This is an interesting anecdote. At the moment I read the book of Walter Isaacson “Steve Jobs”. Very interesting. I didn’t know Steve Jobs was such a demanding and unfriendly person. He acted with everyone very unfriendly with bad language and insults.
He parked his Mercedes at disabled car parking und was even bad to small people like supermarket cashiers. He said he is just paid 1 USD a month but wanted to have equity options worth 5% of the company and a private jet in addition.
But on the other hand he invented so many thinks, ball breaking technologies, not just once, several times (for example Mac, iMac, iTunes, iPod, iPhone, iPad)
Back to topic.
Topic: IOTA - page 422. (Read 1473405 times)
A few problems with what you are implying:
1) these are stories from people already in ABSOLUTE power over their markets. These are multi-billion dollar companies already. Sure we can find stories about Jobs or Musk or Zuckerberg or whomever acting insane - but it's confirmation bias to assume that these tactics are a net-positive for them, as most other entrepreneurs who act this way are usually gone after some short time. These guys were not successful because of these outbursts but in spite of them. I would argue that it cost Jobs the first time around, in fact.
2) to be more blunt, I personally know several CEOs and board members of fortune 500 companies (in fact, these people are themselves in Forbes and the like). I have not reached out to them mainly because I don't believe it is in my best interest to do so with the way that David communicates with others - also, these people are going to have others who work for them look through these type of threads (in fact, look through everything available) and it WILL LOOK BAD, PERIOD. I know so because I have asked some of them indirectly about this.
People who have net-worths in the 9 and 10 figures in USD don't care about making MORE money if it means dealing with extremely difficult human beings. Since David presents himself as both being extremely difficult AND runs much of IOTA (and JINN) in stealth mode, it becomes hard to gauge how hard I should push for the attention of people who don't have too much time to waste.
Lastly, I'm sure I'm not the only person who has held back from forwarding this project to influential people because of a lack of transparency (which I have no problem with, I'm just not convinced it's the best way to go in this particular case [big deal and foundation details, etc])... anyway, my original point stands. I'm still not convinced that it's in the best interest of IOTA to have David be this devastatingly aggressive to such a large number of users here (if it was just 1 or 2 arguments, ok... but it's to almost every question posed).
I've talked enough about this issue, nothing has ever changed, so, I will leave it be - but, I assure you that this is a misstep on David's part towards his vision for IOTA and the future (a vision I want him to succeed in).
edit- typo
1) these are stories from people already in ABSOLUTE power over their markets. These are multi-billion dollar companies already. Sure we can find stories about Jobs or Musk or Zuckerberg or whomever acting insane - but it's confirmation bias to assume that these tactics are a net-positive for them, as most other entrepreneurs who act this way are usually gone after some short time. These guys were not successful because of these outbursts but in spite of them. I would argue that it cost Jobs the first time around, in fact.
2) to be more blunt, I personally know several CEOs and board members of fortune 500 companies (in fact, these people are themselves in Forbes and the like). I have not reached out to them mainly because I don't believe it is in my best interest to do so with the way that David communicates with others - also, these people are going to have others who work for them look through these type of threads (in fact, look through everything available) and it WILL LOOK BAD, PERIOD. I know so because I have asked some of them indirectly about this.
People who have net-worths in the 9 and 10 figures in USD don't care about making MORE money if it means dealing with extremely difficult human beings. Since David presents himself as both being extremely difficult AND runs much of IOTA (and JINN) in stealth mode, it becomes hard to gauge how hard I should push for the attention of people who don't have too much time to waste.
Lastly, I'm sure I'm not the only person who has held back from forwarding this project to influential people because of a lack of transparency (which I have no problem with, I'm just not convinced it's the best way to go in this particular case [big deal and foundation details, etc])... anyway, my original point stands. I'm still not convinced that it's in the best interest of IOTA to have David be this devastatingly aggressive to such a large number of users here (if it was just 1 or 2 arguments, ok... but it's to almost every question posed).
I've talked enough about this issue, nothing has ever changed, so, I will leave it be - but, I assure you that this is a misstep on David's part towards his vision for IOTA and the future (a vision I want him to succeed in).
edit- typo
A reliable source has passed along a legal document in the ongoing lawsuit between Google and Microsoft over Google’s hiring of Kai-Fu Lee. The document is the “Declaration of Mark Lucovsky” in the case. Lucovsky was a distinguished engineer at Microsoft who defected to Google in November of 2004. His statement makes for some pretty interesting reading, to say the least.
The statement reads in part:
Prior to joining Google, I set up a meeting on or about November 11, 2004 with Microsoft’s CEO Steve Ballmer to discuss my planned departure….At some point in the conversation Mr. Ballmer said: “Just tell me it’s not Google.” I told him it was Google.
At that point, Mr. Ballmer picked up a chair and threw it across the room hitting a table in his office. Mr. Ballmer then said: “Fucking Eric Schmidt is a fucking pussy. I’m going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I’m going to fucking kill Google.” ….
