Edited.
Edited
7 years ago in #eos by najoh (70)
$0.73
- Past Payouts $0.73
- - Author $0.69
- - Curators $0.04
28 votes
- slowwalker: $1.66
- matt-a: -$1.54
- kyle.anderson: $0.12
- rznag: $0.11
- btcmillionaire: $0.11
- roomservice: $0.07
- lesliestarrohara: $0.06
- kotturinn: -$0.05
- dek: $0.03
- ocrdu: $0.03
- sassal: $0.02
- tokyodude: $0.02
- kalestew: $0.02
- laurieanderson: $0.02
- nickit: $0.02
- biovab-jojik: $0.01
- najoh: $0.01
- kody2427: $0.00
- prot: $0.00
- jeffcirceo: -$0.00
- and 8 more
I flagged this post because I do not agree with it receiving a reward. In my eyes, this post is FUD.
Just wanted to give a little reasoning as to why I flagged this. I believe it is misinformation painted as true information.Pffffffffft. You think they NEED to make cash? This is already well funded. You aren't looking at this in the appropriate manner imo and this is coming across as pure FUD. Quit painting people as monsters that're making extremely important contributions to the world.
Edit: Lol at @blocktrades flagging this comment at 100%.
So asking questions about the funding structure of a very important project asking for our money is FUD?
Criticism is very important, especially when it revolves around a startup.
Where's the question? I'm seeing judgement from an uninformed individual. You're just arguing for the sake of it, you're clearly an Anderson. You might even be my little brother.
Just because he was sensational and uninformed about it doesn't mean the post didn't raise question about Block.one and their funding.
I am absolutely not arguing for the sake of it.
This is where I think people need to get more in tune with how business functions, especially the creation of massive new ones that require a lot of marketing, labor, research, and the buying of legendary low level coders.
Investors are required and investors aren't charities, they except a ROI, or Return On Investment. That's the name of the game. They take a gamble to help a company bear fruit, they can either win or lose. If they win, awesome, if they lose, they suck it up and move on.
My point is this is business and also an insane project. It does not come at a small price tag. The marketing at Consensus alone had to have been astronomical. That was in the center of Time's Square, center-stage billboard included.
Sure. People need to learn more overall, I agree.
It sure is an insane project. With all the hype and marketing coming before the code and "yellow paper", why is so much of the early investors money going to marketing? There are completely legitimate questions to ask about the funding of a startup.
You paint this as if it is irrational to ask any questions about where the funding is coming from.
Strong points by you. There are a lot of weird aspects and red flags with the EOS sale and project. As with when any ICO or crypto project, people need to do their due diligence and go in with an open mind, rather than an open wallet.
No I'm not painting this as an irrational inquiry. I'm painting this as "this is stupid to claim to know facts about something that you do not know about." The guy was claiming to know what was going on behind the scenes and acting as if it was some kind of nefarious plot, staged to scam people. That is FUD, the definition of it.
Yeah EOS is rather exciting for me!
As if one of the man guys behind Steem and Bitshares would all of a sudden be involved in a scam...
Yeah, Dan was finally found out. He is in fact, the devil. Thanks for exposing the antichrist, Johan/najoh.
/sarcasm
I for one welcome our blockchain overlords! :-D
It's an opinion you can disagree with by argumenting or showing facts. Maybe the post is ill-researched or just an invitation to discussion. Not a good idea to flag it just because you think it is FUD, another opinion. In my opinion, flags should be used rather more sparingly than this.
I think the post was a great invitation to discussion - there is not much known about who is funding EOS. They certainly had a baller budget for Consensus. I think criticism like this should be supported - although I would like some more sources.
Criticism of steem or any of Dan's projects is not well received here on steem. I just wrote a post asking some questions about the interesting ICO structure, it is the first post I wrote that I am worried about getting whale-flagged. I think I was very respectful in my questions but steem really does not like reading criticism; everything is raindrops and rainbows over here.
https://steemit.com/ethereum/@kyle.anderson/eos-the-ethereum-killer-with-an-erc-20-debut-what-is-up-with-this-strange-ico
You should've been there for his Telegram action. That's what ultimately led me to this post and ultimately deciding to flag it. Extreme uninformed and entitled arrogance, it was gross.
This isn't criticism, it's blatant misinformed, public, negative grandstanding. He isn't coming from a point of "I wonder if . . . " "Why is bah blah blah." He's coming from a point of "I KNOW THIS SECRET INFORMATION AND IT'S A BIG SINISTER PLOT! I BUSTED THEM SO HARD, WHAT A BUNCH OF SCUMMY PEOPLE!!!"
I have no respect for that. Making things like this happen is not easy. People are dedicating their lives to this, to bring something that practically comes free and helps raise anyone that cares to invest in it (even a bum if they scrape up some change). These people deserve support, not denigration. If he has questions, he should ask them, not pretend like he has the insider scoop. That's just a bullshitter, bullshitting.
Join telegram, ask Dan questions. He's there like 9-5 every single business day, frantically answering countless questions. Go witness that and you will be humbled, especially after you take into account the amount of work on the guy's plate.
