Topic: [ANN] Peerplays - First Ever Blockchain-Based Gaming Platform - page 40. (Read 1144140 times)

I apologize to you Jonathan for everything I've done. I acted in an immature fashion to post our LI chats over here for public scrutiny. I was trying to avoid yet another promising startup fail due to interdev quarrels. If you look at what I've done rationally, you'll see that I did this for the benefit of PP. The last thing I want to hear as an investor in crypto is legal action/lawsuit. I'm not going to suggest that you thank me, but I hope you would rationally think about the alternative if I hadn't taken us down this road? I still hold half of my peerplays tokens, and IFF (if and only if) there's no legal action, I will purchase them back. PP either approaches $1000/token or down to $2/token if there's legal action.

I accept that my actions were callous, Jonathan, and I sincerely apologize again. I was only trying to get a dialog going so that we didn't end up another crypto failure. I wasn't going to allow a promising project to fail over something so stupid. No one here can deny that this team is stacked for success. Don't fuck this up, or I'll be back.

I would like to respond to the recent attacks on Peerplays, Neil and myself, initiated by one Jacob Seeley.

I have nothing to say about him personally because I had no idea who he was until 2 days ago. He contacted me, Neil, Ed, and attempted to contact a few other members of our team over the past week, and then proceeded to craft a narrative of his own choosing, through the repeated use of deceitful and slanderous tactics. I have much patience for people, and I have the utmost respect for privacy, but I will not stand by while Jake engages in public attacks against me or my colleagues.

Neil and I have been in constant contact with each other for the entire duration of this “public” dispute. I can assure you that we are both working hard to amend this situation, and I believe that we are well on the path to finding an amicable solution that will be quite beneficial to the entire project. I would also like to state, for the record, that I have much respect for Neil and that I regret if any of my statements published by Jake Seeley have caused him harm. Taking things completely out of context is not the way towards resolution, and I am very disappointed that Jake would choose to be so callous in regard to personal privacy.

All of this said, I am grateful for the support and rational approach that just about everyone else has chosen to take in response to this attack, and it makes me quite proud to know that we have attracted such a clear headed community. Many thanks to all of you.

Jacob,

Your LI chats have made several things very clear:

- Jonathan was very professional and cordial with you despite your disposition (you called him "Hitler")
- You have a subjective bias for Neil and drew conclusions based on <5% of the picture

- You do not realize that Graphene can process 1000x more TPS than Ethereum at a fraction of the cost
- Your business acumen is dubious based on your question "why do you need more money?"

- You lied to Jonathan three 3x about keeping the conversation private
-  You get "quite excited" over posting FUD
 
These conversations only strengthen confidence that Bunker Chain Labs is the right company to develop PeerPlays.  Your behavior on the other hand is belligerent. The social jury is in - and the verdict is that this is common internal progression that occurs during organizational growth. Good luck to all parties and may the awesome power of Graphene blockchains be fully realized.

Hi everyone,

As stated in my earlier message, our legal counsels have been in touch and are handling the matter. I did not join the company in May, both Jonathan and I discussed the technology from October 3rd, 2015 all the way up till launch. On January 26th, 2016, we both were thinking up domain names and he landed on peerplays.com, and we discussed equity stake 4 days later. Most of what Jonathan has talked about in his private chats with Jacob have been non-factual. I can prove all of it, but I've agreed not to. I also never discussed doing anything on Ethereum with Jonathan, all of my conversations were about graphene (and early on I referred to it as bitshares technology). Ethereum was mentioned in one of the documents I shared with Jonathan very early on, as I was trying to build a version of this platform before approaching Bunkerchainlabs. I had even considered using technology by maidsafe prior to graphene.

Jacob, I appreciate the support, please drop this right now. This isn't helpful for Peerplays. And stop asking about the facebook chat history. It isn't going to happen. Also, not everything you're stating is factual either. Especially about misappropriation of funds. No matter what disagreements Jonathan and I are having, I will say this to his testament - Jonathan would never take people's money and run. In fact, no one from that entire team would do such a thing. I have the utmost respect for Dan and his abilities as a programmer, which is why I made several attempts to try and code with him and be part of that side of development. This is a well known fact within the team. They were even talking about flying me down so that I could sit down with Dan and learn more about how the code works. What happened here is much more a disagreement of things than anything. I know it has been blown out of proportion, but that's the problem with witch hunts. Please stop this now.


