RE: Was the Launch of Steem a Scam or the Only Legal Way? - Thoughts on Steem by Charlie Shrem a Week Later
It gets on my nerves when people who have never run a business expect the entrepreneurs to just give their creations away. I don't have a problem with Ned and Dan having a large stake because they are equally invested in the mission.
The people who expected everything for free are often people who have no idea what it takes to launch a real business. They just have an attitude of entitlement, that everything should just be given to them. That bothers me.
I don't think making a profit and providing value to society are opposing ideas. In fact I think they should have a directly relationship.
It would be nice if the richest person in the world was also the person who had contributed the most to humanity. Alas, I do not think I can say that about many of the people on the Forbes rich list.
:: applause :: -- Well said!
meh oversimplifcation and lacking any concrete examples.
Warning people about a scam is not entitlment. If you business is a scam, then be ready.
Sow the wind, weap the wirlwind.
I agree they are not the same, but that wasn't my point. There's a certain type of person that automatically labels something a scam if the founder stands to make a profit.
You can see therefore that this person would also expect everything to be given to them for free (because they don't like anyone making a profit). That's the entitlement bit.
The irony is that almost none of these people have ever created anything of value and then given it away (because that takes real work).
Which leaves me with the question to pose to these people "When did you get it into your head that the world should bend over backwards to please you?".
That's a question I'd be really interested in hearing answers to.
The issue is not if the founder stands to make a profit.
The issue is if something is misleading, a scam or some other form of fraud-pr not.
That is a seperate issue than a founder making profit or controling the majority of the coin supply which in turn lets them control what is on top of the platform, and many other questions. If it were mapped out fro the start "founders control everything basicly" well that would be different. Pointing out that the distro of steem is not begging your question.
If you are going ot call people out "almost none of these people" just name names so that we can see concreate cases of what you are talking about.
You are painting this as "profit, oh it must be a scam" and not going any of the reasons , coin distro, whitepaper lacking technicals , instamine launch and many other things. The critics have given concrete issues, please give us examples of these "people" you are talking about. If you can not do that then we can asume your argument is well, crap.
I was debating a principle, not Steem specifically, hence the lack of specific references to Steem.