The DAO price discussion thread.

[Empirical1.2]

But it's not fair. Mommy, it's not fair. That mean man won't let me get wealthy without work, creativity, or risk. It's not fair. Doesn't he know who I am? I am a MINER. Mommy! I'm an INVESTOR. Mommy!
********************************************************************************************

The following was released by Bytemaster well before the steem mining began:

How to Launch a Crypto Currency Legally while Raising Funds

"Perhaps the Bitcoin Communities cultural regulations are a blessing in disguise. By intentionally violating every one of their expectations you can minimize your token’s value at launch while still legally mining a token for minimal cost."

"You just need thick skin and the ability to ignore the Bitcoin pharisees and the angry mob they incite to nail you to a cross for failing to sacrifice your creation to the prevailing mining gods."
http://bytemaster.github.io/article/2016/03/27/How-to-Launch-a-Crypto-Currency-Legally-while-Raising-Funds/

**********************************************************************************************

Sometimes the stench of entitlement around here is just nauseating. Yeah I'm looking at you.

I didn't have an issue with the 'intentional violation every one of the Bitcoin communities cultural regulations'

The point I'm making is that the ANN didn't communicate or link to that and so in my opinion attempted to deliberately mislead investors for the reasons stated above (non-disclosure of deliberately making it difficult in ANN, implying a wide fair distribution by marketing as No Premine/No Instamine, implying a wide fair distribution by listing multiple unique miners present at launch (despite securing 80% of initial supply) and potential deletion of posts relating to mining/initial distribution.)

So my opinion it is those actions of omitting and misrepresenting of what they were doing in the ANN that might be viewed as miss-selling/misrepresentation & possibly intent to defraud.

If your opinion is different or you agree but you believe miss-selling/defrauding investors is acceptable that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion and views and I will still try to be polite and professional despite that not being reciprocated.

[onceuponatime]

But it's not fair. Mommy, it's not fair. That mean man won't let me get wealthy without work, creativity, or risk. It's not fair. Doesn't he know who I am? I am a MINER. Mommy! I'm an INVESTOR. Mommy!
********************************************************************************************

The following was released by Bytemaster well before the steem mining began:

How to Launch a Crypto Currency Legally while Raising Funds

"Perhaps the Bitcoin Communities cultural regulations are a blessing in disguise. By intentionally violating every one of their expectations you can minimize your token’s value at launch while still legally mining a token for minimal cost."

"You just need thick skin and the ability to ignore the Bitcoin pharisees and the angry mob they incite to nail you to a cross for failing to sacrifice your creation to the prevailing mining gods."
http://bytemaster.github.io/article/2016/03/27/How-to-Launch-a-Crypto-Currency-Legally-while-Raising-Funds/

**********************************************************************************************

Sometimes the stench of entitlement around here is just nauseating. Yeah I'm looking at you.

[Empirical1.2]

Listing the unique miners present at launch is a further effort attempt at implying a wide, fair, distributed launch but given they secured 80% of the initial Steem for themselves, (so presumably many of those miners were the same entity/other) could be viewed as a further attempt to mislead/misrepresent.

If you have some FACTS besides your tin foil hat theories I would like to hear/see them.

Not sure if this particular version of events is true but I think this is the gist of the allegation regarding how they made the mining deliberately difficult...

Here's how they did it:

First, they did a typical instamine/flashmine/freemine scam (yes scam) where they released

(1) no compiled wallets
(2) no instructions to build
(3) incomplete and inaccurate instructions to mine

This wasn't bad enough. After the first 12 or so hours of mining, all their miners crashed, exposing that they were mining to 100 different witnesses to hide the fact that they (he) was one entity. The devs wouldn't have been caught except that their mining instructions were wrong, and no one else was mining because, even if they couldn't get the client to build, they entered mining commands that caused them to get no blocks. The devs will claim this isn't on purpose, but check the original thread. You'll see that no one mined a block when the dev's miners were down.

Then, as I have stated many times, when their miners crashed again, I mined a significant amount of steem that night in their absence. To prevent my vesting that and driving the price of vests up on them, they relaunched to ensure COMPLETE CONTROL AND CENTRALIZATION.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1427230.0

(OP alleges they were exposed as mining to many different witnesses but being one entity in the initial launch and if true it's likely they followed a similiar modus operandi in the relaunch & is also why they were able to secure 80% of the initial Steem.)

[chryspano]

Yes but the strategy of making it deliberately difficult for others...

