Good article but personally i think EOS is a bit over-hyped. Project is quite new. Also reading the agreement: https://eos.io/purchase_agreement
The terms are really really crappy. Just read it yourself.
I have read allot about Dan Larimer (the man behind EOS) and the projects he has been involved in like Bitshare and Steem. It does not sound encouraging when the lead architect jumps boat from project to project. Maybe in 6 month he finds an even better solution and starts over. I have worked as a developer many years and now i'm a project manager so i get a bad feeling when i see the major player has changed from project to project like that. This might be a great platform/tech and even surpass ETH and STEEM but personally i would wait to see some progress before jumping in. Just my 2 cent!
Dan leaves as soon as his projects are self-sustaining. Clock is ticking and he has a vision that is much, much bigger than any individual chain.
How would you like to see the terms be different? They are written how they need to be written to avoid legal issues with the SEC.
From my understanding of many interviews and reading Dan's own words for the last year, smart contracts for spreading freedom and liberty has always been a big goal of his. When a project is done and functional, he moved on because at that point the problems weren't technical but more about marketing, UI, front-end design, etc.
They were indeed technical from what i recall (as well as political). Cant remember exactly where i read that. In this article for ex he said: “New opportunities to pursue my vision of free market solutions to secure life liberty and property.” A bit vague...
http://www.razor-forex.com/2017/03/steemit-lead-developer-dan-larimer.html
Sure maybe the problem was political in nature but i get a feeling he gives up to easily on his projects.
https://steemit.com/danlarimer/@stellabelle/dan-larimer-visionary-programmer-of-bitshares-steem-and-eos
Also EOS its build on top of ETH (if i understand) which has scalability problem, why not use like Bitshare (maybe same problem there)?
Not sure about NEO/XEM (competitors that are much further in development?)
I was wrong before i meant the Purchase Agreement not the whitepapers! It is very much so in favor of EOS.
EX:
• EOS TOKENS HAVE NO RIGHTS, USES OR ATTRIBUTES
• NOT A PURCHASE OF EOS PLATFORM TOKENS
and many more strange things i dont understand to be honest. Its not even clear (to me at least what and how many tokens you get).
I'm not even sure what you get from the sale, this is an example from the document, very vague!
As an example:
Here is the full Purchase Agreement: (not sure how to attach in STEEM, had to save it on OneDrive and share)
https://1drv.ms/w/s!Ag9C_L5-r1Cxg7B9Qv2iDDVUUPBWrQ
And how is this different from just buying the token from en exchange? at 1.7 dollar you get much more compared to what they explain in the end of the document.
I have to read this a few more times i think.I'm far from a expert in this area to be frank so i might misunderstand several things. I am still reading and learning every day ....i must apologize if i assume and interpret in a wrong way.
I'm sorry, but that's just really ignorant. No, it's not built on top of ETH. The coin distribution uses ETH and that's it. EOS is graphene based technology like Steem and BitShares.
The ICO is written, as I said, to avoid legal issues. Yes, it's in EOS's favor as it needs to be to be legal. They haven't taken advantage of anyone yet and it's all open on the ETH blockchain.
Maybe read a bit more from Dan himself or watch interviews of his own words. He recently explained on Anarchast exactly why he left Steemit and that it was the plan all along.
That is what i am doing and learning. I did say i might be wrong about some of my assumptions. There are actually videos saying that it is build on top of ETH. There are lots of misinformation in this space.
Calling someone that is learning ignorant and asking for information is really just sad.
Legal issues: I dont think people should sign papers blindly without understanding what they are getting in return. And for me the terms are just to vague and give the buyer pretty much nothing in term of safety.
In regard to Dan, i been reading allot and he feels like someone who needs to be in charge 100% or he gets mad and leave (again i might be wrong but this is the impression i get reading and watching videos). In a big organization you need to adapt, get along with people, compromise and handle the politic. At least in this area i'm much better (being a project manager). He seem to be a great asset with lots of experience and knowledge but i dont think i trust his corporate drive. Just my personal opinion.
I will monitor EOS and read more about it during meantime....
I welcome constructive discussion and if you can provide good links i will for sure read and learn more.
My intention was not to offend, but to make a factual statement. By ignorant, I meant this:
I'm all for learning! But stating something false as true should be called out.
Those videos are also ignorant. That's just a fact. They don't know what they are talking about on this particular topic. Stating so is how we decrease the "misinformation in this space".
My suggestion is to focus on first principles. Go to the source. If you're learning, that's fantastic! But be careful who you learn from because you may be learning things which are factually incorrect.
Read Dan's blog, watch interviews he's given. That would be the source for describing what EOS is (along with the actual code itself and graphene technology in general). Then, read criticisms and check them against known logical fallacies to see if they are factually correct. From what I've seen so far, the criticisms are quite weak and Dan's responses (like this one today) seem quite solid to me.
Fair points. I will read the link but just watched a great video by a developer that i subscribe to. I dont listen to speculation to be honest. I listen and read people who seem to know the technical aspect of things.
Any way this is the video:
Ivan is very technical and explains some of my cencerns much much better then i ever could:
==> EOS is distributing tokens on ETH blockchain (this is what confused and why i wrote my previous comment)
As the video points out these tokens will not be usuable on EOS blockchain! very strange i think. So what is the point
when EOS dont even uses its own blockchain?
Also note the other redflags Ivan mentions (ex Ether locked up under 1 company). Also he highlight some of the terms i pointed out. He is much more knowledgable then me so i dont think i was very far off to be honest.
Basically EOS is not obliged to give you anything if they choose to. And the tokens you get might not even be worth anything as its not based on their own blockchain.
And as Ivan says in the end of his video: would any smart investor give away their money without any proof of concept and these terms? The answer is of course NO.
This is just my 2 cent. People can invest in whatever they like. I'm just highlighting some concernts as an investor.
ps. i will continue to read and learn more of course on EOS and other blockchains. I think blockchain is the future and will pretty much be as big as internet was back in the days when it went mainstream.
Just watched the video. I think you're misrepresenting the author of the video. Most of it was them reading something from someone else, not their personal opinion. This person is up front about how they don't like ICOs in general and said the same thing I did, meaning there are no guarantees when it comes to ICOs (not just this ICO).
But yes, there is no proof of concept (yet). To me, that's okay because I've been using Steemit for over a year and BitShares for almost as long. That's my proof of concept. I also build the EOS code this weekend, so it's not vaporware. The video says to know the people you're giving money to. That's great advice and I know the authors of EOS based on what they've already accomplished in this space.
The EOS blockchain doesn't even exist yet. How can they sell a token to be used on a chain that doesn't exist? They will be redeemed for EOS tokens. Read actual publications by EOS to understand these things. Go to the source.
I'll watch this video, but the way you describe it, it sounds like FUD. Almost every ICO terms of service I've seen has similar language basically saying you're donating to them and you get nothing in return which keeps them out of trouble from the government. It's all about trust. If you trust a project team and their vision, you invest, otherwise you don't. For those unwilling to do that, they should wait until the project is fully functional and launches and buy the tokens on the open market.
Step 1: Stop assuming.
Step 2: Don't believe everything you read.
you are purely speaking from a humanly common sense, and I'm kinda agreed with you.
Cheers!