Some people are picking apart the EOS ICO Terms & Conditions. Removed from the context of "there is a triple letter agency called the SEC, and there is a high probility that according to them holding an ICO constitutes securities fraud", those terms and conditions are shady as fuck, and should set off alarm bells.
What these people don't understand the absolutely immense risk anyone performing an ICO undertakes when it comes to the possibility of drawing the SEC's wrath. Half the recent ICOs obviously neglected to retain counsel and get extensive legal advice when it came to their ICO. I will not be surprised in the slightest if some people will wind up in US Federal prison (or at least barred from travelling to any country that extradites to the US for financial crimes) for holding reckless ICOs.
Check my comment here. I was inspired to write it after I responded to your question. It's the only other thing I can think of that could be the basis for such accusations.
If so Dan needs to work on his scamming technique. I joined Steemit with $0 and Steem power supplied by Steem. I have now made money on Steemit and have not paid anyone anything to be here. This does not sound very lucrative if it is all a scam. :)
These people are full of crap in my opinion. Bitshares has been working for years. Steem is working beautifully. Cryptovisor just switched because graphene has proven its worth. Maybe they just dont like DPOS. Either way, working valuable blockchains prove their full of sh*t
Haters gonna hate. Also, the folk that have bitcoin maximalist leanings view Steem as a scam because of how the initial distribution of the tokens was orchestrated. Quite a few people are also rather upset with how he broke promises that were made by his company Invictus Innovations back in 2013 - that all future platforms based on BitShares would airdrop onto PTS holders and AGS investors - on the basis of that they bootstrapped the development of the technology. Graphene / BitShares 2.0 was created by Cryptonomex, which was never bound by anything Invictus Innovations promised (IANAL, but I suspect those promises would not have been enforced by any western court as legally binding anyway). AFAIK, part of the reason for events unfolding this way was that original development funds (those from AGS among them) were decimated by the market crash following the implosion of Mt. Gox.
AngelShares Investors in particular felt cheated by this, which I fully understand. AGS distribution was performed on the same model as EOS, and some people invested substantial amounts of money into the creation of BitShares 1.0 with the understanding that they were not only investing into BitShares X, but a whole family of DACs spawned of the same technology. There was supposed be BitShares DNS, BitShares Note, BitShares MAS (mutual aid society, a DAC insurance company if I remember correctly), and others. I'm fuzzy on how exactly how things played out, as I was not as active a member of the community back then (something I dearly regret) - maybe someone else can fill in some of the details. I believe BitShares Note eventually appeared as Muse. Additionally, the supply of BTS was originally supposed to be capped at 2 billion, and the merger that increased the supply to 2.5 billion upset a quite a few investors, leading to the anti-dilution movement.
Bottom line is, some investors who funded the original bootstrapping of BitShares feel cheated because promises were made that they would get airdropped stakes in all future DACs (such as Steem) spawned from the tech that they funded development and bootstrapping of.
I personally was unable to redeem my Keyhotee Founder ID (BitShares account 1.2.112) that I bought with PTS, because they changed the key generation algo or something in Keyhotee (everyone had to regenerate their keys with the updated version of the software and publish the new pubkeys prior to the PTS blockchain snapshot, but I never got the memo. I had a brief correspondence with @stan about it, who graciously offered to create a different founder ID for myself, but that the name I paid for and wanted was unfortunately lost forever because the private keys for it did not exist. Between being upset at how things played out and life getting in the way I failed to follow up on the offer.
Please understand that unfortunately I stopped following the community sometime early in 2014 (the fact that it was organized via non-threaded forum didn't help, as by that time I had been spoiled by reddit and loathed non-threaded discussion interfaces), and am reconstructing the gap in my memory of events with bits and pieces I've gathered in recent months.
I would greatly appreciate it if @dantheman, @stan, or anyone else whose memory of these events constitutes a primary source (as opposed to my version reconstructed from secondary sources) could weigh in to correct any facts I got wrong and to fill in any gaps.
tl;dr Many grand plans were made, some people (myself included) recognized @dantheman was a visionary and invested in his idea. Some promises may have been made. Then we all got collectively goxed, and a whole lot of shit went sideways in the ensuing shitstorm. Some possible promises may not have been kept because they were founded on conditions that washed away in the shitstorm. Some people felt cheated. Because money was involved, some accused Dan of lying to them, and of cheating them.
I personally still believe Dan to be a visionary, and I do not believe Dan or Stan deliberately scammed anyone. This is the only thing other than the EOS.IO ToS that I can think of that might be a basis for accusing Dan of being a scammer.
I don't get it. How is he scamming anyone?
I have no idea. The man created two successful projects.
