If you thought the direction change was positive then dependent on how many Atoms you owned you were given a status the split was Member,Founder,Whale. Dependent on your level you have certain benefits one being the exchange is free if your a whale, discounted if your a founder and normal if your a member. This status isn't set in stone people can buy & sell Atoms on the auction.
Part of being a Whale is the devs often consult you about their plans and direction at an early stage giving the whale an opportunity to provide feedback & share thoughts. The reason is a symbiotic. Both parties have a vested interest in making Ionomy a success the devs need genuine enduser feedback and because the whale has a shitload of money invested in ATOMS the feedback is definitely going to be honest...... If this all turns to shit then everyone takes the hit.
With Wild I remember when he became a founder he was quite public in saying he was going to be a whale... I remember all the whale shark jibes he got.
Sure enough though after a couple of months he earned enough Atoms to become a whale so you could say a Shark's life as a whale as been earned
Uh huh...
I guess when a project needs money they have to leave he project open to this scenario. The elite don't care about he little investors, they only care about their profit. What if her profit plan isn't long term like the IOn plan? They could screw the entire project just to get a bit more profit for themselves. Crypto was made decentralized to help eliminate things like his. Nice to see team ION reversing course on all the work.
Either way, sharky tells the story so it makes him look the best and most credible. Good luck to those that listen.
Well other countries and regulatory entities usually label it as collusion or insider trading . Its been established for some time that conveniently the larger elite of most groups don't have the communities best interests, namely just their own. That's why this nagging feeling of what you read looks and feels wrong.
So how do you suggest a small team not a corporation solicit feedback from the crypto space filtering out honesty from ill intent ? especially when something is in it's embryonic stages of development. I can't think of a better way than vested interest