Re: EOS - Asynchronous Smart Contract Platform - (Dan Larimer of Bitshares/Steem)
All I'm saying is it's a gamble. We don't even know what our tokens are going to get us because Larimer hasn't even said. For them, they are just a source of revenue to build their project. The legal disclaimer clearly states they are worthless, so all we can do is gamble that they have some sort of implied value that we don't even know about yet. With BTC, you knew you were getting BTC and it was worth what it was worth; not the same with EOS tokens.
They must have a reason to be shady about it because they would be bringing in loads more money if they would just provided some answers.
I am going to invest in this, but not "as much $$ as I can." Larimer has scammed people before, so I don't want to take too much risk. I assume Larimer is in this project for himself first, not investors. He'll let you make money with him, but only if he makes more.
They must have a reason to be shady about it because they would be bringing in loads more money if they would just provided some answers.
I am going to invest in this, but not "as much $$ as I can." Larimer has scammed people before, so I don't want to take too much risk. I assume Larimer is in this project for himself first, not investors. He'll let you make money with him, but only if he makes more.
I'm going to boldly speak for many participants in this thread in agreeing/affirming the notion that putting $ (or BTC
) into EOS is a gamble. A risky one, in fact. A myriad of circumstances could arise that result in loss of value. Simply nature of the beast and isn't unique to EOS as much as it's an attribute of the whole business of investing in a frontier technology/space.That said, couple of random thoughts on your comment:
- The crowdsale of EOS tokens isn't a source of revenue to build their project - at least that's what Dan stated on the Epicenter podcast (Link here). He said block.one has all the capital they need to develop EOS and the crowdfunding revenue is bock.one profit and capital to build/support the app environment on the EOS network once it's launched. He could be lying but that's what he stated.
- Regarding the legal disclaimer and "they must have a reason to be shady": I may be the rube here but I view this with an Occam's Razor philosophy more than anything else. It seems fairly logical that their actions could simply be explained by the elephant-sized compliance/regulatory risk of what they're trying to do. Could it be a result of shady/ulterior motives? Of course. It just doesn't seem like the most straightforward reason underlying their approach to the ICO/disclaimers
- Regarding Larimer being in the project for himself and his own $: I believe there truly is a diminishing rate of utility as one accumulates vast wealth. I couldn't even begin to guess what Dan's net worth is but I suspect he's got enough to do whatever he wants to do with his time on earth. What's more, some people, contrary to popular belief, are motivated by things beyond accumulating wealth. Maybe it's wanting to make the world a better place. Maybe it's wanting to innovate, create, and do what nobody else has done. Some have other reasons altogether. I don't want to (and can't) know what Dan's motives are. But I can speculate and my gut feeling is that it's something beyond (or at the very least, in addition to) accumulating wealth. But that's just one dummy's feelings. Also, we have to consider the fact that Dan's partners (Brendan, Ian, et al.) have staked their reputation to this project as much as Dan has. So if it is a nefarious cash-grab, they are either being duped too or are complicit in something that will likely ruin their professional reputation.
Just my $0.02
-Kesey