No, I have to add this
"...suddenly I am censored." prove it or f@ck off.
Clever. You want me to prove I was banned before, so I will banned again. Kudos.
Neutral setting is easy to arrange, if you cut out the crap.
Vitalik also refused to signup a Steemit account or make his comments about DPoS in Dans controlled systems.
Maybe some of the sheep here will wake up though, so I doubt yall have the balls to accept a neutral setting debate.
Please do not waste any more of my time. I already told you I would accept a debate in a neutral setting. There is nothing more to discuss until that happens.
I have very high expectations for this project. Dan delivers. People were shocked when they read that token purchase agreement
Youve have just added evidence that the obfuscations in the token sale agreement are useless.
Clearly all of you are basing your investment expectations on the ongoing efforts of Dan.
That makes it an investment contract, regardless of the obfuscating words they wrote in the terms of the sale. The authorities look past the obfuscations to the economic reality of the investors.
Generally in contract law notwithstanding other factors, the economic reality and actual intent is what wins in a court of law. My father is a contract lawyer and he taught me that in 2001.
Also contracts that are gibberish or one-sided, are void. Thus all that one-sided gibberish in the token sale agreement is going to be laughed at by a judge. Seems to me that Dan has a legal team that does not even know the basics of contract law.
Disclaimer: same as what I wrote before.