Although you repeat the first question twice, there are only 2 questions in your post. And, for this one time only, I am going to answer them one more time since they have been answered many times in this thread and others, including in the OP of THE WALL OF SHAME.
The repeated question was intentional. For emphasis. I'm not sure I am going to hold much relevance to the plugging of "THE WALL OF SHAME" though. I don't agree with several of the targets in that thread but that is a debate for a different time.
"How do you know?" you ask. I know because I have been witness to many ICOs, IPOs, etc. Most recently the gimmicky SEED (plenty of details on THE WALL OF SHAME) that in spite -or perhaps because of it- of offering 269% during it's first 7 days, and in spite of being fully sponsored and supported by the entire PINK dev team, only got a total of less than 7 BTC -most of it from those PINK devs-. Under more "normal" circumstances that ICO would have gotten several hundreds of dollars. But there are "new normal" circumstances, those produced by an unending burning of the investors and newbies by outright scams, one after another, on one side; on the other side, huge ICOs like Ethereum and SuperNET have drained all liquidity from the market. So, fact is, there's no money available.. This is also evident given the drastic reduction of all trading in Alts. Another even more clear example, is the ICO of BRO, which got less than 300 BTC in spite of a very solid plan backed by a dozen multimillonaire poker celebrities. Finally, BYTECENT, another one that under "normal" circumstances would have collected hundreds of BTC, only manage about 50 total.
I do recall stipulating that anecdotal experience was unacceptable as a response. That is what you have provided. Experience based on different people and different projects. I have no experience with SEED and only basic familiarity with PINK. Suffice to say, that is probably enough experience for me to conclude with reasonable confidence that they have nothing to do with David or Bay.
I won't completely disagree with your point on the low liquidity in alts due to major ICO's though. There has been plenty of money dropped into them and a lot of that money is tied up. However, I will disagree that such a distinction equates unequivocally to "So, fact is, there's no money available". That just isn't true. I know people with plenty of money/BTC who shined Ethereum and SuperNET. Even Blocknet. I even know some who shined on Bay. The fact of the matter is that while altcoin markets aren't liquidated with a ton of money (like we all had thought perhaps in March earlier this year) this is still the biggest open sourced R&D project in the world and there are eyes on it. Does that mean that scams will come along and take advantage? Sure. Does it mean that every project is here to take advantage? No.
Finally, I am not sure why you would bring up BYTECENT. Started by IE, there is a huge lack of confidence in the guy and the lack of ICO contribution likely worked to his advantage. The result was the establishment of 165,000 coins or so (right?) and if anyone can point a finger at a dev who would buy his own coin up and profit on a pump (which occurred almost immediately), that finger would almost likely be IE at least 60% of the time. There is no way that I will be convinced that IE is a more stout dev/community manager than David and Bitbay.
If those -and several other- projects failed so miserably, why on Earth would BAY different? Well it wasn't. It also failed miserably. It's simply that the Chinese connection (which has been around for a while and plotting such scam) thought they could fool what's left of the alt community. They sold, in fact, a very few hundred BTC of BAY and purchased themselves the rest, which is, as you should know and I have explained a few posts above, an instant humongous pre-mine. Furthermore, who do you think is selling the 10-20BTC they are selling daily way below the ICO price? You don't need to be a particulartly smart fellow to put together 2 and 2, do you? I mean the selling is relentless, since it started trading. You would understand some people selling ICO coins for 10-20-30% or more of the ICO price, that's logical, but for 10-20% UNDER? Just days after launch, when not even the wallet is out? You, yes even you, know way better than that. Even you can deduct that if you find a cigarrette butt lying on the floor, most likely it indicates that someone actually smoked there...
This is where I take issue with your reasoning. You provide three unrelated case samples and then blanket Bay with them. ICO's that didn't get enough money somehow prove that an ICO that did receive the funding is a scam. ICO's that did get enough funding prove that there is no money left so Bay must be a scam. You hedged your logic here and it doesn't work. You're also stating that they are definitively selling coins that they bought during the ICO for pure profit. But you provide no proof. It's an accusation, nothing more. It is completely reasonable to as well state that the drop in ICO price is due to natural market behavior - sellers panic when they encounter doubt of whatever form, sellers who intentionally drop the price in hopes to pick up more. The percentages expected from a seasoned trader on the latter example is in the low percentages so it is going to happen over a period of days to maximize gain.
The point is that there are other explanations that can be proffered to explain the market behavior of Bay once trading started. There were similar issues with Maid when their ICO ended - people were crying manipulation because of the MSC discount. That coin dropped under ICO price for months. Did that prevent Maid from continuing their development?
Funny story. Maid staff also purchased tokens during the ICO (David Irvine estimates an average of 6 BTC per staff member of which there were about 16 at the time). Does purchasing shares in your own company make for an obvious scam or manipulation? No. So I expect that some were bought by the Bay team. It is just as likely that they were betting on themselves as opposed to buying for market manipulation. In fact, I would consider the former more likely.
I am the flak who asks questions because I -and many others- are interested in the answers. You, obviously, aren't. You are just interested in joining a fray for the shake of it. Hey, there are a few like you so, nothing original. You butt in on an exchange between others for no apparent reason or interest, just because. But, since you ask, I am someone that probably has saved a lot of money to a lot of people by denouncing scams on THE WALL OF SHAME and several threads of THE CASE OF.... Most particularly -and related to the BAY case- in Blackcoin, which I denounced and demonstrated it was a scam when it was in the mid 40s. Those wise enough to have jumped them would have avoided the downside spiral that project has suffered all the way to the 7s and below. Whether they choose to post it or no, some of those are -or should be- grateful. No matter. It goes to CREDIBILITY. That's why, unlike you, I don't use or need to use sock puppets. That's why what you post lacks any gravitas and is mostly nonsense -in whichever puppet handle-.
I did butt in. This is a public forum and as such I felt that I wasn't being uninvited.
Here's the thing. I am interested in answers. I just don't expect them immediately and I don't demand them while hurling insults and accusations everywhere. Answers come with time and there are plenty of projects ongoing that have suffered a decrease in price despite the well intentions of the developers. That doesn't mean that it is a scam. That also doesn't mean that every new project is a scam. I would like to offer a different perspective. Perhaps all of your denouncements and warnings during BC/40's were an impetus for selloffs and those people should be cursing you rather than thanking you. Negative rhetoric, especially prolific negative rhetoric has a very real short term impact on the psyche than a dev stating that development is ongoing. Huge spikes are rare and if everyone is chasing them then it is easy to scare them when they don't happen. That is especially true in the crypto world precisely because many of the investors are new and not seasoned by wall street. Those who are seasoned know the right buttons to push.
There are very significant differences, you follow?
There are very significant differences. And that is precisely why I am not inclined to trust your perspective. You follow?
