Some points here but for some reason I really didn't like the tone of this post.
Some of the issues raised by Vays and others are legitimate, dispite how others may not be.
Glad you latched on to an early stage project but some criticism is worthy.
It is not libel.
The quoted statement by Tone Vays:
“Dan Larimer has started several proof-of-stake based projects and they have all been shady in nature,” Vays said. “Both Bitshares and Steemit allowed insiders to create lots of tokens for themselves, and after that, the proof-of-stake nature of the project allowed those insiders to print tokens of value for themselves in perpetuity.”
That is Tone Vays negative opinion and he may be wrong but its not libel.
The reality is the rules of the steemit system in earlier days were very easy to criticize and things have changed drastically since then for the better.
Tone Vays appears to be a super conservative bitcoin maximalist and he still thinks most ALTs are a scam. Unfortunately a large number of ALTs really are scams so that keeps him in business as scam watcher.
Vays is a sad bitcoin maximalist.
Saying EOS is a Ponzi Scheme is not libel, kyle?
I don't know. I don't think there is anything wrong with saying 'X might be a Ponzi, this is why...'.
There needs to be criticism.
I agree with you. However, what he said was "X is a Ponzi" with no reasons why. There is a huge difference. One of them is actionable.
Well I don't even have time to read that crap so good for pointing out poor journalism. That is the worst in a community like crypto.
It's open air accusation of criminal behavior aimed at stealing personal assets from participants.
Sounds pretty close to libel to me.
I don't know that there is not any criminal activity.
burden of proof is on..... who?
Though there are many ways to defame someone, there is one very well established way that makes you automatically guilty of libel -- stating that a person has committed a crime, when they have not been found guilty by a court of law. This is why journalists are extremely careful to talk about the man "alleged to have done X" or "charged with X", but never "the man who did X" until after a guilty verdict has been rendered. Chris DeRose's statement was unquestionably libel. Whether Coindesk participated in the libel by printing in that form it would be up for grabs.
Idk I have seen conflict from both sides.
well, regardless of conflict, if one party is publicly making accusations of active fraud/criminality, burden of proof is not on the accused party.
this is made even more amusing considering that total transparency is baked into the code and the platform itself. if criminality does exist, one would think it could/would have been found by now.