Quote from: Buyerbeware on February 22, 2018, 08:04:18 PM

Thank you ElectricFox and madpoet for your carefully considered replies. Electric, you are right of course that stockmarkets and crypto are not the same - the latter being unconstrained by regulation. However, while it may be true that no fiduciary obligation exists, I suppose I'm old fashioned enough (perhaps naive enough) to believe in honest and transparent transactions. In law the LIFE team has no responsibility, that's true. My point isn't about the extent to which LIFE team can or should mitigate buyers' losses because of a legal obligation. It is about their capacity and willingness to demonstrate transparency in their offer in order that those buyers can make a properly informed and risk weighted decision. LIFE's adopters, Tarian, Cryptosaurus and Money Mindful are new ventures established by individuals known to the LIFE team, some of whom were employees or directors of RP Assure. They have yet to present their first set of accounts. I am not saying LIFE is a scam. I can't KNOW that, but equally no one else can know that it is not. The word scam implies a clear intention to deceive and profiteer. That may be the case, but it might also come to pass that the venture collapses as a result of nothing more sinister than incompetence. What I am suggesting is that, on the balance of probabilities, in my opinion the project is more likely to fail than succeed in the medium to longer term. If you cash out before then and make a packet, that's great. I'll be cheering you for having made the right judgement call at the right time. The LIFE team are very keen on peppering their twitter posts with aphorisms from the likes of Napoleon Hill and Helen Keller. The latter was certainly a magnificently gifted human being, but also a deaf-blind one. So I would say to others, seek to emulate her intellectual rigour not her impairments when arriving at a judgement of this project.

I think that everybody got a little bit too emotional about this whole Life thing since january's spike. This is easy to understand considering that the token went from 2 to 40 sat (and even 80 sat on some exchanges) in such a short time. It is obvious that things started to get messy after the "crash" that followed shortly, with the apparition of doubts about the team, their work, past achievements and future potential. This is unfortunately driven by people who have a very little experience of "investing" and still cannot take distance with their emotions. We cannot really blame that as the incoming of a lot of those profiles is mostly what made the general prices in crypto "skyrocket" during the mid/end 2017. I'm affraid that we cannot get one without the other so we just have to deal with it.

Considering transparency, I do not fully agree with you in the current situation, though I would in any other. I don't think that Lifelabs owes anybody "transparency". It would be the case if there had been an ICO or a crowdfunding, but it's not the case. Apparently what they did was only a token pre-sale. In the real business world, transparency is never a good thing. For example, would you blame Apple not to give you daily updates on the next gen iPhone's developpment ? Would you blame any car manufacturer for not disclosing weekly details on their upcoming models ? When there is competition, there cannot be any transparency on the products, this is common sense. Same goes for the partnerships, it's always this way. Important ones will never be so casually disclosed, because of their implications.

The only transparency that they absolutely need to provide is about the managing team and the structure of the company. On that matter, there is already something but they need to be more precise, and it seems that they are currently in the process of clarifying everything. I don't think that the situation is that bad at the moment because they are a newborn company, and it needs to mature, to determine every individual's position in the company. It seems like Chittock's arrival is doing this, as he is reorganizing the roles, and making everything clearer for the general public. To my opinion the original team did not necessarily have the management skills and knowledge to drive their idea toward success, so the only smart move was to hire people who have those skills and knowledge, like they did with Pugh-Jones and Chittock.

Considering the actual adopters, to me it's not a surprise that they are all somehow connected to Lifelabs and it's founders. Think about it a second, you are putting up a new concept and a new company, based on the adoption of your product on a larger scale by other companies, so of course your first adopters will be close to you, if now within your relatives. You need to start at some point, there is no problem with that as long as the tokens are effectively used. I think the team should just communicate about it, to settle everything. The problem now is that some people think that they don't talk about it because they don't want the public to know. To my opinion they do not talk about it because it's obvious (Company House documents are accessible to everybody) and it's not really important as long as the token are going to be used.

The most annoying thing is people using the word SCAM over an over again, as soon as something is not going as fast as they hoped it would go or when they panic sold after the first dip. They do not realize the damage they do in their stupidity. First because they are damaging the online reputation of projects that might most of the time be absolutely legit, though not perfect, and second because at some point it will no longer have any effect on real scams that should be pointed out. You are right, nobody can know if it is a scam or not, but honestly, there are so many signs that show that it isn't one. I won't list them again because it has already been done multiple times in this thread. Considering this, everybody is free to believe or not, but at least be intellectually honest and if people don't believe then they should just sell and leave. If they persist with their arguments proven incorrect and not documented then it shows their insanity. Unfortunately most people being lazy and poorly educated (or blinded by the need of immediate profit) limit their research to the only reddit sub of forum posts, without even reading about the official project publications.

After that, not being a scam is not a guarantee of success, as you point it very right. I'm not a "believer" or a "LIFE is life" guy who will praise the coin like a religious cult. To me LIFE is nothing but an asset among others in my portfolio. I have my goal in value which I am conviced LIFE token can reach, but further than that I would be totally unable to forecast if the project will succeed on the long term or not. And honestly even though I wish success to the team for their work and efforts, I won't stress about what will happen after I reach my goal.

Eventually, the rules of the game are always the same. There is a high profit potential in LIFE, so risk is there too (even though I assess the risk as being far lower than the potential profit), one should just accept it and do his own research. If after researching one estimates the risk to be too high, then I wish he will be able to find a project that suits him better. Luckily there is plenty of choice out there.