You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: How to get your free BEOS
I look forward to reading more. The write ups I saw seemed pretty straight forward with evidence, not just FUD. Hearing the main charges were dropped certainly changes the story. Based on all the things I read and saw, I’d be quite surprised to find out the project was completely legitimate. I’m always keeping an open mind, so I look forward to hearing the whole story from your perspective.
Have you considered that there was going to be enormous political, and other, pressure brought to bear to halt the release of a financial system and uncensorceable distributed internet not under the control of entrenched regulators? Has the evidence that you say you saw in write ups been tested by you and/or courts for truthfulness? Even your using the word "evidence" rather than allegations is, in its own small way, adding to the enormous FUD that was brought to bear on the project.
I've been in the space for more than 5 and a half years. I've seen quite a few scams come and go. I've also seen my share of false accusations. And yes, I also appreciate how those trying to disrupt the current system will come under attack. When you've seen as many scams defended as I have (and the number of people hurt by them), then the skepticism has to go both ways. I came to my conclusions based on the posts I read and the responses to them I saw. The posts included facts and information, not just fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
allegations: a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.
evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
It would not be accurate for me to describe the things I read as without any proof at all. That said, it's also quite possible the evidence brought forth was either incorrect or inconclusive. I look forward to hearing more details from those closer to the story.
I also have been in the space for a long time - since well before the first alts came out - approaching 8 years now. I have not only seen many scams come and go, I have personally been burned by some of them. I have also seen good projects flounder because of unproven accusations.
Let's face it, Dan Larimer is still widely being accused of being a scammer. Plenty of accusations even of bitcoin being a scam are still floating around. Although it was an early technology and probably cannot scale or do what newer technologies can do that does not mean that it was or is a scam (that being said, there are many ways to use it in a scam).
And I have most definitely seen people (some of whom you probably will have heard of) make false accusations and spread innuendo to take out a competitor or for other reasons . Just because we are in crypto, it does not stand to reason that the human foibles in the legacy spaces have been left behind.
So what I think Stan has asked all along is that the presumption of innocence, unless allegations have been proved in court, apply equally for everyone. I think that is a reasonable request. This is important because even stipulated "facts" can fit into several different theories and it is up to a court to decide which fits the hypothesis best (beyond a reasonable doubt).
That's fair enough, but what about if those involved have criminal records (Rice is mentioned as being "on probation for felony theft and tampering with government records" in the SEC report)? At what point does previous behavior predict future behavior? Stan is telling me "the SEC dropped all charges", but this post from 10 days ago says Rice is facing 120 years in prison.
When they claim to have a trading AI that can distribute "daily profits," you're telling me your bullshit meter doesn't go through the roof? So many scams in this space have claimed this exact thing and fooled and harmed so many people. There is no magic trading AI bot that can guarantee profits and, according to point 5 in the SEC summary document, no FDIC-insured bank either. If someone who was convicted previously is caught in what looks like a lie, at what point should we drop the presumption of innocence?
I'm trying to find what's real here. We all have to take responsibility for protecting this industry or the government thugs will try to justify their own violence and destructive regulation as a way to "protect us from ourselves." We have to be responsible to ask tough questions and not promote things which have a high potential to harm people.
If AriseBank is really what they claim to be, that would be amazing and I would love to see them provide services outside of the existing Central Banking cartel. Based on what I've seen from them and the way they've responded to criticisms, I'm not convinced they are trustworthy at this point. Again though, I'm keeping an open mind.
Check this out and read between the lines
https://steemit.com/bitshares/@stan/dallas-returns-who-framed-jr
I'm not trying to spread FUD because I'm bored. I'm trying to have a serious discussion about all of us in this industry regulating ourselves and protecting people from fraud. I won't repeat my reply to @onceuponatime here, but you can read it yourself.
My intention is not to attack you. My intention is to understand what is real and what is bogus and better understand the level of due diligence you personally do before promoting something. It seems to me, if AriseBank didn't lie, they certainly made some outrageous claims and stretched the truth to a worrying degree (API integrations are not partnerships, there is no way to guarantee daily profits via an AI trading bot, the SEC claims they had no FDIC cover ever, etc, etc).
My understanding of your principles indicates we're on the same page as to not wanting government involved in regulating any of this. That means we all have to take responsibility for regulating ourselves, disclosing our own involvement in projects, and addressing valid concerns openly without hostility.
If you read the ACTUAL evidence in PACER for the SEC case, rather than the news media drivel, you would never have even went down this line of questioning with the assumptions you have. Because, the real evidence introduced into court refutes nearly every media article and FUD that was passed around here and propogated by BTS community members.
