I did a longish of jl777 holding's here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=780481.msg8795729#msg8795729Problem 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.