So he funded them cause he believes in it. how does this affect blocknet? people need to understand one thing. a corrupt coin doesn't make or break the blocknet. if util is shady and a scam nobody will use them on or of the blocknet. the bridge doesn't give them any advantage if they don't deliver high quality tech and if they do with a pumper as investor but it works fine i'm more than willing to try it through xbridge. the foundation is still likely to drop projects of its seat if they happen to not deliver but it doesn'T affect blocknets usability or advantage for participating coins one bit. if Blocknet will be come what i envision it to be seeing coins fail on the blocknet will be just as commen as of the blocknet. the foundation seat will be an indicator of the legitimacy of a project but this can only be determined through the delivery of promised developments. i don't observe util so i don't know if they are behind in this regard.
Util could serve an interesting role in this process so let me make a proposition:
since prom and Dan make contradicting comments its really an unhealthy scenario for them to sit on the foundation together (depending on proms role, say in util, still not shure here)
Util could be the first of many coins that isn't part of the foundation first but still enables the xbridge to give their user the advantages of blocknet. by delivering the technology and doing well they could gain their seat on blocknet.
So the foundation seat is a vehicle of verification but the acces tool Xbridge will really become open source. and if million shitcoins implement it it doesn't hurt the good coins one bit since they are still not part of the foundation. the only way they could capitalise from blocknet would be delivering unique tech and by so they are no shitclones anymore. the good coins on blocknet would benefit from even bigger trafic for their good technology.
That's a solid perspective.
I don't really see the integrity, functionality, or development of the BlockNET being thrown into question here.
I do see the reputation of several involved parties being thrown into question and until all of that gets sorted out the community and the market's sentiment towards BlockNET is not going to be all that favorable, meaning the value of our BLOCK is being thrown into question.
But, I suppose if we believe in the project and are willing to hold long-term and/or accumulate more if the price drops, it doesn't really matter as long as the BlockNET comes to fruition as planned.
thank you.
the reputation of single a entity reflects on blocknet only now since it is still in its child shoes and people percieve it more as a "crypto avengers club" than what it actually is. its a decentralised gateway that makes cross use of features of coins possible for a fee.
the more it grows in number of coins attached the better and a "bad coin" doesn't affect my holdings one bit. everything you see on the internet you will eventually see on the blocknet. it just enhances the possibilities of my own holding to generate income if its a quality coin. and by so it will drive the buy pressure of said good coins also. a scam coin can't capitalise on the selection process happening on blocknet. its rather the opposite.
thats why i am for the process of picking foundation members through the foundation but making the xbridge available to everyone.
i'm just not afraid of scamcoins beeing on blocknet. thats one of the main advantages of blocknet. it focuses the selection process of where to put my money towards income generating feature sets rather than an anticipated use you can't define. its a constant real life market study that will be easy to follow by looking at the top "cross use" performers. i'm sure this will be possible in some way.
and when the network is in action I get higher fees ?