At least we can put the ICO days behind us in crypto with this... unfortunately that basically means that there's no way to
organically fund projects of this magnitude. VC 'angels' in the real world aren't really much different from Bob and company unfortunately... especially if the venture doesn't do exactly what they say when they say it.
Crypto is there to lower barriers of money transfers and free markets and that's pretty much it. There is no cryptographic primitive that guarantees fairness (or anonymity
), but there are laws of thermodynamics that keeps pushing for more efficient systems and decentralized marketplaces are right there on that path. It WILL happen, as Moore's law is just happening. Whether David is the enabler of this technology or not is entirely up to him.
I believe there's still a future for ICO deals like this. They only need to be handled with more transparency.
Except for the fact that, based purely on logs posted by
both David
and Bob there seems to be the little issue of whether or not the ICO itself was even legitimate - on BTER's end I mean. It appears that there may not have even been as much
actual BTC's involved as we previously thought. We need transparency on this issue especially IMO... because whether a single coin is good or bad is one thing, if one or more of the exchanges running them are completely cooking the books is another. Because people very rarely do something only once... so if that is the case with BAY... it's undoubtedly the case with others as well. At the very least I would want to see transparent accounting from day one for this... for all parties, but especially BTER.
(And no, I don't seriously expect that to ever happen)
I hate to say it but this one Barabbas called correctly. I have to give him that at least...