Just FYI
The statement reads in part:
Prior to joining Google, I set up a meeting on or about November 11, 2004 with Microsoft’s CEO Steve Ballmer to discuss my planned departure….At some point in the conversation Mr. Ballmer said: “Just tell me it’s not Google.” I told him it was Google.
At that point, Mr. Ballmer picked up a chair and threw it across the room hitting a table in his office. Mr. Ballmer then said: “Fucking Eric Schmidt is a fucking pussy. I’m going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I’m going to fucking kill Google.” ….
Just FYI
A reliable source has passed along a legal document in the ongoing lawsuit between Google and Microsoft over Google’s hiring of Kai-Fu Lee. The document is the “Declaration of Mark Lucovsky” in the case. Lucovsky was a distinguished engineer at Microsoft who defected to Google in November of 2004. His statement makes for some pretty interesting reading, to say the least.
The statement reads in part:
Prior to joining Google, I set up a meeting on or about November 11, 2004 with Microsoft’s CEO Steve Ballmer to discuss my planned departure….At some point in the conversation Mr. Ballmer said: “Just tell me it’s not Google.” I told him it was Google.
At that point, Mr. Ballmer picked up a chair and threw it across the room hitting a table in his office. Mr. Ballmer then said: “Fucking Eric Schmidt is a fucking pussy. I’m going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I’m going to fucking kill Google.” ….
Just FYI
The statement reads in part:
Prior to joining Google, I set up a meeting on or about November 11, 2004 with Microsoft’s CEO Steve Ballmer to discuss my planned departure….At some point in the conversation Mr. Ballmer said: “Just tell me it’s not Google.” I told him it was Google.
At that point, Mr. Ballmer picked up a chair and threw it across the room hitting a table in his office. Mr. Ballmer then said: “Fucking Eric Schmidt is a fucking pussy. I’m going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I’m going to fucking kill Google.” ….
Just FYI
The guy took his time and was thoughtful in his response and your reaction is to tell him to kill himself? It's gotten to the point that you appear totally unable to control your emotions - why this much aggression (always at levels far higher than warranted)?
Your comments through-out this thread are a danger to your career in how extreme they are, please, once again, just consider stepping away from this forum for the health of your own project. These comments look ok here, but they won't be nearly as easy to distance yourself from as the project grows as large as you intend to make it.
The CEO can't be asking that people: kill themselves, or that they are so stupid as to potentially cause "you" cancer (a comment you made to me months ago - btw, I lost my father to cancer when I was 27), etc etc etc.
You are hurting the project with these maneuvers. They also add nothing of value, just work on what you are good at - keep to the (obvious) hard work you have been putting in behind the scenes. There are more people reading this thread that could help/hurt the project than you imagine.
Your logic is correct, but the company behind IOTA sold 'software', so the value of the token is not relevant to them. The metric to ultimately judge their performance is nodes in the field, not token value. As long as they're consistent I think they can continue to tell speculators to 'fuck off' (i.e. they can't claim credit for any x20 returns). David has chosen to reject the relevance of your analysis to IOTA, and as long as he doesn't claim credit for later secondary market values he's being consistent.
Despite agreeing with the validity of your economic explanation, with IOTA I am now using node numbers as the barometer to measure the success of this project. I changed my opinion from the start.
edit: I think a better analogy to use with IOTA is that of a creative pursuits like music, art, writing etc The sincere artist always prefers to measure success using the metric of 'users' or 'consumers' or 'viewers' of their work, the financial metrics of success (i.e sales) is an emergent phenomenon arising from the number of users/viewers/readers etc. Any artist who focuses on the financial metric first will generally produce bad art, but the ones who focus on reching the widest audience generally make better art, and as a side-effect sometimes make money
Of course we can, and do, claim credit for the ROI. This is a non-starter. The difference lies in 2 things:
1) We never PROMISED anyone ANY ROI, so anyone complaining about anything related to it is worthless
2) The GOAL of the project is a genuine paradigm shift in the zeitgeist of technology. We are bringing about a new realm of economics through 'real time on demand' services which for the first time ever is enabled by zero fees, a machine-to-machine economy to open up interoperability of IoT and data integrity. These are all revolutionary concepts that a minority of IOTA holders seem to grasp in its entirety. Therefore this is our focus, money is easy, we are offered millions weekly to go into the private sector exclusively, not interesting. Changing a whole ecosystem is a worthy challenge, with a way better long term 'ROI'
You argue like a politician on ROI - if it looks good, I'll take the credit, when it looks bad, 'not my problem, I made no promises, I'm not responsible'. This is how every major political leader rationalises the world.
edit:
The relationship between ICO price, liquidity provided by speculators/investors in secondary market, and ROI is very clear. IOTA has not launched yet, so any ROI of x20 is due 100% to speculators in the secondary market, there has been no direct demand for the token from actual usage yet. Claiming credit for the x20 ROI is not correct logic, especially before IOTA is actually being used machine-to-machine as intended. Anyone who argues otherwise looks very foolish. The only metric that you should use to sing your own praises is number of nodes. All price related success is down to the speculators so far, and you tell them to 'fuck off' repeatedly. Stick with node numbers as your yardstick and you wont end up looking like a dick.
