RE: John Oliver and Cryptocurrencies
Not being charged with something does not automatically mean one is innocent lol. Just because one has not been "proven guilty" in a court of laws judged by a handful of humans in a room, definitely does not make one "innocent".
A decent amount of big deal issues mentioned in this persons Steemit post https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@fortified/brock-pierce-or-is-billionaire-bitcoin-board-member-founder-of-tether-and-alleged-pedophile-a-covert-cia-asset includes tons of links and court document stuff ( I currently have this up in a different tab https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1200668-brock-pierce-deposition-faswag.html#document/p11/a164022 and this page too https://medium.com/@cuttlefish_btc/brock-pierce-timeline-a230ad1ecdc5 )
I had not seen that Steemit post by @fortified before now, and I actually dislike the amount of bias in the way the person wrote it, but if you look through the post, all the information has been out there, just they put it in a nice collected way. I was going to comment about a documentary I had seen that had nothing to do with cryptocurrency and Brock Pierce definitely got a mention, really worth watching, full thing can be seen here
I'm sharing all these links because I have as much information as anyone else does out there, but I would be careful on investing in something that may have some really bad elements tied to some of the top investors. I would look into all the people that resigned from the Bitcoin Foundation or threatened to because Brock was a part of it, that was a big deal when that went down, and I can definitely picture a similar incident with EOS happening. The timeline from the Medium post is probably better than the Steemit post.
Edit: Found this post on reddit by Brock himself https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/25z3vr/here_is_the_entire_letter_from_brock_pierce_that/ and then if you scroll down points are still brought up that I'm not seeing him speak on in that post or anywhere else online (others actually mention it to that he cherry picks his responses).
I found this quote on an article about the definition of innocent until proven guilty:
In practice, the presumption of innocence is animated by the requirement that the government prove the charges against the defendant Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. The requirement that a person suspected of a crime be presumed innocent also is mandated in statutes and court opinions
Well if there were no charges, never mind proven beyond all doubt, then there's no way anyone can say he is guilty - not in the eyes of the law. It's all just speculation and heresay and personal opinion otherwise. Even you suspecting him, still means nothing - he is innocent in the eyes of the law.
I'm not on anyone's side here, I haven't read deeply into the case and don't plan to but have read enough to know he is innocent technically - but none of us will probably ever know what really happened. The Foundation resignments I read about but again, it's based on speculation - and there were two other people who they also felt were dodgy.
Appreciate all the info though, I really do :)