Wasn't he paid with community funds? Namely AGS?
There are no community funds. No strings attached donations. I try to do the best by them, but it isn't always possible to know in advance who will deliver.
This makes me sick. You are Bitshares. We are Bitshares. We are a community whether you like it or not and our money is now your money. Just because you control the flow of money doesn't negate the fact at it was ours first. And it was OURS for you to do what WE agreed you would do.
I think you are ignoring the fact that AGS wasn't enough to keep you on BTSX alone, but you'd rather dilute BTSX holders in order for you to siphon off more theoretical money to keep you on the team you originally asked for money from.
In other words:
Hey bob, we have this cool product we can make. If you give us X amount of money, we can develope it... Oh Bob, Alice has offered X amount to help them, but we can still help you if you devalue your share by 20%. This way we get some of the 20% and then secure future income if we actually deliver. Pay no mind to our original agreement and everything still sitting in "unmarked accounts". We never said we would maintain your network, we would just get it going. If we want to clone it and keep our team working we will do it under a different name. After all, we gave up $150K jobs at google (no offense Toast, should have never made that comment) and our output doesn't equate to anything remotely acceptable to the opportunity cost we forgave going in to this project. Of course that is excluding the multi millions of dollars you gave us to begin with. But you have no say in what we do with that money. Just saying.
What amazes me is that "Satoshi Nakamoto" was able to do what "I3" can't. And that is, see a true anomaly in finance Pierce through Walls and barriers without worrying about who pays him for his contributions. Maybe early coins future wealth had him, or maybe altruism. I see neither here. I divest at a loss with a loss for further words....