Re: Why I chose not to invest in SpectreCoin (XSPEC) now
Can't fault what gunner is saying here.
The word promise may be strong, but let's look at it like this,
As a project that holds investors, if you say something is coming on a date, it is an expectation, asking the question is not a demand, saying he's failed to meet his own words is not a demand, outside of crypto if you were invested in a project and the developer told you something is coming on a date, you would expect this to be true, if he fails you'll want to see proof or reason as to why he has failed.
So in this scenario, he has made claims about the the release of 1.4, he's failed to meet these claims so now gunner is asking him to put up the work done to prove work is actually being done.
To give an example, if I invested in a developer who was building a block of units, he said the foundation would be set by a given date and this failed to happen due to say an issue with a builder, the investor would ask for evidence of this, and also ask for evidence of what's being done to resolve.
Without any evidence the investor would typically pull out of threaten to do so first.
How is this any different? people are investing in to this coin and he's not doing his part as the developer.
The proof is there in the screenshot, and we can see how people react to false deadlines just by looking at the price of XSPEC.
Aside from his communications with gunner, he's also told the entire community that it would be here in Feb.
Can I just give you some advice also, you care about this coin, you dislike people seeing this thread, if you're going to keep bumping it up you have to do better than this, all you're doing is giving it more visibility while being constantly beat in your comments, you are hurting the 1 thing you're trying to save
Good work gunner, keep it up mate
The word promise may be strong, but let's look at it like this,
As a project that holds investors, if you say something is coming on a date, it is an expectation, asking the question is not a demand, saying he's failed to meet his own words is not a demand, outside of crypto if you were invested in a project and the developer told you something is coming on a date, you would expect this to be true, if he fails you'll want to see proof or reason as to why he has failed.
So in this scenario, he has made claims about the the release of 1.4, he's failed to meet these claims so now gunner is asking him to put up the work done to prove work is actually being done.
To give an example, if I invested in a developer who was building a block of units, he said the foundation would be set by a given date and this failed to happen due to say an issue with a builder, the investor would ask for evidence of this, and also ask for evidence of what's being done to resolve.
Without any evidence the investor would typically pull out of threaten to do so first.
How is this any different? people are investing in to this coin and he's not doing his part as the developer.
The proof is there in the screenshot, and we can see how people react to false deadlines just by looking at the price of XSPEC.
Aside from his communications with gunner, he's also told the entire community that it would be here in Feb.
Can I just give you some advice also, you care about this coin, you dislike people seeing this thread, if you're going to keep bumping it up you have to do better than this, all you're doing is giving it more visibility while being constantly beat in your comments, you are hurting the 1 thing you're trying to save
Good work gunner, keep it up mate
You are sadly mistaken if you think I'm attempting to "save" a coin or am emotionally invested in a dataset. This is not an issue of "care." This is an issue that deserves visability so I'm in full promotion of bumping this to the top. My inquieries are not something to "beat." I see that you think that this is some sort of gladiatorial battle that you are "winning" which is why you attempted to turn my words against me in some desperate attempt to discredit me when I am just posing questions and concerns to gunner. Questions are not really something to discredit. You either answer them or don't. I'm not making any claims. As I stated before I found your post particularly biased and non-objective highlighting incomplete "research" to skew information. jbg has said that "lines of code" are not a good benchmark to determine the amount of time dedicated to producing a product.
I can't fault Gunner for badgering or harassing. That's his prerogative an if he can't suffer a potential scammer lightly and thinks this will be an effective method of drawing them out... then that's cool by me. I'd personally prefer that he kept his argument succinct and within the bounds of provable fact. Having said that I do think that he's being or trying to be genuine.
BUT statements like "Brycel is made up by jbg" Yes, I CAN fault gunner for those. He is making an assertion by saying that. This is a belief. Not a fact. Until he can prove this belief it's a fact... This is unreasonable FUD.
It's not a matter of whether or not I believe him. This is a matter of proof and evidence is necessary. Is it a possibility that Brycel is a fabricated entitiy? Sure. But saying that he is without proof is not only speculative, but negligent.
Also continuing to equate lines of code with actual invested time SEEMS to be ignoring the other responsibilities that jbg has that he stated have been time consuming for him.
@ gunner You aren't seeing enough commits for your liking so you think this is a scam. That's a fair statement. And this is clearly of interest to you as you apparently made a new account to address this situation. I'd encourage you to continue with your assessment but refrain from overstepping into statements like the above that you haven't or can't back up.
I wouldn't still be questioning your intentions if you hadn't made your assertions personal and made backless statements presented as truth.