Ryan, since you've made numerous references to complete conjecture, without even the slightest shred of evidence, and made claims that are not even remotely factual, I know you're not really meant to be taken seriously. Nevertheless I'd say the feeling's mutual. Please do not respond to me publicly or privately as you've been ignored.

I'm finding that out.

Best wishes,
Neil

The problem is that some of your concerns seem to be misrepresenting aspects of what is going on.  Many of these things occurred over the course of months, as I understand it, and as such there is plenty of missing context.  For instance,


Demanding a polished product sounds like he is waiting for work to be done (as in codework) rather than contributing to it.  It would seem to be a fair assumption that at this point, he had to have known that Dan's company was going to be contracted for the creation of this 'polished product' because that is what Dan said in his very first post in this thread.  Further, not only is that a valid assumption, but a timeline for the creation of that 'polished product' was given and that time has yet to pass - in fact, the initial part of release is slated for two weeks from now - very much in line with what we were told at the beginning.

Further, from what I can tell, Neil has claimed that it was his idea.  Well...everyone has ideas.  You don't get credit for discussing an idea - you get credit for producing the reality of an idea.  I don't see where Neil can claim this if he is not one of the people working on Dan's team.  Which makes the following quote untenable -


It's not like Peerplays is stealing Rawbots.

In fact, I would think that Neil saw Peerplays as a means to get Rawbots off the ground.  He has been pushing for it for years and thinks that it could be on level with minecraft according to the following article (which was written in 2013) -


Depending on the timeline on when Peerplays was started and when Neil was brought on board, I would say that the motivation for appropriating the platform is pretty strong and that indicates potentially, to me, that Neil was never interested in doing anything but implementing Rawbots on technology that he knew he wasn't going to write.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I literally see nothing that makes me think that the core product, as planned from the beginning, is not going to be delivered.  What I do see is a dev squabble that seems to be originating mostly from one direction, from an individual whose motives towards Peerplays are potentially not aligned with what the rest of the team have been doing.

I also think that if Neil believed that he had a case then his lawyers would have handled everything.  Going around behind the scenes and threatening to make things public sounds like an attempt at extortion. He has lost all credibility with me and I find that unfortunate for the team.

He was right on one thing though, Peerplays did experience it's first hiccup and it wasn't because he wasn't aware of the bounties when irresponsibly implying that Jonathon was moving tokens around haphazardly - which in and of itself should be a serious red flag regarding Neil's credibility.


That bump in the road was him.

Jonathan:
Jocuserious, I read your request for transparency and Dan and Neil both posted. I didn't find anything wrong with Neil's post, in fact: it was quite professional given the situation. Are you posting this sheep nonsense in the hopes other sheep will follow? Perhaps you should pay careful attention to the facts rather than continue mud-slinging at the wrong direction. I understand that your peerplays tokens are at stake, but it may be better use of your time to try and uncover the truth rather than act like every single pump and dumper here, solely looking out for #1. The value of peerplays tokens will be stronger as a result of these discussions, not weaker. Remove the element of surprise from the value and it stabalizes. We were on a downward spiral for the past 3 weeks now and that would have continued until the 26th if I hadn't stepped up.

One love.

I see nothing in the transcripts that indicate anything beyond a dev disagreement of which Neil seems to be at fault.  I can't really take someone seriously who has said that he will retain a lawyer and then doesn't trust his lawyer to handle things.  It's just unprofessional. 

The more important post in the previous page, for me, is Dan's.  Looking forward to the 26th.

the hero we need but don't deserve. thanks for your hard work

I've received more updates from our beloved founders this morning.

http://res.cloudinary.com/dnw4pq1tl/image/upload/v1473698581/Neil-sept-12_m5ipf4.png
http://res.cloudinary.com/dnw4pq1tl/image/upload/v1473698580/Jonathan-sept-12_qwv1wi.png

k, so my plan hasn't really worked out the way I had imagined. I only wanted to get some kind of discussion going that would lead us to more transparency from the founders. This project has shown a lot of promise and I feared it was headed down the same path as most of these shitcoin icos. SCAMS! You're both adults, figure your shit out and let's get a discussion going. I sincerely apologize for this 9/11 stunt.