You are a parody of a person, if I was half as dumb as you I'd officially end it and be an organ donor.
Your comments through-out this thread are a danger to your career in how extreme they are, please, once again, just consider stepping away from this forum for the health of your own project. These comments look ok here, but they won't be nearly as easy to distance yourself from as the project grows as large as you intend to make it.
The CEO can't be asking that people: kill themselves, or that they are so stupid as to potentially cause "you" cancer (a comment you made to me months ago - btw, I lost my father to cancer when I was 27), etc etc etc.
You are hurting the project with these maneuvers. They also add nothing of value, just work on what you are good at - keep to the (obvious) hard work you have been putting in behind the scenes. There are more people reading this thread that could help/hurt the project than you imagine.
A perspective from an economist
Secondary markets like the current IOTA/BTC market are essential to the primary market of the ICO. If there was no secondary market, the primary market would struggle. Imagine an ICO where investors know they will later not be able to sell their shares.
This link between primary and secondary market is not binary -- linked or not linked -- but instead very gradual: the more liquid a secondary market (and/or the higher the price), the better for for the primary market. If you think of the ICO as the initial primary market and today's market as the secondary market: without the expectation of the market today at the time of the ICO, the initial ICO market would not have existed (are much less of it).
In the nex step, you can think of today's market as the primary market and tomorrow's market as the secondary market. The logic is the same: the more liquid we expect the future market to be, the better for today's market (--> higher price today). This link is present from today to the (infinite) future.
The main lesson here is: any investor at any time always adds value to a project. Investors play an essential role for crypto projects in general, invluding IOTA. Of course, the coding is much more important. But the code would never come to its full potetnial wthout investors. Investors provide the financial incentive for all the devs in a project. Granted, there are incentives at work other than the financial one. But the financial incentive is rather important: after all, people have to eat from time to time.
Investors and developers live in a symbiosis.
Secondary markets like the current IOTA/BTC market are essential to the primary market of the ICO. If there was no secondary market, the primary market would struggle. Imagine an ICO where investors know they will later not be able to sell their shares.
This link between primary and secondary market is not binary -- linked or not linked -- but instead very gradual: the more liquid a secondary market (and/or the higher the price), the better for for the primary market. If you think of the ICO as the initial primary market and today's market as the secondary market: without the expectation of the market today at the time of the ICO, the initial ICO market would not have existed (are much less of it).
In the nex step, you can think of today's market as the primary market and tomorrow's market as the secondary market. The logic is the same: the more liquid we expect the future market to be, the better for today's market (--> higher price today). This link is present from today to the (infinite) future.
The main lesson here is: any investor at any time always adds value to a project. Investors play an essential role for crypto projects in general, invluding IOTA. Of course, the coding is much more important. But the code would never come to its full potetnial wthout investors. Investors provide the financial incentive for all the devs in a project. Granted, there are incentives at work other than the financial one. But the financial incentive is rather important: after all, people have to eat from time to time.
Investors and developers live in a symbiosis.
Your logic is correct, but the company behind IOTA sold 'software', so the value of the token is not relevant to them. The metric to ultimately judge their performance is nodes in the field, not token value. As long as they're consistent I think they can continue to tell speculators to 'fuck off' (i.e. they can't claim credit for any x20 returns). David has chosen to reject the relevance of your analysis to IOTA, and as long as he doesn't claim credit for later secondary market values he's being consistent.
Despite agreeing with the validity of your economic explanation, with IOTA I am now using node numbers as the barometer to measure the success of this project. I changed my opinion from the start.
edit: I think a better analogy to use with IOTA is that of a creative pursuits like music, art, writing etc The sincere artist always prefers to measure success using the metric of 'users' or 'consumers' or 'viewers' of their work, the financial metrics of success (i.e sales) is an emergent phenomenon arising from the number of users/viewers/readers etc. Any artist who focuses on the financial metric first will generally produce bad art, but the ones who focus on reching the widest audience generally make better art, and as a side-effect sometimes make money
Of course we can, and do, claim credit for the ROI. This is a non-starter. The difference lies in 2 things:
1) We never PROMISED anyone ANY ROI, so anyone complaining about anything related to it is worthless
2) The GOAL of the project is a genuine paradigm shift in the zeitgeist of technology. We are bringing about a new realm of economics through 'real time on demand' services which for the first time ever is enabled by zero fees, a machine-to-machine economy to open up interoperability of IoT and data integrity. These are all revolutionary concepts that a minority of IOTA holders seem to grasp in its entirety. Therefore this is our focus, money is easy, we are offered millions weekly to go into the private sector exclusively, not interesting. Changing a whole ecosystem is a worthy challenge, with a way better long term 'ROI'
You argue like a politician on ROI - if it looks good, I'll take the credit, when it looks bad, 'not my problem, I made no promises, I'm not responsible'. This is how every major political leader rationalises the world.
edit:
The relationship between ICO price, liquidity provided by speculators/investors in secondary market, and ROI is very clear. IOTA has not launched yet, so any ROI of x20 is due 100% to speculators in the secondary market, there has been no direct demand for the token from actual usage yet. Claiming credit for the x20 ROI is not correct logic, especially before IOTA is actually being used machine-to-machine as intended. Anyone who argues otherwise looks very foolish. The only metric that you should use to sing your own praises is number of nodes. All price related success is down to the speculators so far, and you tell them to 'fuck off' repeatedly. Stick with node numbers as your yardstick and you wont end up looking like a dick.
