Re: [ANN][Blocknet] The internet of blockchains / XBridge / true cross-chain P2P
@Revelation, your post history is a stream of abuse and negativity.
You pretty much just don't post constructive, respectful things.
Kindly be civil or leave this thread.
You pretty much just don't post constructive, respectful things.
Kindly be civil or leave this thread.
@Revelation - I would recommend this thread if you want to speak objectively, not be censored & have the audience of the entire altcoin section rather than just those who frequent the XC thread.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=830893.0
joebob999, it is deceitful to make out that revelation (or you, for that matter) is speaking "objectively".
It is not an issue of objectivity, for two reasons:
- revelation is being uncivil, not specifically untruthful. It's not a matter of objectivity but of respect for others.
- people have subjective viewpoints, not objective ones. So revelation couldn't "speak objectively" if he tried. He's not God.
Finally, you've behaved utterly awfully in the XC thread. Take this to heart, because it explains why Teka banned you from it.
You'd be fooling yourself if you think of yourself as a righteous and "objective" protester against "censorship". Get a grip.
I just want a reply to the following statement:
Quote
How on Earth are you "respecting the possibility that hype could lead to overbought conditions during the ITO and prompt a selloff that harms investors"? You are trying to squeeze as much juice from investors as you can by offering huge IPO. You are NOT respecting the possibility of a selloff, you are creating that possibility with your enormous ceiling, 24h marketing and hype (and that fairytale story of 400-900% return). By doing this you are lowering post-ITO demand as investors that support you will be fully invested when the ITO ends.
Stop with the PR and marketing and bring some real development before the ITO.
Sure, I'll answer because I respect your question, but the way you ask it is deeply disrespectful to the people you're addressing. Just look at the emotive, scathing way you wrote that post that got banned.
My answer:
The reason that we are respecting investors' positions is that the 2500 BTC is a limit, not a requirement. We could've just made the amount indefinite, but instead we limited it, because an unlimited ITO is almost certain to be followed with a selloff. So because it's a limit, we create conditions where the price is likely to rise higher after the ITO.
Secondly (and more importantly), the 2500 BTC is not demanded from the market, it's just there for people to take if they want some. If the market doesn't want all the funds, we'll provably destroy the rest. Do you see that this means that the market is free to work out the value of Blocknet tokens, and is not forced or coerced in any way by the limit?