a different opinion. What constantly triggers me is shallowness, because you always do the same: You implicate something without detailing out what is behind. And while I can understand some disappointment about M2, because it's a simple fact that it's late, I think you sometimes cross the line with some of your implications. And even regarding M2 you are superficial. Because it's always about reasons. The question should be why they are late and it's not hard to exclude some potential reasons you constantly present as possibilities. You questioned that they are working hard. You questioned their dedication. My simple questions are not more than meant as motivation to detail that out. But you never do that and we play that game since months. I mean, we have something in common: We don't write thousands of lines of code to develop something. We both have time for more or less silly discussions in a forum.
So let's do that at least a little bit deeper.
I believe there will be a M2 release, when will that take place, I have no idea.
Agree! Nobody of us can really know. I believe, even the team is maybe still not totally sure when they will release it. But my assumption is perfectionism and my reason to believe that is mainly the github but also that they show that they work hard on a lot of other fronts. Reading posts of Brian Deery, watching Interviews with Paul Snow, seeing Tiana Laurence explaining Factom on conferences, seeing Peter Kirby doing the same (last video for example) gives me an opposite impression of a lack of dedication. I have zero doubt that they are very dedicated, that they're working hard and that they are honest. And I would really like to learn more in the case I'm wrong with that.
I do not appreciate the fact there s obviously big lag regarding M2 implementation which is unacceptable in tech world but it has happened before.
To say a delay is "unacceptable" implicates a lot but says nothing. Unacceptable why and for whom? Before all: It implicates that it's true that there is a big lag. Why do you believe it's big and based on what comparisons? Some Coin-Devs who release one weird feature after another nobody will ever need?
I tell you what I think about releases in general: They are very often just incentives to push the price in combination with market-manipulations. Factom could do that as well but never did. In combination what I said above, exactly that can be seen as sign for what I say above - professionalism.
And just by the way: Max Kordek (CEO of Lisk and a good guy in my opinion) was in China and promised a blog-post about it. This blog post is delayed because he was in Russia and the Ukraine right after and obviously ill after that, and he has to move to Berlin and his conclusion is this:
"Updates regarding my visits in China, Russia, and Ukraine will come as soon as possible. Sorry for the delay here. I won't say a concrete date anymore (learnt my lesson) but it will obviously be in July." https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1346646.msg15568340#msg15568340And again: It's not about a monster-release like M2. It's just about giving informations about his visits in China and Russia. And if I see that somebody is the opposite of lazy I see professionalism in the fact that he learned the lesson not to give exact dates. I even see more professionalism in Factom because I don't know of any exact date regarding M2 or something else.
However, once this takes place, it s a normal business practice for a representative of a company to go public and explain to people what s going on. Keeping investors in the dark is a really, really bad example of how things SHOULD NOT be done.
There may be some misconceptions about the word "Investors" here. I mean, what is that? Did we really invest in Factom? The ICO-buyers did and VC-Investors did, but we are in fact more speculators. We bought Factoids on the market. In my case because I wasn't even aware of the ICO. Otherwise I would have bought. What I want to say with that: You act as if they owe you something while it's on you to do your "job" and show some dedication to do it right. If you have reasons to believe there is something wrong with Factom, just sell. If you believe they should speak more about what's going on you shouldn't ignore what they let us know (and that's a lot. new video yesterday!) and the reasons they gave several times for not repeating that they won't give promises or fixed dates.
And that's something you also misrepresent: While they made guesses when there would be the M2-release they never made promises or gave an exact date.
I do also believe they ve been having financing problems, based on my info I ve received from a few other investors, they refused to share this info with us as well as any other info about the progress. This might be a pure speculation, however, this is what I was told.
And that's what I meant with "crossing the line". You spread around the possibility they could be in financial problems. You demand them to share this info with us which implicates that info is true. And then you say
"This might be a pure speculation, however, this is what I was told." Not even important if true or not? It's really revealing about yourself. Because what do you do here? At least you should do what you demand them to do. Be transparent! Share your infos! And I'm not saying that because I believe your infos are valid. I believe that if you would detail this out it would become obvious that it's bullshit. I mean, who are these "other Investors" (which implicates you are an Investor)? Who are they to believe they are that good informed? Did you ask those guys why they sure about that and how valid this info is?