You are a parody of a person, if I was half as dumb as you I'd officially end it and be an organ donor.
We have started a bounty work for Chinese translation of IOTA tutorials and blog writings at here and wechat group. If you have some new writing about IOTA, please let me know.
Right now we have put 20Gi from George, Linxu Du and me. Typical translation of one tutorial or blog post is 1Gi.
Thank you very much. We are also working on a Chinese website.
Thank you!
The website http://iotachina.com is launched today.
This is really amazing !!! tweeted. https://twitter.com/IOTAecosystem/status/801008830247276545
A perspective from an economist
Secondary markets like the current IOTA/BTC market are essential to the primary market of the ICO. If there was no secondary market, the primary market would struggle. Imagine an ICO where investors know they will later not be able to sell their shares.
This link between primary and secondary market is not binary -- linked or not linked -- but instead very gradual: the more liquid a secondary market (and/or the higher the price), the better for for the primary market. If you think of the ICO as the initial primary market and today's market as the secondary market: without the expectation of the market today at the time of the ICO, the initial ICO market would not have existed (are much less of it).
In the nex step, you can think of today's market as the primary market and tomorrow's market as the secondary market. The logic is the same: the more liquid we expect the future market to be, the better for today's market (--> higher price today). This link is present from today to the (infinite) future.
The main lesson here is: any investor at any time always adds value to a project. Investors play an essential role for crypto projects in general, invluding IOTA. Of course, the coding is much more important. But the code would never come to its full potetnial wthout investors. Investors provide the financial incentive for all the devs in a project. Granted, there are incentives at work other than the financial one. But the financial incentive is rather important: after all, people have to eat from time to time.
Investors and developers live in a symbiosis.
Secondary markets like the current IOTA/BTC market are essential to the primary market of the ICO. If there was no secondary market, the primary market would struggle. Imagine an ICO where investors know they will later not be able to sell their shares.
This link between primary and secondary market is not binary -- linked or not linked -- but instead very gradual: the more liquid a secondary market (and/or the higher the price), the better for for the primary market. If you think of the ICO as the initial primary market and today's market as the secondary market: without the expectation of the market today at the time of the ICO, the initial ICO market would not have existed (are much less of it).
In the nex step, you can think of today's market as the primary market and tomorrow's market as the secondary market. The logic is the same: the more liquid we expect the future market to be, the better for today's market (--> higher price today). This link is present from today to the (infinite) future.
The main lesson here is: any investor at any time always adds value to a project. Investors play an essential role for crypto projects in general, invluding IOTA. Of course, the coding is much more important. But the code would never come to its full potetnial wthout investors. Investors provide the financial incentive for all the devs in a project. Granted, there are incentives at work other than the financial one. But the financial incentive is rather important: after all, people have to eat from time to time.
Investors and developers live in a symbiosis.
Your logic is correct, but the company behind IOTA sold 'software', so the value of the token is not relevant to them. The metric to ultimately judge their performance is nodes in the field, not token value. As long as they're consistent I think they can continue to tell speculators to 'fuck off' (i.e. they can't claim credit for any x20 returns). David has chosen to reject the relevance of your analysis to IOTA, and as long as he doesn't claim credit for later secondary market values he's being consistent.
Despite agreeing with the validity of your economic explanation, with IOTA I am now using node numbers as the barometer to measure the success of this project. I changed my opinion from the start.
edit: I think a better analogy to use with IOTA is that of a creative pursuits like music, art, writing etc The sincere artist always prefers to measure success using the metric of 'users' or 'consumers' or 'viewers' of their work, the financial metrics of success (i.e sales) is an emergent phenomenon arising from the number of users/viewers/readers etc. Any artist who focuses on the financial metric first will generally produce bad art, but the ones who focus on reching the widest audience generally make better art, and as a side-effect sometimes make money
Of course we can, and do, claim credit for the ROI. This is a non-starter. The difference lies in 2 things:
1) We never PROMISED anyone ANY ROI, so anyone complaining about anything related to it is worthless
2) The GOAL of the project is a genuine paradigm shift in the zeitgeist of technology. We are bringing about a new realm of economics through 'real time on demand' services which for the first time ever is enabled by zero fees, a machine-to-machine economy to open up interoperability of IoT and data integrity. These are all revolutionary concepts that a minority of IOTA holders seem to grasp in its entirety. Therefore this is our focus, money is easy, we are offered millions weekly to go into the private sector exclusively, not interesting. Changing a whole ecosystem is a worthy challenge, with a way better long term 'ROI'
You argue like a politician on ROI - if it looks good, I'll take the credit, when it looks bad, 'not my problem, I made no promises, I'm not responsible'. This is how every major political leader rationalises the world.