Check my comment here. It's the only thing other than the EOS ICO ToS (which obviously exists for legal CYA reasons).
Some people are picking apart the EOS ICO Terms & Conditions. Removed from the context of "there is a triple letter agency called the SEC, and there is a high probility that according to them holding an ICO constitutes securities fraud", those terms and conditions are shady as fuck, and should set off alarm bells.
What these people don't understand the absolutely immense risk anyone performing an ICO undertakes when it comes to the possibility of drawing the SEC's wrath. Half the recent ICOs obviously neglected to retain counsel and get extensive legal advice when it came to their ICO. I will not be surprised in the slightest if some people will wind up in US Federal prison (or at least barred from travelling to any country that extradites to the US for financial crimes) for holding reckless ICOs.
Check my comment here. I was inspired to write it after I responded to your question. It's the only other thing I can think of that could be the basis for such accusations.
If so Dan needs to work on his scamming technique. I joined Steemit with $0 and Steem power supplied by Steem. I have now made money on Steemit and have not paid anyone anything to be here. This does not sound very lucrative if it is all a scam. :)
These people are full of crap in my opinion. Bitshares has been working for years. Steem is working beautifully. Cryptovisor just switched because graphene has proven its worth. Maybe they just dont like DPOS. Either way, working valuable blockchains prove their full of sh*t
Haters gonna hate. Also, the folk that have bitcoin maximalist leanings view Steem as a scam because of how the initial distribution of the tokens was orchestrated. Quite a few people are also rather upset with how he broke promises that were made by his company Invictus Innovations back in 2013 - that all future platforms based on BitShares would airdrop onto PTS holders and AGS investors - on the basis of that they bootstrapped the development of the technology. Graphene / BitShares 2.0 was created by Cryptonomex, which was never bound by anything Invictus Innovations promised (IANAL, but I suspect those promises would not have been enforced by any western court as legally binding anyway). AFAIK, part of the reason for events unfolding this way was that original development funds (those from AGS among them) were decimated by the market crash following the implosion of Mt. Gox.
AngelShares Investors in particular felt cheated by this, which I fully understand. AGS distribution was performed on the same model as EOS, and some people invested substantial amounts of money into the creation of BitShares 1.0 with the understanding that they were not only investing into BitShares X, but a whole family of DACs spawned of the same technology. There was supposed be BitShares DNS, BitShares Note, BitShares MAS (mutual aid society, a DAC insurance company if I remember correctly), and others. I'm fuzzy on how exactly how things played out, as I was not as active a member of the community back then (something I dearly regret) - maybe someone else can fill in some of the details. I believe BitShares Note eventually appeared as Muse. Additionally, the supply of BTS was originally supposed to be capped at 2 billion, and the merger that increased the supply to 2.5 billion upset a quite a few investors, leading to the anti-dilution movement.
Bottom line is, some investors who funded the original bootstrapping of BitShares feel cheated because promises were made that they would get airdropped stakes in all future DACs (such as Steem) spawned from the tech that they funded development and bootstrapping of.
I personally was unable to redeem my Keyhotee Founder ID (BitShares account 1.2.112) that I bought with PTS, because they changed the key generation algo or something in Keyhotee (everyone had to regenerate their keys with the updated version of the software and publish the new pubkeys prior to the PTS blockchain snapshot, but I never got the memo. I had a brief correspondence with @stan about it, who graciously offered to create a different founder ID for myself, but that the name I paid for and wanted was unfortunately lost forever because the private keys for it did not exist. Between being upset at how things played out and life getting in the way I failed to follow up on the offer.
Please understand that unfortunately I stopped following the community sometime early in 2014 (the fact that it was organized via non-threaded forum didn't help, as by that time I had been spoiled by reddit and loathed non-threaded discussion interfaces), and am reconstructing the gap in my memory of events with bits and pieces I've gathered in recent months.
I would greatly appreciate it if @dantheman, @stan, or anyone else whose memory of these events constitutes a primary source (as opposed to my version reconstructed from secondary sources) could weigh in to correct any facts I got wrong and to fill in any gaps.
tl;dr Many grand plans were made, some people (myself included) recognized @dantheman was a visionary and invested in his idea. Some promises may have been made. Then we all got collectively goxed, and a whole lot of shit went sideways in the ensuing shitstorm. Some possible promises may not have been kept because they were founded on conditions that washed away in the shitstorm. Some people felt cheated. Because money was involved, some accused Dan of lying to them, and of cheating them.
I personally still believe Dan to be a visionary, and I do not believe Dan or Stan deliberately scammed anyone. This is the only thing other than the EOS.IO ToS that I can think of that might be a basis for accusing Dan of being a scammer.