I don't understand why people are trying to use the anonymous angle to attack him. As rpietila said, he's not asking to be the sole controller of all the superNET funds. And when you're involved in handling as much money as he does it makes perfect sense to want to protect yourself and your family.
Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 39. (Read 387526 times)
Hmm... that was interesting (as predicted / discussed earlier):
After careful deliberation, we have decided to not participate in the SuperNet ICO. I understand that a large community is excited about SuperNet, and since we were initially announced as the ICO host, I wanted to take a moment to explain how we came to arrive at this decision.
For the past couple of days, we’ve been in discussions with our attorneys about hosting the SuperNet ICO. As several community members pointed out in this very thread, the sale of SuperNet tokens could be interpreted as the sale of unregistered securities. Our attorneys came to the same conclusion and have since advised us against taking part in the SuperNet ICO for this reason.
Further, one of our ICO requirements is identity verification (https://www.poloniex.com/icoRequirements); this requirement exists to protect investors and to lend credibility to the ICO. Despite several attempts to convince James the importance of revealing his identity, we were ultimately unable to reach an agreement that satisfied both parties.
We needed time for due diligence, to carefully assess the legal implications of taking part in SuperNet, and also the time to set up our backend systems to support it. James was very eager to get this going, however, so he chose to go with another host before we could communicate to him our findings and final decision.
We have since communicated with James, and we wish him the best of luck.
For the past couple of days, we’ve been in discussions with our attorneys about hosting the SuperNet ICO. As several community members pointed out in this very thread, the sale of SuperNet tokens could be interpreted as the sale of unregistered securities. Our attorneys came to the same conclusion and have since advised us against taking part in the SuperNet ICO for this reason.
Further, one of our ICO requirements is identity verification (https://www.poloniex.com/icoRequirements); this requirement exists to protect investors and to lend credibility to the ICO. Despite several attempts to convince James the importance of revealing his identity, we were ultimately unable to reach an agreement that satisfied both parties.
We needed time for due diligence, to carefully assess the legal implications of taking part in SuperNet, and also the time to set up our backend systems to support it. James was very eager to get this going, however, so he chose to go with another host before we could communicate to him our findings and final decision.
We have since communicated with James, and we wish him the best of luck.
This worries me more. If he wanted to set up something legitimate, why doesn't he want to reveal his identity? Personally if I invested in this I would be more confident and less worried if I knew the identity of the man who set it up.
I believe he is worried about personal safety. I don't know what his plans are for crypto, but he has expressed a distrust for the powers that be... understandably so. we are not talking about opening a supermarket chain here, but rather revamping the financial industry. some may not like this
just a perspective...not right nor wrong
Issuing some form of securities to investors is a jurisdiction by jurisdiction issue.
If you own or live on an island in international waters, you can issue securities to whomever you like, you just can't promote them to countries that require you to get regulated in their jurisdiction before conducting financial promotions or accepting investment from their citizens.
If he doesn't live in the USA, Europe, or other countries that have tight regulatory controls on investment securities, he can put up a website that has terms and conditions stating people in xyz countries are not allowed to enter or participate.
Payment being in crypto, if he establishes a business plan and puts together some protections on the investors money, then investors that are not ruled out because of jurisdictional constraints can send crypto such as Darkcoin which provides privacy to investors from their transactions being recorded on a public ledger. Traffic analysis by marketing types can also be avoided by DRKs IP obfuscation. He then just has to ensure he records details and conducts transactions in accordance with local laws.
Darkcoin is being integrated with an open bazaar deployment, not sure of the details. This should have some form of reputation mechanisms.
Alternatively, why not use Kickstarter?
This is not advice or financial promotion. If you believe it is, then you should seek professional and legal advice before you act on any of the above.
Always do your homework before investing in anything https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/darkcoin-unofficial-strategic-development-of-ecash-579976
Hmm... that was interesting (as predicted / discussed earlier):
After careful deliberation, we have decided to not participate in the SuperNet ICO. I understand that a large community is excited about SuperNet, and since we were initially announced as the ICO host, I wanted to take a moment to explain how we came to arrive at this decision.
For the past couple of days, we’ve been in discussions with our attorneys about hosting the SuperNet ICO. As several community members pointed out in this very thread, the sale of SuperNet tokens could be interpreted as the sale of unregistered securities. Our attorneys came to the same conclusion and have since advised us against taking part in the SuperNet ICO for this reason.
Further, one of our ICO requirements is identity verification (https://www.poloniex.com/icoRequirements); this requirement exists to protect investors and to lend credibility to the ICO. Despite several attempts to convince James the importance of revealing his identity, we were ultimately unable to reach an agreement that satisfied both parties.
We needed time for due diligence, to carefully assess the legal implications of taking part in SuperNet, and also the time to set up our backend systems to support it. James was very eager to get this going, however, so he chose to go with another host before we could communicate to him our findings and final decision.
We have since communicated with James, and we wish him the best of luck.
For the past couple of days, we’ve been in discussions with our attorneys about hosting the SuperNet ICO. As several community members pointed out in this very thread, the sale of SuperNet tokens could be interpreted as the sale of unregistered securities. Our attorneys came to the same conclusion and have since advised us against taking part in the SuperNet ICO for this reason.
Further, one of our ICO requirements is identity verification (https://www.poloniex.com/icoRequirements); this requirement exists to protect investors and to lend credibility to the ICO. Despite several attempts to convince James the importance of revealing his identity, we were ultimately unable to reach an agreement that satisfied both parties.
We needed time for due diligence, to carefully assess the legal implications of taking part in SuperNet, and also the time to set up our backend systems to support it. James was very eager to get this going, however, so he chose to go with another host before we could communicate to him our findings and final decision.
We have since communicated with James, and we wish him the best of luck.
This worries me more. If he wanted to set up something legitimate, why doesn't he want to reveal his identity? Personally if I invested in this I would be more confident and less worried if I knew the identity of the man who set it up.
I believe he is worried about personal safety. I don't know what his plans are for crypto, but he has expressed a distrust for the powers that be... understandably so. we are not talking about opening a supermarket chain here, but rather revamping the financial industry. some may not like this
just a perspective...not right nor wrong
That's a fair point - I'd be more comfortable if he and others who've refused such verification came right out and said that. It does point to the need for another, perhaps more decentralised, solution for identity/reputation.
Where can I short dogecoin?
~980 BTC sold in the first 70 minutes of Supernet ICO on BTer. Not including NXT Asset Exchange volume
Busoni is raking in so much cash from trading/escrow fees lol
It's not on Poloniex.
Oh my mistake. Youre right.
To be fair, James understands this and has contacted reputable, public, community members as regards escrowing the whole thing.
People buying at the ICO hope to get not just some SuperNET tokens, but shares of a functioning enterprise, with solid software, that they can profit from. Escrows will not guarantee this.
I hoped that people had learned the lesson with Neo&Bee, but...
2000 BTC raised in less than 2 hours
everybody getting the official price
and some few lucky sellers making instant 2x to 5x
everybody getting the official price
and some few lucky sellers making instant 2x to 5x
~980 BTC sold in the first 70 minutes of Supernet ICO on BTer. Not including NXT Asset Exchange volume
Busoni is raking in so much cash from trading/escrow fees lol
It's not on Poloniex.
In a commercial exchange, the party that delivers first has the right to know the identity and past history of the other party. If someone asks you to pay upfront but refuses to identify himself, you should assume he is a scammer, and not have any business with him.
You are confusing "rights" with "right to negotiate". Either side can say no for many reasons.
To be fair, James understands this and has contacted reputable, public, community members as regards escrowing the whole thing.
Will you buy?No.
Further, one of our ICO requirements is identity verification (https://www.poloniex.com/icoRequirements); this requirement exists to protect investors and to lend credibility to the ICO. Despite several attempts to convince James the importance of revealing his identity, we were ultimately unable to reach an agreement that satisfied both parties.
In a commercial exchange, the party that delivers first has the right to know the identity and past history of the other party. If someone asks you to pay upfront but refuses to identify himself, you should assume he is a scammer, and not have any business with him.
You are confusing "rights" with "right to negotiate". Either side can say no for many reasons.
~980 BTC sold in the first 70 minutes of Supernet ICO on BTer. Not including NXT Asset Exchange volume
Busoni is raking in so much cash from trading/escrow fees lol
Further, one of our ICO requirements is identity verification (https://www.poloniex.com/icoRequirements); this requirement exists to protect investors and to lend credibility to the ICO. Despite several attempts to convince James the importance of revealing his identity, we were ultimately unable to reach an agreement that satisfied both parties.
In a commercial exchange, the party that delivers first has the right to know the identity and past history of the other party. If someone asks you to pay upfront but refuses to identify himself, you should assume he is a scammer, and not have any business with him.
To be fair, James understands this and has contacted reputable, public, community members as regards escrowing the whole thing.
~980 BTC sold in the first 70 minutes of Supernet ICO on BTer. Not including NXT Asset Exchange volume
Further, one of our ICO requirements is identity verification (https://www.poloniex.com/icoRequirements); this requirement exists to protect investors and to lend credibility to the ICO. Despite several attempts to convince James the importance of revealing his identity, we were ultimately unable to reach an agreement that satisfied both parties.
In a commercial exchange, the party that delivers first has the right to know the identity and past history of the other party. If someone asks you to pay upfront but refuses to identify himself, you should assume he is a scammer, and not have any business with him.