edit:
The relationship between ICO price, liquidity provided by speculators/investors in secondary market, and ROI is very clear. IOTA has not launched yet, so any ROI of x20 is due 100% to speculators in the secondary market, there has been no direct demand for the token from actual usage yet. Claiming credit for the x20 ROI is not correct logic, especially before IOTA is actually being used machine-to-machine as intended. Anyone who argues otherwise looks very foolish. The only metric that you should use to sing your own praises is number of nodes. All price related success is down to the speculators so far, and you tell them to 'fuck off' repeatedly. Stick with node numbers as your yardstick and you wont end up looking like a dick.
You are a parody of a person, if I was half as dumb as you I'd officially end it and be an organ donor.
Despite agreeing with the validity of your economic explanation, with IOTA I am now using node numbers as the barometer to measure the success of this project.
Number of nodes are a function of many variables. One (important) variable is the token value.
2) The GOAL of the project is a genuine paradigm shift in the zeitgeist of technology. We are bringing about a new realm of economics through 'real time on demand' services which for the first time ever is enabled by zero fees, a machine-to-machine economy to open up interoperability of IoT and data integrity. These are all revolutionary concepts that a minority of IOTA holders seem to grasp in its entirety. Therefore this is our focus, money is easy, we are offered millions weekly to go into the private sector exclusively, not interesting. Changing a whole ecosystem is a worthy challenge, with a way better long term 'ROI'
I could not agree more. The main point is the technological innovation of the project. And this on its own will motivate a lot of people. Bringing in some money through secondary markets will give a little boost to motivation, food to motivated but unfunded people, and bring in new people. Money help reaching this amitious goal, it is thus an indirectly important for the project.
A perspective from an economist
Secondary markets like the current IOTA/BTC market are essential to the primary market of the ICO. If there was no secondary market, the primary market would struggle. Imagine an ICO where investors know they will later not be able to sell their shares.
This link between primary and secondary market is not binary -- linked or not linked -- but instead very gradual: the more liquid a secondary market (and/or the higher the price), the better for for the primary market. If you think of the ICO as the initial primary market and today's market as the secondary market: without the expectation of the market today at the time of the ICO, the initial ICO market would not have existed (are much less of it).
In the nex step, you can think of today's market as the primary market and tomorrow's market as the secondary market. The logic is the same: the more liquid we expect the future market to be, the better for today's market (--> higher price today). This link is present from today to the (infinite) future.
The main lesson here is: any investor at any time always adds value to a project. Investors play an essential role for crypto projects in general, invluding IOTA. Of course, the coding is much more important. But the code would never come to its full potetnial wthout investors. Investors provide the financial incentive for all the devs in a project. Granted, there are incentives at work other than the financial one. But the financial incentive is rather important: after all, people have to eat from time to time.
Investors and developers live in a symbiosis.
Secondary markets like the current IOTA/BTC market are essential to the primary market of the ICO. If there was no secondary market, the primary market would struggle. Imagine an ICO where investors know they will later not be able to sell their shares.
This link between primary and secondary market is not binary -- linked or not linked -- but instead very gradual: the more liquid a secondary market (and/or the higher the price), the better for for the primary market. If you think of the ICO as the initial primary market and today's market as the secondary market: without the expectation of the market today at the time of the ICO, the initial ICO market would not have existed (are much less of it).
In the nex step, you can think of today's market as the primary market and tomorrow's market as the secondary market. The logic is the same: the more liquid we expect the future market to be, the better for today's market (--> higher price today). This link is present from today to the (infinite) future.
The main lesson here is: any investor at any time always adds value to a project. Investors play an essential role for crypto projects in general, invluding IOTA. Of course, the coding is much more important. But the code would never come to its full potetnial wthout investors. Investors provide the financial incentive for all the devs in a project. Granted, there are incentives at work other than the financial one. But the financial incentive is rather important: after all, people have to eat from time to time.
Investors and developers live in a symbiosis.
Your logic is correct, but the company behind IOTA sold 'software', so the value of the token is not relevant to them. The metric to ultimately judge their performance is nodes in the field, not token value. As long as they're consistent I think they can continue to tell speculators to 'fuck off' (i.e. they can't claim credit for any x20 returns). David has chosen to reject the relevance of your analysis to IOTA, and as long as he doesn't claim credit for later secondary market values he's being consistent.
