Topic: When Bitcoin Maximalists are Promoting/Shilling an Altcoin - page 2. (Read 1154 times)

I don't see anything surprising here. I see this kind of hypocrisy every day and I'm used to it.

I didn't risk reading an article to avoid being frustrated again, but my guess here is in the article Lopp explains that he had a very good reason to start shilling for shitcoins.

On a different note tweet: he might be a shitcoin shiller, but how can you not love statements like this?
https://twitter.com/lopp/status/1300156269202993154

Jameson sorte a self defence blog post.
You can read it here:

 On Shitcoins and STOs

On a different note tweet: he might be a shitcoin shiller, but how can you not love statements like this?

A breakdown of different types of cryptographic tokens and the controversies generated by their proponents.

Most Bitcoin evangelists are small timers preaching to the choir. Bitcoin's greatest marketers are central bankers.

In retrospective, 99.9% of those news and ideas feel insignificant, and if truly big thing happens, I'll see them posted on this forum or on reddit. There's really not much going on in crypto, despite the fact that each news site makes a dozen of articles per day. Even the really big news from the past, like "China (un)bans Bitcoin" really didn't have that much effect on anything. And it's easy to waste so many time reading pointless discussions on twitter, and the only people who benefit from it all are influencers, aka shills.

I find crypto Twitter very useful myself. It's far better to have a self curated news source on there than any of the piece of shit news sites. You fairly rapidly learn who's a moron and who isn't and it's the information they come up with faster than anyone else that's interesting, not their opinions.

I'm so glad I unsubscribed from all of the crypto twitter a few years ago. Of course I never took any financial advice from it, but it's much healthier to not follow any celebrities in general, especially on social media platforms that don't promote quality discussion.

This article explain quite well what has happened.
With the above sentence I mean it explain quite well why they decided to issue a token, why it is different both from an ICO or from an equity offering:

Bitcoin Maximalists Get Dragged for INX Hypocrisy

Even if the title is quite promising, the article do not explain at all is why the hypocrisy. And then why the subsequent twitter shitstorm.
Thinking about the person involved in the newslet, it is not difficult to understand why.
Hypocrisy over hypocrisy.

there is a lesson to be learned here though. people should never trust anyone who is asking for money. whether it is obvious begging or elaborate begging also known as fundraising also known as ICO which has aliases such as STO, IEO, and nowadays DeFi.

That's what I'm saying, why do investors need a blockchain token for equity instead of the traditional approach? There's not much advantages but there are risks. If this method was clearly superior, you'd see a lot of big names doing this, but it has been 5 years since Ethereum launched and no big companies or traditional exchanges rushed to adopt it for their operations. And 5 years is a lot in tech, it's more than enough time to adopt new frameworks and protocols if they clearly have advantages.

I am really disappointed-- on the basis the content excerpted in this thread: https://twitter.com/francispouliot_/status/1298423415594840066

Long before cryptocurrency existed I was regularly asked by friends to help them understand investments, taxes, and finance stuff-- since I'm the sort of person that finds numbers and contract terms fun.  If cryptocurrency had never existed and a friend came to me asking about an investment with INX's terms I would strongly caution them away from it;  I might even say it smells like a scam.

-- because if it's a scam or not depends critically on unknowable post issuance management decisions: Do they actually pay out income or do they shovel all income back into operations and grow the company until they ultimately sell it out from under the token holders? AFAICT nothing about the terms suggests that they're particularly incentivized to ever pay the token holders even if their revenue becomes substantial, much less obligated.  I think at a minimum to be equitable there would need to be an option-like component to the terms which in the event that the company was sold token holders would receive a share of the companies' gain in value minus the dividends already paid out.  Otherwise, I think an argument can be made that the management is legally obligated to the shareholders to rip off the token holders in this manner.

Even with that I'd still probably caution against the investment due to how complex and unusual it is and the potential for gotchas.

The fact that it is issued on some cryptocurrency system just makes it a little less trustworthy (potential for technical snafu), taps into an established market of read-made victims, and imports a collection of people incentivized to pump a sketchy investment.  None of this helps but it is not the most fundamental issue.

Some people have pointed out that unlike many ICO's this one doesn't appear to be an outright scam.  I think it would be more accurate to say that it's not necessarily true that it is a scam, maybe it turns out to be one, maybe it doesn't.  Then again, if someone were making a really attractive offering in a market of scammy products you would expect them to put in a real effort to make it extremely clear that their investment isn't a bad one.  They haven't done that and I think that is a pretty bad sign.

So, sure, while they might meet a "not certainly a scam" bar, that is an extremely low bar and the fact people think this is noteworthy is really just an indictment of the ecosystem.

That well respected Bitcoiners are sticking their names on it-- for what sounds like more or less an immediate $250k payment-- is really disappointing to me.  If INX merely goes as poorly as explicitly permitted by the contracts their reputations should be justifiably trashed-- because it'll be impossible to tell if the holders weren't paid because the company tunnelled out real profits as payroll and other expenses vs just failed in the marketplace.  Considering the failure rate of businesses, even if all intentions are good, the odds of it going poorly can't be extremely low.

So to me that says that they assign a fairly low value to their reputations, or that they believe that it's likely that even if it fails and takes everyone's money they won't take a substantial reputational hit from it, or that they're being foolish and don't actually see what an inequitable setup the whole thing is.  I think the first two are likely and the last isn't likely. All of them are bad.

I don't know if other people have similar thoughts but this is my impression.

Jameson Lopp proclaimed himself a cypherpunk. It is a movement that has been advocating privacy and use of cryptography for years, it is on their ideas bitcoin is built, because it is based on cryptography and gives people a right "to selectively reveal oneself to the world." https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html

KYC is opposite to ideas of cypherpunks, because it doesn't allow you to selectively reveal yourself, to the contrary it forces you to reveal your identity completely in order to have a control over you.

Jameson Lopp, as a cypherpunk, was criticizing KYC when talked about DeFi and Libra:



However, when it comes to Bitcoin and his own benefit, he is no so categorical and instead pretty okay with KYC idea and idea of being tightly controlled.

Should we even care about this Twitter drama.Those "Bitcoin maximalists" can promote whatever shitcoin they want.This will most likely damage their credibility among their followers,but that's their own mistake and responsibility.Greed will ruin their life(and the life of all of us).I assume that they were paid(or bribed) to promote this token.I don't know how desperate for money they are,but this will ruin their social media presence.Anyway,that's not my problem.I don't use Twitter and I never will.

This article explain quite well what has happened.
With the above sentence I mean it explain quite well why they decided to issue a token, why it is different both from an ICO or from an equity offering:

Bitcoin Maximalists Get Dragged for INX Hypocrisy

Even if the title is quite promising, the article do not explain at all is why the hypocrisy. And then why the subsequent twitter shitstorm.
Thinking about the person involved in the newslet, it is not difficult to understand why.
Hypocrisy over hypocrisy.