If you have more complete information, can you please provide some links? I linked to a document from the SEC website itself. Why discourage me asking questions about things that don’t add up? As a community we have to self regulate. Please don’t assume what I would or would not have done based on the sources I’ve researched since Arise first came on the scene that you don’t know about. The promises made from day one didn’t seem plausible to me. I will not put my support behind anything which bends the truth or lies. Again, if there’s a better understanding of reality, please provide it so I can be better informed. If what Arise is doing really does follow through on the claims made and really can be an alternative to the corrupt violent legacy system, then I want to support it. That’s why I even care about this while many others have just moved on and written it off as a scam never to be heard of again.
This article is a bit old so I may only be journaling to myself., but I wanted to chime in here with support for Luke's line of questioning.
It is so difficult to discern truth from lies in this world, to drill down into the info available to get to the bedrock one can base reliable conclusions on. Keeping an open mind and using the Socratic method of questioning is the best way I know of to separate fact from fiction and promotion rhetoric.
Luke's last request for links and more info is very reasonable, so why no reply?
People seem to be so easily triggered these days, including myself at times. It takes introspection to know oneself well enough to recognize our own emotional traps and hard work and persistence to overcome them.
What I don't question is the integrity of Micheal, Stan or Onceuponatime. All of us are early adopters and believers in the potential of blockchain technology. However, our passion can cloud our rational perspective. We become emotionally attached to certain people, and the methods to manifest their ideals.
I was quietly cheering Jared and the words of defiance he often used, tho I felt his brash style was unwise in certain contexts. It lacked diplomacy and was unnecessarily provocative. On the one hand I was inwardly cheering, on the other I was skeptical and waited to see if he may have had a plan and strategy I couldn't see. Similar to the way Trump supporters "believe" he has a plan, tho they cringe at his tweets.
My attitude changed to be more favorable towards Jared as he started to roll out elements of dWeb. They were tangible, and I saw significant progress was being made on each preview release of the tools and infrastructure he was making available. Not enough to warrant a monetary investment, but enough to spend more of a far more valuable asset - my time. I wondered how Jared could spend so much time writing those lengthy messages in Telegram and still crank out these dWeb tools.
When it came to a screeching halt and allegations of no backups, no plan in place to deal with his incarceration, no eminent deployment surfaced, doubts began to creep in about how viable the project was.
Someone very actively involved with Jared in the project stated the issue wasn't a matter of no backups, but rather the FBI confiscation made backups irrelevant, as the seizure included the rights to the IP. My gut reaction to that was what bunk! How could there be a claim of IP? That didn't make sense to me, unless, Jared was forced to sign something that bestowed his IP rights away, but even then it would have been under duress and legally not binding (in a rightful court, but we haven't had those for quite some time). Why would some coerced claim to IP keep its' advocates from deploying it anyway? Let it leak out. That should have been the contingency in place from the start. OK, sure, as the code is rapidly developed the latest version might not make it out, but to loose the entire effort? It just adds up to more questions.
Like you Luke, I will keep an open mind and not presume there aren't good answers to these questions or that Jared is trying to deceive anyone. I recently submitted a statement of support for Jared, in that I felt a strong affinity and sense of inspiration from his defiant attitude.
I also agree with you wrt self policing. Overcoming those who use psychopathic tools of deception to manipulate and twist perceptions to get their agendas pushed forward takes a solid (and proven IMO) due diligence process. Watch the documentary I am Fishead if you doubt that. Effective due diligence is costly and takes time, time few are willing to invest in this face paced blockchain tech field. I've seen several cases where the process proved to be inadequate, and it has become a repeating pattern. I could name explicit examples, and I have in the past, but it doesn't help.
I am very skeptical any foundation or body of people in this space can effectively circumvent the tactics of such evil people when they are so skillful at taking advantage of other's willingness to presume everyone has good intentions until proven otherwise. Unfortunately the otherwise proof is exposed too late. I have come to believe that it's extremely rare to find someone that can't be swayed to acquiesce and compromise their position for the right price, which is not always monetary.
Can we learn from past mistakes or do we just plow forward and "hope" for the best?
We all like to follow the leader. It's part of our primitive, tribalistic nature. It can turn off the rational part of our brain. Even if we really like the way someone thinks and what they do, we have to be careful to never give a pass when it comes to logic.
If there's threat of confiscation, work in open source. Problem solved. If doing so would be seen as threatening potential profits if a competitor forked the code and did it better, well then we start to see some real motivations after all.