Newmine & klosure, you both assume your interpretation of the situation is correct. The community has had a chance to digested the discussion you've worked hard to frame. Bravo. It would be great if you could at least try to see this situation from a different perspective.
I've listened to your arguments and I fail to see greed or impropriety.
when and where have I assumed anything? I am only asking questions, like wtf is cryptonomex?
BitShares greed 2.0 post coming soon on Bitcointalk.
You state here quite clearly that you believe the the motivation for forming Cryptonomex and the decisions around how Graphene will be deployed is the result of greed. That is an assumption because you have no empirical evidence for that, just suspicion. I've got no problem with you asking the questions, I just wish you could re-evaluate your perspective. Ok, so you are still not convinced as I am, fair enough. But assuming everything is the result of greed when BM has tried to explain the position the devs are in is not constructive and is unnecessarily discourteous.
Here is what I know as fact:
Invictus Innovations asked for money for Quixote/Keyhotee
Invictus innovations asked for money for AGS instead of POW mining
Invictus Innovations asked for Developer pay by diluting BTS through the merger and delgate pay
Cryptonomex, formerly Invictus Inovations is now
asking for taking monetary supplements using the product BTS paid for before BTS holders ever got a final stable product.
Side note, if Bytemaster and team have been working on Cryptonomex while we have been waiting for 1.0, while a lot of people lost money with the "short rules", while price stagnated amidst many promises of marketing to come, while promise that never came to fruition came and passed, then I see a huge problem with motivation and trust in certain individuals. If any of this has been addressed, please point me to the thread.
All this