I agree, people living in 3rd world countries without a pc and internet connection could not mine! I call this unfair!

My brother who thinks that "Ubuntu" is a wild tribe somewhere in Africa could not mine this coin, I call this unfair!

The most unspeakable action of them all was that ASIC miners could not mine!(probably 4-5 people in China but who cares) I call this unfair!

The developers/creators of the project believed IN THEIR PROJECT and used/rented huge computing power to mine coins OF THEIR project, this is outrageous and also unfair!

Marketing it as 'No premine|No Instamine' 'implies'....

'No premine|No instamine' Is there something you don't understand?

Listing the unique miners present at launch is a further effort attempt at implying a wide, fair, distributed launch but given they secured 80% of the initial Steem for themselves, (so presumably many of those miners were the same entity/other) could be viewed as a further attempt to mislead/misrepresent.

If you have some FACTS besides your tin foil hat theories I would like to hear/see them.

The self moderated thread also says it will likely remove posts that are critical of the mining/distribution method.

So the omission, potential misrepresentation + removal of relevant investor (share/property distribution) information in the ANN is why I thought it could be viewed as miss-selling/misrepresentation though I imagine it's not legally enforceable.

My own tin foil hat theory is this, if posts were deleted from the ANN thread, there would be numerous threads about it in this forum and Bitcointalk.  I see no such threads but tin foil hat theories.

Their only "sin" was that they believed in their project more than anyone else, more than those "mine and insta-dump for profit" miners out there. So LETS CRUCIFY THEM for this!



Is this by any chance the The DAO price discussion thread? or it's just another oportunity to.......................................................

[Empirical1.2]

There are a lot of "projects" coming out of the woodwork now that people have seen how easily crypto investors part with their cash.

Most seem borderline scammy and there is no recourse for investors if the projects go belly up or if the founders leave with the cash.  Maybe you have some hope if you are in the us, but if your investing in something foreign you have virtually zero share holder rights.

 I'm not sure how much longer they will be able to do this before people get wise or regulatory authorities take a closer look at what is going on.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1410943.0

In their self moderated STEEM ANN, they didn't disclose that they mined 80% of the intial STEEM to themselves & also that they made it deliberately difficult for others to participate which is key investor information.  They also boldly labelled it as ' No Premine | No Instamine' which they knew was misleading given they'd secured 80% of the initial supply. I would have thought there was a high risk that would count as financial miss-selling but I assume they've taken legal counsel on most of their decisions.

Well since at the time of the announcement they hadn't mined anything there's nothing incorrect about that. The ~80% stake was secured through mining AFTER the announcement.

What they did do was throw a ton of mining power at it as soon as they made the announcement, possibly with a more efficient hashing code than the one available to the rest of us, but it's still correct to say there was no pre-mine or insta-mine. Even with their extreme mining power it took them weeks to get their target stake..

Yes but the strategy of making it deliberately difficult for others and mining the vast majority to themselves was known prior to that announcement. So not disclosing that in the ANN is misleading to potential investors.

Marketing it as 'No premine|No Instamine' 'implies' a wide, fair, distributed launch that the founders/others don't have an unfairly mined stake in which is not the case so that is misleading to potential investors.

Listing the unique miners present at launch is a further effort attempt at implying a wide, fair, distributed launch but given they secured 80% of the initial Steem for themselves, (so presumably many of those miners were the same entity/other) could be viewed as a further attempt to mislead/misrepresent.

The self moderated thread also says it will likely remove posts that are critical of the mining/distribution method.

So the omission, potential misrepresentation + removal of relevant investor (share/property distribution) information in the ANN is why I thought it could be viewed as miss-selling/misrepresentation though I imagine it's not legally enforceable.

Intent to defraud means an intention to deceive another person, and to induce such other person, in reliance upon such deception, to assume, create, transfer, alter, or terminate a right, obligation, or power with reference to property.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/defraud

[svk]

There are a lot of "projects" coming out of the woodwork now that people have seen how easily crypto investors part with their cash.

Most seem borderline scammy and there is no recourse for investors if the projects go belly up or if the founders leave with the cash.  Maybe you have some hope if you are in the us, but if your investing in something foreign you have virtually zero share holder rights.

 I'm not sure how much longer they will be able to do this before people get wise or regulatory authorities take a closer look at what is going on.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1410943.0

In their self moderated STEEM ANN, they didn't disclose that they mined 80% of the intial STEEM to themselves & also that they made it deliberately difficult for others to participate which is key investor information.  They also boldly labelled it as ' No Premine | No Instamine' which they knew was misleading given they'd secured 80% of the initial supply. I would have thought there was a high risk that would count as financial miss-selling but I assume they've taken legal counsel on most of their decisions.