Despite agreeing with the validity of your economic explanation, with IOTA I am now using node numbers as the barometer to measure the success of this project. I changed my opinion from the start.
edit: I think a better analogy to use with IOTA is that of a creative pursuits like music, art, writing etc The sincere artist always prefers to measure success using the metric of 'users' or 'consumers' or 'viewers' of their work, the financial metrics of success (i.e sales) is an emergent phenomenon arising from the number of users/viewers/readers etc. Any artist who focuses on the financial metric first will generally produce bad art, but the ones who focus on reching the widest audience generally make better art, and as a side-effect sometimes make money
Of course we can, and do, claim credit for the ROI. This is a non-starter. The difference lies in 2 things:
1) We never PROMISED anyone ANY ROI, so anyone complaining about anything related to it is worthless
2) The GOAL of the project is a genuine paradigm shift in the zeitgeist of technology. We are bringing about a new realm of economics through 'real time on demand' services which for the first time ever is enabled by zero fees, a machine-to-machine economy to open up interoperability of IoT and data integrity. These are all revolutionary concepts that a minority of IOTA holders seem to grasp in its entirety. Therefore this is our focus, money is easy, we are offered millions weekly to go into the private sector exclusively, not interesting. Changing a whole ecosystem is a worthy challenge, with a way better long term 'ROI'
You argue like a politician on ROI - if it looks good, I'll take the credit, when it looks bad, 'not my problem, I made no promises, I'm not responsible'. This is how every major political leader rationalises the world.
edit:
The relationship between ICO price, liquidity provided by speculators/investors in secondary market, and ROI is very clear. IOTA has not launched yet, so any ROI of x20 is due 100% to speculators in the secondary market, there has been no direct demand for the token from actual usage yet. Claiming credit for the x20 ROI is not correct logic, especially before IOTA is actually being used machine-to-machine as intended. Anyone who argues otherwise looks very foolish. The only metric that you should use to sing your own praises is number of nodes. All price related success is down to the speculators so far, and you tell them to 'fuck off' repeatedly. Stick with node numbers as your yardstick and you wont end up looking like a dick.
A perspective from an economist
Secondary markets like the current IOTA/BTC market are essential to the primary market of the ICO. If there was no secondary market, the primary market would struggle. Imagine an ICO where investors know they will later not be able to sell their shares.
This link between primary and secondary market is not binary -- linked or not linked -- but instead very gradual: the more liquid a secondary market (and/or the higher the price), the better for for the primary market. If you think of the ICO as the initial primary market and today's market as the secondary market: without the expectation of the market today at the time of the ICO, the initial ICO market would not have existed (are much less of it).
In the nex step, you can think of today's market as the primary market and tomorrow's market as the secondary market. The logic is the same: the more liquid we expect the future market to be, the better for today's market (--> higher price today). This link is present from today to the (infinite) future.
The main lesson here is: any investor at any time always adds value to a project. Investors play an essential role for crypto projects in general, invluding IOTA. Of course, the coding is much more important. But the code would never come to its full potetnial wthout investors. Investors provide the financial incentive for all the devs in a project. Granted, there are incentives at work other than the financial one. But the financial incentive is rather important: after all, people have to eat from time to time.
Investors and developers live in a symbiosis.
Secondary markets like the current IOTA/BTC market are essential to the primary market of the ICO. If there was no secondary market, the primary market would struggle. Imagine an ICO where investors know they will later not be able to sell their shares.
This link between primary and secondary market is not binary -- linked or not linked -- but instead very gradual: the more liquid a secondary market (and/or the higher the price), the better for for the primary market. If you think of the ICO as the initial primary market and today's market as the secondary market: without the expectation of the market today at the time of the ICO, the initial ICO market would not have existed (are much less of it).
In the nex step, you can think of today's market as the primary market and tomorrow's market as the secondary market. The logic is the same: the more liquid we expect the future market to be, the better for today's market (--> higher price today). This link is present from today to the (infinite) future.
The main lesson here is: any investor at any time always adds value to a project. Investors play an essential role for crypto projects in general, invluding IOTA. Of course, the coding is much more important. But the code would never come to its full potetnial wthout investors. Investors provide the financial incentive for all the devs in a project. Granted, there are incentives at work other than the financial one. But the financial incentive is rather important: after all, people have to eat from time to time.
Investors and developers live in a symbiosis.
Your logic is correct, but the company behind IOTA sold 'software', so the value of the token is not relevant to them. The metric to ultimately judge their performance is nodes in the field, not token value. As long as they're consistent I think they can continue to tell speculators to 'fuck off' (i.e. they can't claim credit for any x20 returns). David has chosen to reject the relevance of your analysis to IOTA, and as long as he doesn't claim credit for later secondary market values he's being consistent.