The guy's attitude just reeks of Veruca Salt, I see this entitled, bratty child behind the keyboard:
There is a place for sensationalism in journalism but I see your point.
I have been in the telegram. Doesn't really change anything.
You clearly need to work on erasing that bias you've previously spoken about. Meaning that in a real way. Fighting something for the sake of fighting it doesn't make it progressive or correct. Study, and then study some more. If you were in the telegram and interacted with the guy and read his chatter as well as this and you were actually not trying to argue for the sake of the word, I think you'd get my sentiment.
My point about bias that I have spoken about before is about everyone's bias. If you are talking to someone else: they are biased. You are incredibly biased when it comes to EOS and Dan's projects. There is nothing wrong with that, you are supposed to be biased.
I have visited the telegram daily, Dan is sure an active man. Just becasue I am not as optimistic about EOS doesn't mean I don't get your sentiment. It just means I have different opinions regarding investing in early stage projects.
I'm not flagging indiscriminately. I gave it solid thought prior to flagging it. I rarely use the feature, but when I do, it is for a reason, this reason being "disagreement on rewards." I do not believe that a portion of the rewards pool deserves to be given to someone perpetuating fabricated FUD.
He's blatantly stating this as fact on here and on telegram, repeatedly. I'm asking for information to back up his pretty serious claims if you read our thread, and he will not supply them (because he can't, because that information doesn't exist). He's making serious claims and refuses/cannot back them up. That isn't cool. That's detrimental to the community, and community is what this is all about.
Read the rest of his posts, apparently alt coins are scams/ponzi schemes, again purported as fact. I do not like or respect disinformation, especially negative disinformation about good things.
I do not flag often whatsoever, but when I do, it's to fight the good fight, the one against FUD and disinformation.
Dan has confirmed.
Block.one - the EOS parent company has 100 shareholders from across the industry
This is a massive project, people are going to fund it. World class, innovative, putting-rainman-to-shame, low level software developers developing the most ambitious blockchain the world has ever seen is not going to come at a $0 price tag.
I was not disputing THAT, I'm arguing against the arrogant attitude that is painting this as some secret, sinister plot, poised to scam Earth. That's complete bullshit and gets no respect from me. You two are obviously quite new to this space and don't know much about team(s) behind this and previous projects, but they're straight up legendary people. Pretending like you "onto someone," when you have none of the information that you claim to have makes you a bullshit artist, a liar, and a negative nancy.
"Now they announced an ICO for the general public, but the truth is, those shareholders are dumping their EOS stake in exchange of ETH !"
"If you invest now in EOS you are just paying those investors, you are not paying for innovation. Your money will not help the world, it will go into the first shareholder pockets."
"How annoying is it in fact that I uncovered the unmarketed truth. The upcoming EOS "ICO" its a shareholder dump who hope to make 100 times their initial investment.
Also the company is registered in Cayman Islands... not the best location in the world to send any money to and to register a tech company."
This guy sucks and I think he's a downer for the community. He's obviously quite the narcissist as he clearly thinks he has it all figured out. OH MAN! THE CAYMAN ISLANDS, SCAAAM!!! Someone doesn't understand legal implications and the very much "grey," area that the cryptocurrency space lives in . . .
But yeah, my disagreement with with negative misinformation about an amazing project spewing from the mouth of a narcissist.
I agree with you for the most part. I am not so quick to praise EOS but I support your rationale.
Well we are all new to this space but I've been involved with blockchain since the beginning. I was there on Bitcointalk for every early BTS thread. I know the players in this space quite well.
There is nothing wrong with some pessimism here once and a while; everyone here is full of optimism, optimism can be blinding and I welcome pessimism and criticism - even if some of it might be too much, sure helps to balance.
When billions are on the line, criticism is well warranted. Just point out your corrections in the comments - they can't censor those on steem.
This differs MASSIVELY from bitcoin. If you've followed the space as it has evolved FROM bitcoin as I have, you could clearly see why trying to damn this project is an absolute travesty. Criticism is always welcome, yes, it's how things progress. But nothing leaves a worse taste in my mouth than ignorant-born criticism, negative-nancying, and grandstanding coming from the mouth of someone who clearly isn't understanding the scenario.
When billions are on the line that are supplied by willing participants that will most certainly multiply their investment massively for creating something that's going to transact multiple billions/trillions a day that requires the most brilliant minds on earth to dedicate themselves wholly to it, so they can literally drop it on Earth as a gift to humanity, I have NO qualms.
I think it would be healthy to get more in tune with a project, its implications on the current state of technology, its impact on society and poverty as well has the internet as we currently know it. Damning ambitious, ultimately selfless revolutionary projects like this is shitty and like I was saying, have no respect for those who damn it without understanding it.
You have every right to flag due to reward disagreement.
For sure, which is why I did. I don't enjoy it, but I'll do it when I feel as though it's merited.
Don't let anyone bust your balls for a flag.
