Quote from: Hyperme.sh on November 04, 2017, 07:41:56 PM

+1. Youve really upped the quality of your posts lately.

Goldman Sachs (according to Brock Pierce) is apparently involved with the $2 billion EOS token sale.

Follow-up:

Quote from: Hyperme.sh on November 05, 2017, 09:16:36 AM

Quote from: Yuuto on November 04, 2017, 11:05:24 PM

Quote from: Haitham on November 04, 2017, 10:18:47 PM

I wonder when more people will realize that EOS is a scam.

very shady terms if anyone bothered to read them... lost all my respect out there.

Mind pointing to specifics?

I couldn't find anything that suggests that EOS is a scam. Sure it looks like Dan Larimer just making profit off the gigantic ICO that they are holding and the whole platform seems to be an integration of Steem + Bitshares, but then, it's up to the investors whether or not they're interested and want to invest.

1. Claiming they are not subject to US securities laws because they claim they did not sell to US persons, yet it is documented that US persons did purchase the token sale. They refused to do KYC to prevent US persons from participating. Ditto for Chinese, Koreans, UK, Canadians, and other countries which have strict securities laws and are cracking down. So they incorporate in the Caymans and presumably expect to hide behind layers of lawyers. Lets see how that works out for them and those accomplices affiliates like @chryspano.

2. Running the ICO for a year so they can pump hype about being ahead of schedule, cause the price to jump way up so they can sell, then let the price crash back down so they buy their own ICO. Recycling their money over and over again to extract maximum rents from the ecosystem while ending up with most of the ICO tokens for themselves via numerous sockpuppets same as they did for Steem. Running their tokens through Bitfinex in Hong Kong with that Tether et al scam that Brock Pierce is involved with so presumably they can obscure the disposals of the funds to fiat so as to obscure how their extensive organized crime syndicate is buying their own ICO. Look into the conglomerate structure of the parent companies of Bitfinex and climb down that rabbit hole. Even Dan announced in a blog that they would do this admitting in writing that he is scamming.

3. Documented upthread that the ICO is designed to be algorithmically gamed (details linked upthread) so that this is unfair. Dan was warned about this before launch and chose to ignore it.

4. Terms of the token sale claim that the tokens are not be part of any future software distribution, and that there is no common enterprise because the funds raised are not being used to create such a software distribution, yet in videos and promotions they claim exactly the opposite that they are using the funds to develop what will be the software distribution. Clearly all the speculators here expect the tokens to be the tokens of the software distribution.

5. Lying about their technology. Ridiculing other experts (including PhDs of computer science from Tendermint, Vitalik, and myself) who write correctly about their technology.

6. Failing to admit that DPoS only functions properly if the stake (tokens) are controlled by an oligarchy of whales.

7. Lying about the past performance of the technology, even having their shills here declare me a liar when I point about that the Steem system has been DDoS attacked numerous times because the zero transaction fee nonsense does not fund the perimeter nodes of the system.

Vitalik was interviewed:

Quote from: http://mengnews.joins.com/view.aspx?aId=3038837

Quote

Concerns about as well as regulatory measures to control initial coin offering (ICO) is on the rise. Are ICOs a necessary part of the process in the development of a blockchain ecosystem?

ICOs are a powerful tool and one that in many cases is an important aid in funding protocol development. In general, open-source protocols are very hard to monetize, and so the fact that in this particular area, we actually do have a way to monetize protocol development is something that we should be thankful for.

However, they also have their flaws, and I think many of these flaws arise from the fact that even though the ICOs are happening on a decentralized platform, the ICOs themselves are hardly centralized; they inherently involve many people trusting a single development team with potentially over $200 million of funding.

There are also not very good incentives for people to produce information to help people determine which projects are worth participating in. I think in the medium term, getting funds with ICOs will get harder, regardless of whether or not regulation is implemented.

Vitalik is wrong. There are numerous methods for monetizing open source:

http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/magic-cauldron/magic-cauldron.html

All of them require actually producing something that people use first before monetizing.

Apparently Dan has decided to go the direction of the Wall Street criminal syndicate and cashing out before producing things that are valuable. Steem has no viable business model. Dan is only creating scams that require more greater fools to sustain them. Nobody is willing to pay anything for a Steem blog. There is no actual commerce going on over at Steem.

What is going on now is selling ICO bags to grandmothers. Once we have all the ICO tokens in the hands of n00bs, then the crypto winter comes and that is when the regulators come in because so many grandmothers will have lost their life savings. Because as Vitalik has accurately predicted, 90+% of all ICO tokens will go to zero.

This is what Goldman Sachs does. They did it to Greece for example. Dan is an accomplice and maybe they will leave him hanging out to dry as one of the fall guys. Well see