Despite agreeing with the validity of your economic explanation, with IOTA I am now using node numbers as the barometer to measure the success of this project. I changed my opinion from the start.
edit: I think a better analogy to use with IOTA is that of a creative pursuits like music, art, writing etc The sincere artist always prefers to measure success using the metric of 'users' or 'consumers' or 'viewers' of their work, the financial metrics of success (i.e sales) is an emergent phenomenon arising from the number of users/viewers/readers etc. Any artist who focuses on the financial metric first will generally produce bad art, but the ones who focus on reching the widest audience generally make better art, and as a side-effect sometimes make money
Of course we can, and do, claim credit for the ROI. This is a non-starter. The difference lies in 2 things:
1) We never PROMISED anyone ANY ROI, so anyone complaining about anything related to it is worthless
2) The GOAL of the project is a genuine paradigm shift in the zeitgeist of technology. We are bringing about a new realm of economics through 'real time on demand' services which for the first time ever is enabled by zero fees, a machine-to-machine economy to open up interoperability of IoT and data integrity. These are all revolutionary concepts that a minority of IOTA holders seem to grasp in its entirety. Therefore this is our focus, money is easy, we are offered millions weekly to go into the private sector exclusively, not interesting. Changing a whole ecosystem is a worthy challenge, with a way better long term 'ROI'
A perspective from an economist
Secondary markets like the current IOTA/BTC market are essential to the primary market of the ICO. If there was no secondary market, the primary market would struggle. Imagine an ICO where investors know they will later not be able to sell their shares.
This link between primary and secondary market is not binary -- linked or not linked -- but instead very gradual: the more liquid a secondary market (and/or the higher the price), the better for for the primary market. If you think of the ICO as the initial primary market and today's market as the secondary market: without the expectation of the market today at the time of the ICO, the initial ICO market would not have existed (are much less of it).
In the nex step, you can think of today's market as the primary market and tomorrow's market as the secondary market. The logic is the same: the more liquid we expect the future market to be, the better for today's market (--> higher price today). This link is present from today to the (infinite) future.
The main lesson here is: any investor at any time always adds value to a project. Investors play an essential role for crypto projects in general, invluding IOTA. Of course, the coding is much more important. But the code would never come to its full potetnial wthout investors. Investors provide the financial incentive for all the devs in a project. Granted, there are incentives at work other than the financial one. But the financial incentive is rather important: after all, people have to eat from time to time.
Investors and developers live in a symbiosis.
Secondary markets like the current IOTA/BTC market are essential to the primary market of the ICO. If there was no secondary market, the primary market would struggle. Imagine an ICO where investors know they will later not be able to sell their shares.
This link between primary and secondary market is not binary -- linked or not linked -- but instead very gradual: the more liquid a secondary market (and/or the higher the price), the better for for the primary market. If you think of the ICO as the initial primary market and today's market as the secondary market: without the expectation of the market today at the time of the ICO, the initial ICO market would not have existed (are much less of it).
In the nex step, you can think of today's market as the primary market and tomorrow's market as the secondary market. The logic is the same: the more liquid we expect the future market to be, the better for today's market (--> higher price today). This link is present from today to the (infinite) future.
The main lesson here is: any investor at any time always adds value to a project. Investors play an essential role for crypto projects in general, invluding IOTA. Of course, the coding is much more important. But the code would never come to its full potetnial wthout investors. Investors provide the financial incentive for all the devs in a project. Granted, there are incentives at work other than the financial one. But the financial incentive is rather important: after all, people have to eat from time to time.
Investors and developers live in a symbiosis.
Your logic is correct, but the company behind IOTA sold 'software', so the value of the token is not relevant to them. The metric to ultimately judge their performance is nodes in the field, not token value. As long as they're consistent I think they can continue to tell speculators to 'fuck off' (i.e. they can't claim credit for any x20 returns but can dismiss investor concerns about exchange listings today etc). David has chosen to reject the relevance of your analysis to IOTA, and as long as he doesn't claim credit for later secondary market values he's being consistent.
Despite agreeing with the validity of your economic explanation, with IOTA I am now using node numbers as the barometer to measure the success of this project. I changed my opinion from the start.
edit: I think a better analogy to use with IOTA is that of a creative pursuits like music, art, writing etc The sincere artist always prefers to measure success using the metric of 'users' or 'consumers' or 'viewers' of their work, the financial metrics of success (i.e sales) is an emergent phenomenon arising from the number of users/viewers/readers etc. Any artist who focuses on the financial metric first will generally produce bad art, but the ones who focus on reaching the widest audience as their goal will generally make better art, and as a side-effect, sometimes make money despite that not being their primary concern, or for some, not a concern at all. Any artist who tells you they're 'good' because they sold a lot of 'units' and made millions for their backers isn't a true artist though, are they! You can't have it both ways.
A perspective from an economist
Secondary markets like the current IOTA/BTC market are essential to the primary market of the ICO. If there was no secondary market, the primary market would struggle. Imagine an ICO where investors know they will later not be able to sell their shares.
This link between primary and secondary market is not binary -- linked or not linked -- but instead very gradual: the more liquid a secondary market (and/or the higher the price), the better for for the primary market. If you think of the ICO as the initial primary market and today's market as the secondary market: without the expectation of the market today at the time of the ICO, the initial ICO market would not have existed (are much less of it).
In the nex step, you can think of today's market as the primary market and tomorrow's market as the secondary market. The logic is the same: the more liquid we expect the future market to be, the better for today's market (--> higher price today). This link is present from today to the (infinite) future.
