Jorge, thought you were a bit smarter than that; indeed, smarter than to get lured into this mess.
Any 'altruism' you see here is nothing more than an attempt to spruik other goods and services: there is far too much fog to see anything clearly, don't go swinging punches, you don't know who you'll hit.
Any 'altruism' you see here is nothing more than an attempt to spruik other goods and services: there is far too much fog to see anything clearly, don't go swinging punches, you don't know who you'll hit.
Well, this story seems a repeat of MtGOX in a sense: long after it was obvious like the sun that the company was insolvent, there were still those who furiously insisted that everything was basically OK, the problems were small and would soon be over.
For me it is obvious that not only Neo&Bee is as dead as a Norwegian parrot, but that from the start it was guaranteed to fail. Worse: its non-viability should have been obvious to would-be investors who read the prospectus with critical care. The "profit-only shares", for example, were almost guaranteed to be a 100% loss even if the company succeeded and made a raw profit for the first two years. Is there any room for doubt about this?
That being so, why should one "stay away from this mess"? Public interest requires that the truth about this case be found and widely published, with all the relevant details. The bitcoin community should have that position too. Media exposure of this case will surely harm the image of bitcoin, but any attempt to minimize or hush it up will do even more harm, not only to the image of bitcoin but to that of the community as well.
It may well be that those who are pointing out Danny's sins here are no better than him, and are motivated by greed rather than public interest. If that is the case, their turn will eventually come up. But obviously it was not their posts that caused the N&B collapse.