I still hold a number of coins and was tired of seeing it slowly head to the crypto morgue. Drastic actions need to take place at times like these in order to illicit change. Read the art of war. Besides all of this, do you see any major dumping going on? Seems like we've weathered this just fine, as we will weather future discussions. Now we have a starting point rather than be hit with surprises later on.


The only screw loose here is yours, you never seem to disappoint

I believe it will be announced at the end of the month. Sharedrop range is until 15th as far as I remember

I myself on the contrary find everybody you spoke with are quite likable persons. I as well don't appreciate your tactic and have a feeling that you're trying to push people dump coins right before public test and auction. I've read carefully what you posted and don't see why should anyone be concerned about the future of the project.

Hello all you beautiful people,

I've decided to make this post under a new account for security reasons. I've conducted a preliminary investigation into peerplays by getting answers from few of the team members over linkedin - Jonathan Baha'i, Neil Haran, Edward Hall

I've chosen to remain anonymous, however any of the above can rat me out, and some of you who know me, may derive my real bitcointalk account from that. Please keep this information to yourselves

After my preliminary investigation, I've already sold off half of my peerplays tokens. Perhaps it is in haste, but I do not get a good feeling here after speaking with Jonathan. Jonathan, I apologize for breaking our promise, but the forum needs to be made aware. I also find you to be an incredibly dishonest and very unlikable person.

Neil, after speaking with Jonathan, I have a strong gut feeling you were completely ripped off here. Jonathan used you for your ideas, used you and your reputation to get us to invest, probably used you for a lot of free work and now wants you to leave without a fuss. Yeah, that sucks! Filing a lawsuit isn't the answer. The crypto space is filled with low lives, deal with it. Post your facebook chat history between you and Bunkerchainlabs from the beginning of the project (as indicated from your last post) till the present day. This would help clear things out for a lot of us who've simply had to go by your incredibly cryptic posts. You owe us this. Filing a lawsuit only tells us that you are much more interested in revenge against this water buffalo than making investors who believed in you any money. Your reputation will get rekt here if you don't post it.

Here are the linkedin chat logs, let the public hearing begin:

http://res.cloudinary.com/dnw4pq1tl/image/upload/v1473669489/Edward_p5yzpb.png
http://res.cloudinary.com/dnw4pq1tl/image/upload/v1473669489/Neil_grng7n.png

And saved the best for last.
http://res.cloudinary.com/dnw4pq1tl/image/upload/v1473669930/Jonathan_whoicr.png

That's it from me from this throwaway account.

Wait a bit longer.  This is a good breakdown of details regarding the Share drop.

https://steemit.com/bitshares/@apes/detailed-view-on-the-peerplays-share-drop-to-bitshares

still waiting for my share bounties

Any news on the share drop 

Hi Jocuserious,

From the beginning of Peerplays, my role has been that of designer of the games and the lineup of games (includes monetization and core game/tech mechanics revolving around monetization) that we're launching and being responsible for the strategy and business development from the gaming side. What this means is, I would help with strategic decisions to grow the company, find business/gaming partners (upon the launch of the first game) and find key projects to incorporate into peerplays (such as Rawbots).

To that end, while it isn't my role, I have expertise in coding as well and have offered to help with coding several times (I can provide numerous amounts of proof here). I approached Bunkerchain labs in the fall of 2015 to build out peerplays. Jonathan and I discussed my ideas over facebook in great detail (over several months), including me providing documents, a simple prototype of the first game (simply to describe the idea - using peerjs) and answers to myriad of questions to help flesh the ideas out. Throughout the project I've helped in many areas (ones that I've been given a chance to help with), including interviews, helping promote peerplays etc. This being said, my expertise is in game development, and as such I'm the CGO of peerplays.

However at the present time, due to legal reasons, I cannot say much more. But I will say this. I have not received one cent from the company, not in the form of money or in peerplays tokens. Absolutely Nothing. All of the funds are being controlled by bunkerchainlabs. My goal is to get our internal matters resolved as soon as possible and in an amicable way. I care deeply about every single investor here and I'm hopeful that we will eventually resolve things.

Best wishes,
Neil

I was hoping that a few more devs would post. 

so excited to dump ur ico coins for 7x profit ? such noob.

If anyone is thinking about buying PeerPlays but not sure then now is the time before the auction starts. You can expect this to zoom past 3 mill sat when that happens. I just restocked 500 as I didnt realise this was happening soon