The main lesson here is: any investor at any time always adds value to a project. Investors play an essential role for crypto projects in general, invluding IOTA. Of course, the coding is much more important. But the code would never come to its full potetnial wthout investors. Investors provide the financial incentive for all the devs in a project. Granted, there are incentives at work other than the financial one. But the financial incentive is rather important: after all, people have to eat from time to time.
Investors and developers live in a symbiosis.
Secondary markets like the current IOTA/BTC market are essential to the primary market of the ICO. If there was no secondary market, the primary market would struggle. Imagine an ICO where investors know they will later not be able to sell their shares.
This link between primary and secondary market is not binary -- linked or not linked -- but instead very gradual: the more liquid a secondary market (and/or the higher the price), the better for for the primary market. If you think of the ICO as the initial primary market and today's market as the secondary market: without the expectation of the market today at the time of the ICO, the initial ICO market would not have existed (are much less of it).
In the nex step, you can think of today's market as the primary market and tomorrow's market as the secondary market. The logic is the same: the more liquid we expect the future market to be, the better for today's market (--> higher price today). This link is present from today to the (infinite) future.
The main lesson here is: any investor at any time always adds value to a project. Investors play an essential role for crypto projects in general, invluding IOTA. Of course, the coding is much more important. But the code would never come to its full potetnial wthout investors. Investors provide the financial incentive for all the devs in a project. Granted, there are incentives at work other than the financial one. But the financial incentive is rather important: after all, people have to eat from time to time.
Investors and developers live in a symbiosis.
Enough with the bullshit (including myself), let's be productive and helpful, Iota is close to exchanges and there are a lot of things in the works. Support Iota and David and stop with the fucking trolling. Personally I've seen business-interest first hand and it's going to snowball big time. People don't know shit about what's coming, it's not small time crypto interest, it's big corporate interest that not even Bitcoin has.
Troll, how is that?
Prove me and everyone else wrong. By the way I did buy some IOTA after the 20x price hike, so I'm technically an investor with an opinion on your project that I put money into.
Hey, i disagree with your statement here (no comments on any other), you are not investing anything into david or his team even when you've purchased x20 price hike.
You are an investor to yourself, as you hope it would go up in value.
For example, if you purchased a fine artwork worth x1000 times its original, does that mean you can have an opinion on the artist who originally created that artwork? In such a scenario you a no investor to the project.
at most you can try complain to the person that sold iota to you at that price but you should know the logical outcome if you were to do that.
In iota is kind of similar, they are providing a software originally for purchase not really for investment too. and now they have gone up in price because the market feels like its worth such a price.
I am just curious, if we are already in touch with some of them, why do we still need someone to make an intro?
or you meant to say "an intro to those we have not talked to yet" ?
I understand that "in touch" means "maintaining constant communication for certain purposes".
or you meant to say "an intro to those we have not talked to yet" ?
I understand that "in touch" means "maintaining constant communication for certain purposes".
Finally a useful forum member! We are already in touch with some of these companies, but if anyone happen to know someone in any of them it would be good to make an intro.
Intro to thoe we aren't already in touch with of course.
I am just curious, if we are already in touch with some of them, why do we still need someone to make an intro?
or you meant to say "an intro to those we have not talked to yet" ?
I understand that "in touch" means "maintaining constant communication for certain purposes".
or you meant to say "an intro to those we have not talked to yet" ?
I understand that "in touch" means "maintaining constant communication for certain purposes".
Finally a useful forum member! We are already in touch with some of these companies, but if anyone happen to know someone in any of them it would be good to make an intro.
Troll, how is that?
Prove me and everyone else wrong.
Prove me and everyone else wrong.
This won't work. Your post was trollish and I'm not going to do anything just to prove you something. Also you have no rights to speak from "everyone".
@LemonAndFriesOne, I removed your troll post.
Troll, how is that?
Prove me and everyone else wrong. By the way I did buy some IOTA after the 20x price hike, so I'm technically an investor with an opinion on your project that I put money into.
For the uninformed:
Quote
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.
You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.
Quote
Quote from: zanzibar on Today at 01:54:02 AM
Quote from: iotatoken on November 19, 2016, 11:02:45 PM
We have delivered the software with tons of additions on top of it, going way beyond our original sales agreement.
Wat?
Translation: This was as far as we expected our college project to go and we didn't make the truck loads of money we were hoping for, like other ICOs, so we're mad and saying it's everyone else's fault. Conclude cleaning hands.
You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.
Quote
Quote from: zanzibar on Today at 01:54:02 AM
Quote from: iotatoken on November 19, 2016, 11:02:45 PM
We have delivered the software with tons of additions on top of it, going way beyond our original sales agreement.
Wat?
Translation: This was as far as we expected our college project to go and we didn't make the truck loads of money we were hoping for, like other ICOs, so we're mad and saying it's everyone else's fault. Conclude cleaning hands.
Finally a useful forum member! We are already in touch with some of these companies, but if anyone happen to know someone in any of them it would be good to make an intro.
I'm not always here but I try to help when I can
sorry my English is bad
Jump to: