Quote from: EvilDave on September 13, 2014, 12:43:55 PM

Quote from: supranetico on September 13, 2014, 10:26:56 AM

...cut stuff.

Actually its funny, there is another asset on NXT AE called SIMGATE opened by a newbie account on NXt community called Nxtblg which was supposed to act as gateway for Simcoin (https://nxtforum.org/assets-board/(ann)-simcoin-gateway/) Funnily enough, 67% of the asset is held by jl777hodl.
Its even more telling the same account has issued two more assets - NFDGate and NFDGateway - both of which are dead markets.

and some more....

Actually, though you couldn't possibly know this, NFDGate/way assets have nothing to do with any jl777 action, but are part of an entirely different project.
So its not very telling at all.

I guess you have trouble reading? Lets do an Explain like I am Five for you - The issuer had an asset - SIMGATE 67% of which issuance was held by jl777hodl - now I have to wonder what kind of association that means? jl777hodl has 67% of the only asset issued by the account. I am having a hard time understanding the relationship between two....and the account tried to issue NFDGate which again was a "gateway" asset. again what is being implied...I surely can't tell. Oh the difficulty.
Ah yes, unless using maths:
jl777 = MGW, a gateway asset
jl777hodl=jl777

From above,
jl777=jl777hodl

NXT-PSY8-B4SS-JQ7G-AJD86 = NxtBlg = Simgate = Gateway asset
NxtBlg = NFDgate = another gateway asset
jl777hodl = 67% of the Simgate asset

From above,
jl777 = Nxtblg or something to do with Nxtblg

Thats certainly not telling at all.

Quote from: Este Nuno on September 13, 2014, 12:19:09 PM

Quote from: supranetico on September 13, 2014, 10:26:56 AM

Quote from: Este Nuno on September 13, 2014, 09:09:12 AM

Quote from: supranetico on September 13, 2014, 07:28:24 AM

Quote from: Este Nuno on September 13, 2014, 07:11:27 AM

Quote from: supranetico on September 13, 2014, 05:37:50 AM

I did a longish of jl777 holding's here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=780481.msg8795729#msg8795729

Problem is he holds most the "assets" he "donated" to Supernet ICO are majority held by his own assets ie by proxy. And he has asked for 500 BTC for "2000 BTC worth" of his own assets.

If you are willing to pay so that one can get rich by:
a. buying a shit load of coins, pumping them and then dumping it on you
b. dumping an asset (or coin) held by someone

then yes you must buy the SuperNet ICO.

No. At least attempt to tell the truth.

That only happens if and only if superNET reaches a very high market cap and gains a high market cap position relative to the top cryptos.

It's clearly a win-win for investors with James taking on a large amount of risk with a relatively small reward that happens only in cases of extreme success.

Huh? You obviously are one of the guys on the Kool aid.

Did you read the long thread I posted on asset holdings? He already holds the majority of the assets which you prompt as "large amount of risk" ie they came at little to no cost to him. So where is the risk he is taking? Instead he is asking for 500 BTC or hoping the Supernet association will cause an increased interest in those assets for him to clear out. There is no win-win, just loss for the investors.

That is the truth. If you still believe otherwise, its your money to burn.

No, I'm trying to look at it objectively. I don't see how setting a conditional reward for being in the top 5 or 10 market cap values is a loss. Either UNITY NAV increases enough that holders have gained a massive amount of ROI and he gets a reward or he gets nothing and loses whatever the current value of those shares are.

The assets them selves are not valueless considering the amount of work that's been been put in to developing the technologies that they're based on. And the other assets which hold significant amounts of crypto.

The thing about superNET is that it intends to generate profits as a functioning gateway for crypto through fees and contextual advertising of useful services. So in order for those performance metrics to be hit people buying superNET are going to want to see it begin to show promise in those areas. And superNET succeeding is all predicated on James' technologies working as he intends them to, so all of this still has to come together for superNET to get to that level.

And I've read your post and the spreadsheet but I don't see how setting a performance based metric like that is a bad thing. It sounds more like you're arguing as if he were putting in 2000 BTC worth of assets now and directly receiving back 500 BTC right away, not when UNITY is multipled by x times in value.

So now you believe what I wrote in my first post to be statement which can be analysed and not a lie? Because you did say "No. At least attempt to tell the truth." I guess this is the jl777 way, first call some a liar, when proven say you were just trying to "objectively" analyse the situation.

Problem with conditional reward is this, it comes due to "2000 BTC" worth of assets which are not worth their price. And you are such drunk on the kool aid that you just are copying what jl777 is saying - 5x - 10x, massive amount of ROI, etc. Lets look at the hard numbers from jl777 himself. If he raises 10k BTC which he is aiming for (and people seem to be rooting for), at current rate the market cap will stand at 4,774,400. The last coin on number 10 is Maidsafe with 8.58 mill. So 5x on the first percentage he takes? Thats funny. My maths say its hardly 2x. So that is a short term reward. Yes he will need 10x to reach 2015 yr end and we will see if the project is around at that time.

Assets are not valueless because of the work put in and the technology? Either you don't understand pricing or you are just trying to push a point. What is the worth of myspace today? The technology or work doesn't matter. It is what people are ready to pay for something which matters.

Considering he holds most of his assets himself or via proxy is a rather telling story, no matter what keiretsu BS he sells. The story is either there is no market for his assets and he is artificially creating volume by selling among himself or he is controlling/cornering the assets by setting vague structures (thrown in words like vertical, horizontal, keiretsu etc etc). In crypto, that should concern you.

Going by your description of MGW, I mean, Supernet, there is some bad news. Unfortunately there is already a supernet like structure in place from jl777 itself - called MGW. Though currently it works for providing gateway for NXT to a coin, supernet expands it to do cross reference by increasing the pairings. The total market cap of the asset? 600 bucks. Yep, so lets bet the horse and the house on a service which does two way exchange ie not fixed to NXT. Lets put in 10k btc and hope nothing goes wrong.