I don't/won't, but I do like to always explain why I do it transparently. I think that this is my second total flag that wasn't outright plagiarism.
respect.
Your counterarguments speak for themselves, and people will draw their own conclusions. I see no need to add a flag to your arguments, they do very well on their own.
I tried inquiring for information to support his claims, he refused over and over to deliver. To me, it's fairly obvious as to why that is the case; it's FUD.
Like I was saying, I do not think that a portion of the rewards pool belongs in the hands of someone spreading blatantly false information as if it were factual. Those rewards are better allocated elsewhere.
Disclose your relationship to EOS, are you an initial investor ?
Lol. Yeah, I funded all of it.
haha I wish I did!
You and me both, man.
We all were on steem, when Dan was making it, so partially we helped it along, so why wish, when you did. Afaiac, steemians are early investors, because for some of us (i.e. me, and some others) steem was an intro into crypto, and it made us some money, as well as supporting Dan while he was working on something that would become EOS. Besides, Steem is 1 hardfork away from being an EOS sidechain, so we are all almost shareholders now.
#reward disagreement baby @blocktrades
I just wish it wasn't done in ETH, why not Steem?!
There's too many reasons to list. Ethereum has native smart contracts ideal for ICO distribution, Etheruem has wide distribution and market cap capable of handling an ICO like this. Don't necessarily agree with it, but I get it. Bowing down to Ethereum makes sense because if Bitshares or STEEM were used, the majority of capital may get weary on the grounds of techno-nepotism.
Fair points. Looks like I have to get on that bandwagon to get involved anyway... Time to do more reading :)
Illuminati! Uncovered!
Thanks for posting... it was all I needed to skip this ICO until they have code that works as hyped.
You say: no innovation but still EOS was build. Whats the problem in first tier investors cashing out?
Your argument would be stronger if stating that cashing out so early does not show confidence.
Raising unlimited amounts of money to pay off shareholders of the initial ICO and calling this new ICO an ICO. This is what is wrong. Too many things are undisclosed, unmarketed, hidden. I want all the facts on the table before I make a decision. Also we dont know what we are paying for as the coins dont have a fix price, i'm sure this is totally illegal in most of the countries of this world.
Cryptocurrency is the Digital Wild West. Better get used to it.
Lol.
You can only say lol to my comments, pretty sure you are one of the initial investors. You should disclose exactly your relation with EOS.
Lol again. Lol stands for laugh out loud, which is what I'm doing in response to your comments and rant. You're coming across as if these developers are unworthy and undeserving of reaping the rewards of their hard work and innovation . . . It's a bit insulting bearing in mind the insane contributions that they've made to the world the blockchain ecosphere as a whole.
Read my article, the money is going to shareholders not to developers.
I think you're a bit out of touch about how business works and about how the blockchain world operates. Not saying that in an insulting way, but in a literal way. You're being very negative and brash as if you're an expert in what all is going on behind the scenes when in fact you don't know what's going on behind the scenes. You're talking about uncovering these hidden nefarious plots for some reason that I can't really figure out why. Like I was saying, it's a bit insulting to read. And kind of embarrassing.
Investors fund things, enable things to happen. They put their neck on the line. Do you not think that investors deserve a return on their investment? Are you aware of all of the cost incurred in regards to this project? Let alone the human capital and brilliant minds that're being put to work.
What do you think they should do? Give their life's work away to judgemental "me-me-me," people and sacrifice their labor, life, and efforts for nothing?
It is funny that you, as an early investor sould call out other early investors. ;-)
Really worried about EOS if that's true
You know what? I think I know what you're actually doing here. haha
Good strategy.
This is not some kind of strategy to grab EOS tokens cheaper. I'm not going to enrich investors when I should be the investor. My money should be used to develop tech not to enrich the first 100 investors of EOS.
You know what, you might be right (nods). Now that I think well about it.
Even without any evidence or proof this could make perfect sense to me.
Let's face the facts:
If you sum it up, you don't have to be a oracle to forsee that more money will be put into the ICO that could ever be needed to create, improve and maintaince a platform like EOS. Even getting hundrets of hardcore software developer for years will only a fraction from the money, which will be collected.
I'am perfectly fine that the team and early investors behind EOS should be compensated with the risk they took for the project early on - but with an uncapped ICO like this and an unrational market we have - it won't be a good deal.
As much i like to invest into this tech - my guts tell me "leave it boy"!
I also described similar concerns in my blogpost: https://steemit.com/beyondbitcoin/@deanpress/the-eos-ico-one-major-concern
Sure.
Very nice acting right there. Hehehe. Come to think of it, why would Dan even allow that? It must have been blood and sweat for him and it will cost all of his works and reputation. No one wants to live like that. And EOS has an outstanding technology. It will be the loss of those 100 investors if they if something bad happens because of that.
Why is this "edited"
What happened to your content?
Maybe he saw the light.
Or maybe it was because the post was exactly what I was saying the entire time from the beginning, FUD. The information being presented was absolutely jumping the gun with many unbased derogatory claims.
Personal reasons.
? Would you mind elaborating?