Well since at the time of the announcement they hadn't mined anything there's nothing incorrect about that. The ~80% stake was secured through mining AFTER the announcement.

What they did do was throw a ton of mining power at it as soon as they made the announcement, possibly with a more efficient hashing code than the one available to the rest of us, but it's still correct to say there was no pre-mine or insta-mine. Even with their extreme mining power it took them weeks to get their target stake..

[xeroc]

There are a lot of "projects" coming out of the woodwork now that people have seen how easily crypto investors part with their cash.

Most seem borderline scammy and there is no recourse for investors if the projects go belly up or if the founders leave with the cash.  Maybe you have some hope if you are in the us, but if your investing in something foreign you have virtually zero share holder rights.

 I'm not sure how much longer they will be able to do this before people get wise or regulatory authorities take a closer look at what is going on.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1410943.0

In their self moderated STEEM ANN, they didn't disclose that they mined 80% of the intial STEEM to themselves & also that they made it deliberately difficult for others to participate which is key investor information.  They also boldly labelled it as ' No Premine | No Instamine' which they knew was misleading given they'd secured 80% of the initial supply. I would have thought there was a high risk that would count as financial miss-selling but I assume they've taken legal counsel on most of their decisions.

What could possibly be the reason for this:

You guys still think STEEM is a CURRENCY?

[btswildpig]

There are a lot of "projects" coming out of the woodwork now that people have seen how easily crypto investors part with their cash.

Most seem borderline scammy and there is no recourse for investors if the projects go belly up or if the founders leave with the cash.  Maybe you have some hope if you are in the us, but if your investing in something foreign you have virtually zero share holder rights.

 I'm not sure how much longer they will be able to do this before people get wise or regulatory authorities take a closer look at what is going on.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1410943.0

In their self moderated STEEM ANN, they didn't disclose that they mined 80% of the intial STEEM to themselves & also that they made it deliberately difficult for others to participate which is key investor information.  They also boldly labelled it as ' No Premine | No Instamine' which they knew was misleading given they'd secured 80% of the initial supply. I would have thought there was a high risk that would count as financial miss-selling but I assume they've taken legal counsel on most of their decisions.

wow

[Empirical1.2]

There are a lot of "projects" coming out of the woodwork now that people have seen how easily crypto investors part with their cash.

Most seem borderline scammy and there is no recourse for investors if the projects go belly up or if the founders leave with the cash.  Maybe you have some hope if you are in the us, but if your investing in something foreign you have virtually zero share holder rights.

 I'm not sure how much longer they will be able to do this before people get wise or regulatory authorities take a closer look at what is going on.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1410943.0

In their self moderated STEEM ANN, they didn't disclose that they mined 80% of the intial STEEM to themselves & also that they made it deliberately difficult for others to participate which is key investor information.  They also boldly labelled it as ' No Premine | No Instamine' which they knew was misleading given they'd secured 80% of the initial supply. I would have thought there was a high risk that would count as financial miss-selling but I assume they've taken legal counsel on most of their decisions.

[mf-tzo]

If this discussion were on STEEM, I'd give a few of you some upvotes and you could be making real money.

Feel free to give me some upvotes  since this is discussed in Steem..
https://steemit.com/trading/@mf-tzo/open

[Tuck Fheman]

I haven't seen many downvotes on STEEM.

You're just not trying hard enough. 

http://steemd.com/@cryptorune

[donkeypong]

If this discussion were on STEEM, I'd give a few of you some upvotes and you could be making real money.

Only if you're one of the whales and no other whale down-vote it.

I haven't seen many downvotes on STEEM. They don't really factor in unless there's misleading or misplaced content. As for whales, that's true, but there are enough users on there with decent-sized stakes now that a few upvotes means money. Heck, even my modest stake moves the needle a bit now. But then again, it means you need to make useful posts that add something to the conversation. So for some folks on here who don't have anything of value to say, you probably wouldn't make much on STEEM either.

[chryspano]

A lot of hypothetical downvoting discussion in this forum... any FACTS so far?

[abit]

If this discussion were on STEEM, I'd give a few of you some upvotes and you could be making real money.

Only if you're one of the whales and no other whale down-vote it.

[donkeypong]

If this discussion were on STEEM, I'd give a few of you some upvotes and you could be making real money.