And what do we know about the financial situation of Factom? We know that they got some money because of their ICO and seed fundings. The latest news was about $199k from DHS. We see a growing team, they hire while it would be more rational to fire people if there would be financial problems. We also know, and that is a fun fact: They got only 1/3 of the ICO-money for M1. You criticize that they didn't release M2 yet, but if they would run out of money exactly that would unlock another 1/3 of the ICO.
Factom team posts here or anywhere else not very often and I find that also unacceptable, compared to some other coins I have invested in.
Which "coins"? And just by the way: To say "another coins" implicates that you believe Factom develops a "coin".
And to say they wouldn't post very often which would be unacceptable in your opinion is again more about you as that it's an info about them. It's not even true. There is much more action in Factom when it comes to news than in a lot of other projects I know of.
I also believe they do not really care about early investors at all since we have served the purpose of providing initial capital and re not important anymore. This is why I do not like.
You say: "we have served the purpose of providing initial capital"
That's new to me. You did buy into the ICO? Or how did you provide initial capital for Factom? Didn't you say you bought after launch on Polo? And those who really bought into the ICO have not much reason to complain. I don't know much opportunities where it's possible to make 1000% in less than 12 months and even more if we focus on the ATH of march.
And what is it that you want to "feel important"? How should they show you that you are important to them and what do you do to show them you are? Accept it as a fact that we are not important. This is not a coin. We can show support and we also can give critique as feedback and maybe it's helpful. But Factom is not a cryptocurrency. They don't focus on "Factoid-adopters". We have the opportunity to benefit regarding the price because of the work they do, because of the fact that they focus on real users. And please answer this question: Do you know any other project that is taken serious from companies, institutions and even countries like Factom?
I do also hold several other currencies but no other team has kept me in the dark the way Factom does.
Again you try to hide what's behind. You just claim something as fact while standing in front of a mirror. It's all about you. Which "currencies" (again you implicate it's about a currency in Factom)?
You often mentioned Ethereum as shiny example for how it should be in your opinion. The Ethereum team would be professional. They would deliver. They would be transparent. But they need a Hard Fork. They need a DAO-bail-out. They have serious problems because of Solidity! Ethereum has no real solution for their economy - plans to switch to PoS with Casper without really knowing how and how a PoS-System could end in longterm.
And like I've said before: DAO showed a lot, and I'm not speaking about the tech or the hack. It showed priorities. It showed that they are willing to risk their economy to give an impression of value that doesn't exist and never existed. Nobody with an IQ above room-temperature and some experience can seriously believe that DAO was funded without millions of team-money. It was all ETH. They funded an experimental hype to use that to fund other Ethereum-projects to develop an illusion of value. Nothing of that would have gone beyond Ethereum itself. A big bubble. And than there was the Solidity-weakness and now they have to face serious problems.
I also say that because if you want to make up theories about financial problems, you should think about potential motivations not just to release something like DAO as a nice social-technical-experiemt but a totally overhyped and blown up bubble. After reading about the idea I thought "Nice experiment". After reading about the $150 Mio funding the picture became clearer. Taking such a risk is stupid or highly motivated. And my assumption is that it's very shady. There are theories that DAO was meant as solution to find a way out. Because it gives the Opportunity to fund something with ETH that is not ETH to use that to fund the own people and/or to sell it for Bitcoin or even Dollar. Think about that. And why don't you complain in the Ethereum-Thread?
I mean, one thing you could focus on first is how often Vitalik Buterin writes there. I know when it was the last time. January 12. Not sure about other team-members but if you believe BCT is that important - let them know. And then do some research about their fundings and finances and potential financial problems. You'll have fun doing that, I promise. Or not, because you are invested.
The easiest way would be to sell, which I already did once, but I do believe this project s got a lot of potential. Just not sure if the team s got what it takes to deliver. So, my criticism is aimed towards improving things not at shilling or trolling this forum the way some other people do.
It's not logical to believe in the potential of a project while not believing in the team. If I would detail you out a great plan of a money-machine-project it would still be stupid to invest a single satoshi if I'm not able to develop it. And while I believe that your intentions are not to FUD it is still what you do, if you just try to make points with a lack of arguments and a lack of facts while spreading rumors that are obviously based on hearsay. I also write down my theories about Ethereum for example, but at least I give arguments. And I could also give prove that I warned to invest in DAO before their ICO was finished. I could give prove that I said things like "I believe Ethereum will run into problems" many months ago. And I'm not an expert. I just think about what I know as facts and what can be recognized "between the lines".