Actually its funny, there is another asset on NXT AE called SIMGATE opened by a newbie account on NXt community called Nxtblg which was supposed to act as gateway for Simcoin (https://nxtforum.org/assets-board/(ann)-simcoin-gateway/) Funnily enough, 67% of the asset is held by jl777hodl.
Its even more telling the same account has issued two more assets - NFDGate and NFDGateway - both of which are dead markets.

And it would seem you read my post but dint understand it. I am arguing he is putting in assets which he owns and has no risk exposure to, and then wants 500 BTC out of the deal. So its all win for him and risk is to the investor.

But it is your money. You surely will get some returns during the initial pump, people during the opening IPO did. Its not a long term project as you are making out it to be.

I don't own any TOKEN for what it's worth. I'm interested in superNET though and I want to see it succeed because I think it will be a good thing for the sector. The only "Kool-Aid" I'm drinking is the one in search of facts and truth. Whether those facts are for or against jl777, I don't care. But I'm just calling it like I see it. I'm not vouching for anything. People should do their own research and invest only what they can afford to lose in every case.

The reason I asked you to tell the truth is because clearly you were bending the situation by saying that "he has asked for 500 BTC for "2000 BTC worth" of his own assets.".

And that was not the truth? Or was my detailed search not mentioned in the post? Hmm...lets check..."I did a longish of jl777 holding's here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=780481.msg8795729#msg8795729" --> so anyone with half a brain would check the reference being made and then say whether I lied or not. You got to love how BCT people make shit up.

Quote

First of all, it is a proposal to for people who hold TOKEN to vote on. So if they feel it's not in their best interest, then they can simply vote no and the asset will stay how it is.

The proposal only pays out if and only if the NAV of UNITY reaches an agreed upon value, which will likely be something like "UNITY is listed in the top 5 or 10 assets on coinmarketcap.com". I don't know exactly what it's going to be, but obviously the whole deal in contingent on a massive increase in value for the UNITY asset.

These are the scenarios:
1. Vote No, nothing changes.
2. Vote Yes, UNITY now holds additional assets and will pay out 500 BTC upon reaching the agreed upon value

In the #2 scenario there are two scenarios:
1. UNITY does not increase in value to the specified NAV point and no more BTC is allocated beyond the 1% currently available.
2. UNITY does increase in value, people holding UNITY now have multiplied the value of their holding, and now James has more working capital(which will likely amount to 2-5% of the market cap at that point).

So no more of the 5x-10x increase or huge increase in NAV or any of the kool aid stuf? You got to love when people go back to debating facts.

Is it a publicly known fact that the assets which he is donating was held by him? Until then general public who vote in are aware of this fact,the voting is rigged. Secondly there was no need to propose a change after the ICO has started but not ended.
Thirdly, correct me if I am wrong but he owns 10% of Supernet and going by the backhandness (again this has no facts - see no lies

) which was shown in other jl777 asssets, I am willing to bet he owns at least a good degree of voting influence. It would be surprising if it gets voted NO.

Quote

I don't think anyone is saying that all assets, crypto or otherwise can immediately be liquidated for whatever their current market value is. Obviously it doesn't work like that, so when dealing with a large portion of any asset, the value is debatable. James has not claimed otherwise as far as I know. I think it's more than reasonable that the person who is developing such a large project should have adequate capital to work with to make it the best it can possibly be. I told him that I thought he had made a mistake in only allocating 1% of the fund for working capital. That's incredibly low for such a large project, whether it raises 5k BTC or 10k BTC(5k looking more likely). What is 50 BTC when you have random projects here raising 1500 BTC IPOs for development? Why shouldn't superNET be able to pay its developers competitive rates and contact the highest quality people to audit the code and do security checks?

And holding a majority of the asset without public disclosure is fine? Had it been coins, no one would touch it with a long pole but it is asset, so fuck it and take my money?

Quote

I think you're focused too much on the fact that he's decided to pledge a large amount of assets that have a nebulous value associated with them. Not on whether having additional working capital would be good for the project or not. SuperNET is not just the MGW dressed up differently. Usage and network effect is the most important aspect of what makes a currency successful. Having a common bond that joins myriad quality services together in to one unified interface is something that is needed in this space where we constantly have new technologies competing against each other. Maybe superNET won't be 'the one', maybe you or someone else will create a competing network that offers better services and ends up being the dominant connective force in crypto. Who knows what will happen. I do think that some sort of unifying network like this is inevitable. Before I thought that maybe there wold be some ultra-technologically superior crypto that would come out and just dominate the market, I had never thought of the possibility of just having a common network to share technologies that would essentially allow for unlimited growth just by adding useful tech to a singular gateway. This way technological process can happen gradually in an iterative fashion that eliminates the need for 'marketing' coins. People who develop useful services will likely want to join, and it will likely be beneficial for them to join so that they can take advantage of the network effect that is offered.

And as I said earlier too, you are on kool aid. There are number of issues, including his association with shady assets, pumping his own assets (considering he owns most of them), false claims - he does own the majority of sharkfund0 -- the place where he got 4x returns (I for one certainly would love to see some auditing of books of sharkfund0), and generally a lot of typos - example pdf says NXTPrivacy owns 50% of Privatebet (its 60%), holds 30% of crypto card (its 40%), owns 8% of jl77hodl and HRNXTPool 33.6% (which goes under underpromise and over deliver). So yeah with the tape over your eyes, you can only see one issue being raised.

Thats a lot of words being used for a gateway for coins with contextual advertising. As the saying goes - even if put a lipstick on a pig, it still is a pig.