To be fair, James understands this and has contacted reputable, public, community members as regards escrowing the whole thing.
You should realize that some of the XMR holders are into anonymity before XMR or BCN even appeared on the scene
Your claim is too small. Some were into anonymity decades before Bitcoin appeared on the scene.
Hmm... that was interesting (as predicted / discussed earlier):
After careful deliberation, we have decided to not participate in the SuperNet ICO. I understand that a large community is excited about SuperNet, and since we were initially announced as the ICO host, I wanted to take a moment to explain how we came to arrive at this decision.
For the past couple of days, we’ve been in discussions with our attorneys about hosting the SuperNet ICO. As several community members pointed out in this very thread, the sale of SuperNet tokens could be interpreted as the sale of unregistered securities. Our attorneys came to the same conclusion and have since advised us against taking part in the SuperNet ICO for this reason.
Further, one of our ICO requirements is identity verification (https://www.poloniex.com/icoRequirements); this requirement exists to protect investors and to lend credibility to the ICO. Despite several attempts to convince James the importance of revealing his identity, we were ultimately unable to reach an agreement that satisfied both parties.
We needed time for due diligence, to carefully assess the legal implications of taking part in SuperNet, and also the time to set up our backend systems to support it. James was very eager to get this going, however, so he chose to go with another host before we could communicate to him our findings and final decision.
We have since communicated with James, and we wish him the best of luck.
For the past couple of days, we’ve been in discussions with our attorneys about hosting the SuperNet ICO. As several community members pointed out in this very thread, the sale of SuperNet tokens could be interpreted as the sale of unregistered securities. Our attorneys came to the same conclusion and have since advised us against taking part in the SuperNet ICO for this reason.
Further, one of our ICO requirements is identity verification (https://www.poloniex.com/icoRequirements); this requirement exists to protect investors and to lend credibility to the ICO. Despite several attempts to convince James the importance of revealing his identity, we were ultimately unable to reach an agreement that satisfied both parties.
We needed time for due diligence, to carefully assess the legal implications of taking part in SuperNet, and also the time to set up our backend systems to support it. James was very eager to get this going, however, so he chose to go with another host before we could communicate to him our findings and final decision.
We have since communicated with James, and we wish him the best of luck.
This worries me more. If he wanted to set up something legitimate, why doesn't he want to reveal his identity? Personally if I invested in this I would be more confident and less worried if I knew the identity of the man who set it up.
I believe he is worried about personal safety. I don't know what his plans are for crypto, but he has expressed a distrust for the powers that be... understandably so. we are not talking about opening a supermarket chain here, but rather revamping the financial industry. some may not like this
just a perspective...not right nor wrong
Further, one of our ICO requirements is identity verification (https://www.poloniex.com/icoRequirements); this requirement exists to protect investors and to lend credibility to the ICO. Despite several attempts to convince James the importance of revealing his identity, we were ultimately unable to reach an agreement that satisfied both parties.
In a commercial exchange, the party that delivers first has the right to know the identity and past history of the other party. If someone asks you to pay upfront but refuses to identify himself, you should assume he is a scammer, and not have any business with him.
Hmm... that was interesting (as predicted / discussed earlier):
After careful deliberation, we have decided to not participate in the SuperNet ICO. I understand that a large community is excited about SuperNet, and since we were initially announced as the ICO host, I wanted to take a moment to explain how we came to arrive at this decision.
For the past couple of days, we’ve been in discussions with our attorneys about hosting the SuperNet ICO. As several community members pointed out in this very thread, the sale of SuperNet tokens could be interpreted as the sale of unregistered securities. Our attorneys came to the same conclusion and have since advised us against taking part in the SuperNet ICO for this reason.
Further, one of our ICO requirements is identity verification (https://www.poloniex.com/icoRequirements); this requirement exists to protect investors and to lend credibility to the ICO. Despite several attempts to convince James the importance of revealing his identity, we were ultimately unable to reach an agreement that satisfied both parties.
We needed time for due diligence, to carefully assess the legal implications of taking part in SuperNet, and also the time to set up our backend systems to support it. James was very eager to get this going, however, so he chose to go with another host before we could communicate to him our findings and final decision.
We have since communicated with James, and we wish him the best of luck.
For the past couple of days, we’ve been in discussions with our attorneys about hosting the SuperNet ICO. As several community members pointed out in this very thread, the sale of SuperNet tokens could be interpreted as the sale of unregistered securities. Our attorneys came to the same conclusion and have since advised us against taking part in the SuperNet ICO for this reason.
Further, one of our ICO requirements is identity verification (https://www.poloniex.com/icoRequirements); this requirement exists to protect investors and to lend credibility to the ICO. Despite several attempts to convince James the importance of revealing his identity, we were ultimately unable to reach an agreement that satisfied both parties.
