Quote from: kennyP on July 24, 2016, 03:37:39 AM

Quote from: damon0 on July 23, 2016, 11:06:31 PM

The mind is a tricky thing - every human can measure the same data and come up with different conclusions.. If you've watched JL777 over the years, you will see that he/she Huh

generally tightens up with negative pressure.. JL777 probably decided that he could contribute via adding to IOTA tech, vs directly donating, and he did invest a lot to show SuperNET support.. But, like one previous comment, types of contributions are NOT mutually exclusive, and both is an option.. But, the negative pressure can easily be seen as either a form of blackmail or as fair pressure, depending on conditioning, and this reflects negatively on both IOTA and SuperNET.. JL777 does have a history of himself NOT asking for contributions, only requesting investors, so it makes sense he does not support this method. So, I ask all sides to look at the details as NOT that anyone is being unreasonable or scamming, but that given the same set of facts each decided on different approaches of support.. Maybe there can be a cross contribution, JL777 can add IOTA support to his Iguana tech that is getting very close to working now and IOTA can support Iguana Tech.. And... Maybe both groups can purchase and/or donate each others Asset/Coins..

It doesn't have to be a struggle, it can be fun.. It doesn't have to be direct competition, it can be coopetition where all parties support each other while also making their tech the best, than when the time comes, they integrate, making their tech multiply (not additive)..

Just my two cents...

BTW: Yes, years ago I stopped using my Bitcointalk account, since I was not a fan of the trolling.. I created a new account today, just for this single comment..

Crypto followers tend to be libertarians by nature. I remember watching an interview with a billionaire once (can't remember his name), and he said his strategy for making a 'contribution' was to avoid & evade as much tax as possible, then donate upwards of 50% of his income to things he approved of. It meant his minions would waste an awful amount of resources structuring things so he didn't pay tax (i.e. panama papers type antics), then he'd do something like donate 200M USD to a university every so often. From the outside it looks ridiculous (why not just pay your 'fair' share of tax), but to most libertarians it makes sense, especially to non-Europeans who aren't as familiar living in a society with a welfare state.

I understand David's 'need' to fund the foundation with a minimum of 5%, but I also think James is like the billionaire who really doesn't like being pressured into 'giving', and would naturally prefer to choose his own manner of contribution. There's some cultural differences here - I live under a welfare state and accept that I'm 'forced' to contribute to make things 'work', but not everybody in crypto has lived this way. David obviously has, maybe James hasn't.

Tip: try and imagine being the other guy, then think of what he might 'need' to move forward

Need to be emphasized: I never ever tried to pressure Jl777 into anything, the only reason I got into an argument with him was that he was provably misleading people when THEY got pissed at him for opting out of donations.