Post
Topic
Board Announcements (Altcoins)
Re: Bitmark
by
dannygroove
on 30/04/2015, 14:58:20 UTC
Melvster, it's a bad enough situation already, without you constantly try to make it appear even worse still and inferring that's it's just the tip of the iceberg.  Este, kenny, thank you.

I dont mean to infer that it's the tip of the iceberg, sorry if that comes across or you see it that way. 

This project has been dogged with a lack of transparency.  You've been more transparent recently, and that's a good thing.

Do I think it's the tip of the iceberg.  Maybe, maybe not.  What we have found out I would have considered out of character previously, in fact, I would not have believed it.  But new things come out every day. 

The latest I heard is that you bought over 20 million GMC at 1 satoshi and pumped it up to over 1000, then executed a massive dump.  All the while telling the BTM community you were working full time on marking.  We do have a right to know about this, after all, you used our money to do this.  People are also saying that you only went anonymous because you uncovered some XRP scandal. 

What I'd advise going forward is just be 100% open and transparent, write and check in code ASAP, and make marking a reality.  If bitmark reaches its full potential, all the other problems will solve themselves.

It would be good to have Mark comment on this.

+1

What I was told is that 23 million GMC were bought at 1 satsohi.

After that the coin was pumped in collusion with exchanges, in order to get support walls up.

A massive quantity was then dumped to take out the walls and lock in profits.  Slack logs can confirm this information.

The GMC community were also encouraged to put walls up on BTM all the while talk was of large chunks of code being just around the corner.  None of that code to date has emerged, nor imho, has any attempt been made yet to put things right. 

I would like to emphasise that market manipulation in the UK is a criminal offense, so I would discourage attempts to make light of this.

I agree an explanation would be a good start, or even better, would be to follow through with numerous the promises to check in code, none of which have to date materialized.

Man, you again? unbelievable.