We needed time for due diligence, to carefully assess the legal implications of taking part in SuperNet, and also the time to set up our backend systems to support it. James was very eager to get this going, however, so he chose to go with another host before we could communicate to him our findings and final decision.
We have since communicated with James, and we wish him the best of luck.
This worries me more. If he wanted to set up something legitimate, why doesn't he want to reveal his identity? Personally if I invested in this I would be more confident and less worried if I knew the identity of the man who set it up.
To get a sense of whether SuperNet ICO is worth investing in, I've done a cursory search on Google for some of jl777's often-mentioned assets, including
PrivateBet: https://nxtforum.org/nxtventures/privatebet-fully-decentralized-peer-to-peer-betting/
multigateway: http://multigateway.org/ https://nxtforum.org/multigateway-jl777/mgw-assets-withdrawals-history/msg97324/#msg97324
InstantDEX: http://instantdex.org/wip/
to get a sense of his past performance prior to BTCD and the value of these assets he frequently mentions.
I cant seem to find much about any of this stuff on the web, including the NXT Forum.
Basic question is: exactly what has jl777 done - as in completed - besides his masterful stoking of BTCD's massive price rise?
At the very least, the question is whether this guy is spread thin and has fully finished anything he's started -- anything that stands as a significant innovation that's widely used? Assets that have value beyond their current market prices?
This thread seems more thoughtful, informed, level-headed and analytical than most, so I ask the question here.
PrivateBet: https://nxtforum.org/nxtventures/privatebet-fully-decentralized-peer-to-peer-betting/
multigateway: http://multigateway.org/ https://nxtforum.org/multigateway-jl777/mgw-assets-withdrawals-history/msg97324/#msg97324
InstantDEX: http://instantdex.org/wip/
to get a sense of his past performance prior to BTCD and the value of these assets he frequently mentions.
I cant seem to find much about any of this stuff on the web, including the NXT Forum.
Basic question is: exactly what has jl777 done - as in completed - besides his masterful stoking of BTCD's massive price rise?
At the very least, the question is whether this guy is spread thin and has fully finished anything he's started -- anything that stands as a significant innovation that's widely used? Assets that have value beyond their current market prices?
This thread seems more thoughtful, informed, level-headed and analytical than most, so I ask the question here.
he has completed Multigateway (MGW), a feature in the NXT platform
we will see what happens in the next month. people will either profit massively or lose everything. stay tuned...Teleport *should* be out soon
as for Supernet ICO...i am waiting. might throw in a BTC for fun, but it is a complete mess right now...
Hmm... that was interesting (as predicted / discussed earlier):
After careful deliberation, we have decided to not participate in the SuperNet ICO. I understand that a large community is excited about SuperNet, and since we were initially announced as the ICO host, I wanted to take a moment to explain how we came to arrive at this decision.
For the past couple of days, we’ve been in discussions with our attorneys about hosting the SuperNet ICO. As several community members pointed out in this very thread, the sale of SuperNet tokens could be interpreted as the sale of unregistered securities. Our attorneys came to the same conclusion and have since advised us against taking part in the SuperNet ICO for this reason.
Further, one of our ICO requirements is identity verification (https://www.poloniex.com/icoRequirements); this requirement exists to protect investors and to lend credibility to the ICO. Despite several attempts to convince James the importance of revealing his identity, we were ultimately unable to reach an agreement that satisfied both parties.
We needed time for due diligence, to carefully assess the legal implications of taking part in SuperNet, and also the time to set up our backend systems to support it. James was very eager to get this going, however, so he chose to go with another host before we could communicate to him our findings and final decision.
We have since communicated with James, and we wish him the best of luck.
For the past couple of days, we’ve been in discussions with our attorneys about hosting the SuperNet ICO. As several community members pointed out in this very thread, the sale of SuperNet tokens could be interpreted as the sale of unregistered securities. Our attorneys came to the same conclusion and have since advised us against taking part in the SuperNet ICO for this reason.
Further, one of our ICO requirements is identity verification (https://www.poloniex.com/icoRequirements); this requirement exists to protect investors and to lend credibility to the ICO. Despite several attempts to convince James the importance of revealing his identity, we were ultimately unable to reach an agreement that satisfied both parties.
We needed time for due diligence, to carefully assess the legal implications of taking part in SuperNet, and also the time to set up our backend systems to support it. James was very eager to get this going, however, so he chose to go with another host before we could communicate to him our findings and final decision.
We have since communicated with James, and we wish him the best of luck.
Bigger concern for me was the unwillingness to agree to POD, the question of whether this guy has stretched himself too thin and the lack of substance I'm finding (so far, early in research stage) on what he's actually completed/accomplished of value (beyond stoking market price rallies on BTCD and other assets).
Jump to: