You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: INSIDER ADDRESSES THE EOS CONTROVERSY, STEEMIT & A WORLD OF CRYPTO
I call BS. They have already admitted they have enough funding. Blockone and Dan don't need any more money to make EOS happen. No one doubts that Dan has the ability and will make EOS happen. And comparing the way Ethereum did it is false. Ethereum sold a coin on their own blockchain. Blockone is selling a token, not on their own blockchain, but on the Ethereum blockchain. Why? Because they want ETH for themselves.
What does it matter how much they "need"?
When building something u always take risk and encounter costs outside of your plans. You need as much as thrle free market will give u to build!
*Blockone is selling a token, not on their own blockchain, but on the Ethereum blockchain. *
That is an interesting point, true. Has @dan or anyone else involved in the project come out to say why they're doing it that way? Alternatively, has Vitalik or anyone on the Ethereum team come out to accuse them of wanting ETH for themselves?
This isn't an ICO for EOS - they are selling a product. They do have enough funding, anyone putting in is buying a product, not part of a ICO raise for funds...
It's not very clear, ICOs are for developers who need funding not for companies who want to make profits. If they want to make profits then it should be called a sale, not an ICO.
"We" never called it an ICO. We have consistently called it a token distribution. We have always called it revenue.
The community projects their own (intentional?) missunderstanding in spite of our efforts to correct the terminology.
You said It's not an ICO about 500 times on telegram :)
I tried to make that clear as well. I stated that there is a product (the platform) being sold.
If they want to make profits then it should be called a sale, not an ICO.
Well, the ICO craze of 2017 has kind of blurred the lines there ...
@michaelx: Hi, could you make a statement about your company remittio.com? I wrote a post about it here