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.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
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.
No, I am in fact NOT being biased. Whatsoever. I do not roll with bias in the investing game. I go with confirmed facts. Bias is a form of ignorance, and I'm not interested nor do I support remaining willfully ignorant while pretending that you aren't. I've vetted Dan's projects as well as MANY others to extreme levels. I stay involved and as informed as possible. I read everything that comes out and stay involved asking specific questions. I support the work and ideas behind EOS and Dan's past projects, yes, that is not blind bias. Why? Because the tech that enables their existence is superior to competition and they're actually working. Their team is also world class.
Criticism and inquiry is important. My qualm, again, was with the guy pretending to know the facts about something he's completely uninformed about. Crying scam about this project is a straight up travesty. That's just stupid, and I called it out for what it was, stupid misinformation. People should combat misinformation from people who claim to have information that they in face DO NOT HAVE.
Disagree with you on your the first point; different philosophy.
He had some information - asked the kinds of questions that should be asked based on the information that was at hand. Did he need to be as harsh and accusatory? No but that does not change my point.
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.
I know it differs from Bitcoin lol. I have followed this space as it has evolved from Bitcoin's shortcomings. Just because I don't see everything through your eyes doesn't mean my point is invalid or that I don't understand the history.
Well when that happens I'll be stoked.
I have read everything officially released from EOS.IO as well as synthesized this with my deep understanding of blockchain and consensus. I am well aware of the implications. Your responses paint the picture that "I just don't understand what they are trying to accomplish", I do. EOS makes bold claims and right now, there is not much to back any of them up. I can't wait to hear more about how they are designing this protocol.
I've followed this space and have remained actively involved in it since Bitcoin was an idea. I've specifically followed graphene projects and have been involved since around 2014. Again, I'm simply stating that this guy painting EOS as if it's some long-con that is out to hurt investors is about the dumbest thing that you can possibly claim. If you knew Dan decently and his motivations, I'm sure you could see where I'm coming from.
Sure, you have your own ideas or opinions and you're entitled to them, but that doesn't necessarily make them correct. I'm interested in facts, not negative-powered opinions from FUD spreaders that like to cry wolf with information that they do not have.
Again, talk to Dan. Ask him questions, he will reply. This is what I've been doing for a very long time. Information and answers are out there and you can get it all. You also have to understand that making this happen does not come at a cheap price. Investors are investors for a reason, they want a return and they're certainly entitled to it in my opinion. I think that this will be a safe thing to invest in. The goal of this ICO is not "make as much money as humanly possible," as most ICOs are. The goal is fair and even token distribution, and to me, that's admirable. Quantifying the human trait of "do you deserve this or not," is damn near impossible to assess, but it's a question that they're trying to answer to the best of their ability. They're doing about the best job possible to ensure fairness of distribution. If you think that you have a better solution, I'd like to hear it and I'm sure Dan would as well.
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.
I absolutely admire your transparency.
Thanks. I try to keep it real.
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.