We love to use the "corporation" analogy, but when it comes to performance-based compensation we abandon it completely.
How can this be FUD? These funds were donated for development and marketing. Is it too much to ask for transparency and accountability? If this is a one-time grant for past work then it would make sense that it was given without any precondition. If it is intended to be part of their ongoing compensation then it makes no sense to hand it out all at once. I was led to believe that all of the dev funds that are allotted for future dev and marketing work would be divided up and simply granted to the devs. We may never know what the plan is. We'll just have to watch the blockchain and take our best guess ...
Read the above quote. The whole dilution system is not "completely abandoning" "performance based compensation". When I talked with you on mumble that one night, you were a lot more select in your wording and came across as quite reasonable. On these forums though, you use every post you can to phrase things in a misleading manner. I mean even Toast said he agreed with you, yet you're still going at it.
I'm not arguing against transparency or accountability. I'm just pointing out that you constantly phrase things in a misleading manner.
It is almost like you wanted us on your side in Mumble, so you sweet talked about your desires and wishes etc. Then on here it is just constantly trying to imply I3 is out to screw us.
BTW, being the new leader of PTS, when do you plan on giving us your real-life identity ?
* Toast agreed with me, but you accused me of spreading FUD. The response was directed to you, not him.
* I'm not implying anything, just making a factual statement that there was no clear public disclosure, the money was moved, and the sparse details that were provided implied that there would be no accountability.
* I am not leading the PTS effort at all. Lots of people smarter than me and whom I have no association with are doing the real work. I'm just a user with an opinion.
*Toast agreed with one of your ideas but that is not relevant to my accusation of you FUDing with your wording. Go re-read the thread and people pointed out other things you said. Now you go into obtuse mode and purposefully conflate crap.
*Again, you did imply things. I can go back and quote them. This is what you did in the other thread. We all get angry, but there seems to be more at play here.
*You aren't leading the PTS effort ? You went off setup a new forum. Put up your own money for marketing materials. You come around here making demands of I3 for your version of PTS.
There is another thread on here where we got into it, because you practically demanded that every delegate give everyone their real id. So I think it would be completely reasonable for you to give us your identity given the position you've put yourself in in regards to being the new leader of PTS.
If not then I just sit back and think WTF is going on!?