So you think that SEC option would be better? They will have no problems to prove that printed BLURT are unregistered securities
RE: Blurtbooster
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Blurtbooster
Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE BLURT!
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE BLURT!
There was no token sale, you were never solicited by anyone official, nor did you ever do due diligence or take the time to introduce yourself and have a meeting with us to find out what is what, you speculated, you found out after the fact the setup wasn't to your liking now you are pissed off.
Exactly, like ctime moron he "discovered" what happened to the stinc stake after he speculated without any due diligence.
look, I'm not a lawyer but if @mariuszkarowski sees any legal threats. You don't think it would be worth consulting a lawyer anyway. Harsh words were spoken here in relation to the threat legal route, there is a lot of acid. Nevertheless, would a legal audit of the situation not be indicated here in order to unequivocally close this dispute? If you have nothing to hide and everything is 100% okay, what's the problem?
I have the impression that you are assuming hostility in this guy just because you are afraid that with his stake he can take control of Blurt and you do not notice that if that was his and ctime's intention, he could have tried to do it a year ago.
I may be wrong, but observing the activity of Mariusz from Steem, I see simply the will to settle his investment on a project that at the same time meets his ideological assumptions, and is not a scam. And he will allow him to protect and multiply his money. The former Blurt apparently met the first assumptions, but with the infamous 07/07 case, there were concerns that he was dealing with a scam, which he is now trying to dispel.
In my opinion, if you dispel these doubts, the blurt can only benefit from his presence here.
Call to make an appointment for such an audit. Consult the appropriate specialists. instead of empty disputes there will be specifics to discuss and there will be no FUD.
We won’t be spending 20k or more in legal fees by selling a huge pile of Blurt to do a legal audit to satisfy Marius, he should have done that prior to investing, always play with money you can afford to lose, crypto is high risk, regulatory landscapes change all the time, one lawyer’s opinion might differ from others and from the courts, Blurt is a global blockchain with validators in many countries, which legal jurisdiction is relevant?
Blurt has been around for 2.5 years now, way longer than any pump and dump scheme, if he doesn’t trust Blurt Core or the witnesses by now there is no helping him.
Fyi it has come to my attention that ctime operates this gambling site https://kryptogamers.com/ and likely where his funds came from to buy his Blurt, I don’t see gaming licenses or jurisdictions listed, contact numbers or even email, probably not compliant in any way, interestimg how stringent compliance is requested of others when their own house isn’t in order.
There is also the risk of him currently pushing witnesses to the top20 that havent first had experience in the top50 and going into consensus without fully functioning nodes, I do not believe ctime has the necessary level of care for Blurt.
I sense hostility because he doesnt respect our property rights and at every which turn wants to disarm the foundation of its stake amd ability to protect the blockchain or fund any sort of development troubleshooting or support. They are coming after our stake not the other way around.
The morale damage done to my team and I from the subversions and reputation attacks are massive and have set back more than he knows in terms of developer enthisiasm and passion, if anything does go legal I would be very happy to counter sue for personal and team damages and reputational attacks, as well as dig deeper into ctimes gambling operation.
well, after all, you disregarded his property rights by threatening to freeze his account.
Check his profile from the beginning of your activity on Blurt. There are many testimonies of goodwill and willingness to take Blurt's price into space. The hostility begins right there, instead of dialogue and attempts to explain what these funds are. How do you see it and why do you think it should belong to you. There were threats of account blocking and attempts to discredit people who started asking questions or worried about the course of events.
Perhaps it was all an unfortunate coincidence and a series of bad decisions made under the influence of emotions, but the fact is that through these actions your team has earned a reputation for itself, which provoked these attacks.
Just like in your eyes, Mariusz unjustly attacks your team, destroys morale and scars FUD. So, in his eyes, those decisions made you untrustworthy. It also makes him drill deeper now and ask questions about every 0.001 Blurt he thinks have been redundant printed for any of your team members.
This is why I believe that even if it would require pretending a large amount of money for a lawyer, the benefits of the take of a move would far outweigh the losses.
First, there were image benefits. You would show that you are not afraid of an audit and that you want to play fair. It would certainly be a green light for other investors that you are taking this project seriously and that you are not carrying out any trick operations here.
Second, it would be a nod to the current major investors. A big breakthrough in this avalanche of endless accusations and doubts.
third, you would make sure for yourself whether the way you act is right. Many projects were run by people of good will who wanted to run everything legally, but legal omissions and savings on lawyers made them unknowingly exposed their projects to the attack of competition who used it by reporting them to the SEC or other relevant services.
Fourthly, I believe if you, Mariusz and Ctime find a common language, the potential profits from the Blurt project for everyone will be many times higher than the potential remuneration for the lawyer. Let's be honest, neither of you is a poor man, these are not amounts to jump over and I suspect that with a little communication and good will you would agree to share these costs amongst yourself.
Instead, do you prefer to judge each other's offenses and honor, and blurt, like many projects, will fail because of pride and hostility of people who wanted good for the project but were unable to find a common language?
Firstly the your timeline is all wrong, ctime and his camp were the first to start the fake stake narrative and making socially engineered moves to discredit the foundation as not being a foundation and making calls for the stake to be taken off our hands, threatening legal action, asking for a registered company to send legal correspondence etc.
Ctime and his supporters werent even on out radar before that. He was just pissed off he misunderstood that regent was something separate to the stake accounts and was waiting in anticipation for them to dissapear magically so he could have the majority vote on the chain.
My response was just that of freezing only, not taking away, not stealing, just giving notice to withdrawal and leave the community. It wouldnt even be possible for me to act alone, devs would have to be willing to code such an HF and witnesses would have to run it, this statement was made in private under severe stress caused by his maneouvers combined with those of Double-u and not something in my nature to due. sadly instead of trying to mediate and talk me down, fervi decided to go running to publish fud and drama which never would eventuate, causing community wide division. As you know I got out in front of this and fully disclosed my statement and recanted.
I think the notion of needing a legal opinion for a chain that sometimes only has $200 of trade volume on coingecko is a bit ridiculous. Also as I said which jurisdiction does it fall under would decide which law to apply? Ethereum was mentioned to now be potentially under SEC jurisdiction because a majority of controlling stake nodes were now concentrated under US ownership. Blurt has a diverse witness set so it is sovereign to itself and not under the jurisdiction of any particular place afaik.
Regarding founder stake, almost every chain has founder or team allocation, might be interesting if you can find some chains in the top 100 that don’t, I imagine most do, Cardano, Tron, Atom, Ethereum, Bitcoin, Osmosis, Juno are ones off the top of my head that do have founder allocation and almost every project on ethereum has team allocation. Serey has an over the top team allocation of like 80 percent of supply as far as I’m told, haven’t verified.
If Marius wants a legal opinion he is welcome to pay for one but as I said it is a waste of money as legal opinions differ and even more depending on client mandate. A lawyer that we hire would be bias to find reasons Blurt is compliant while a lawyer Marius hires would look for reasons it isnt.
There is for sure a common language, we all want to make money, i’ve said to ctime let us build in peace and work towards making him rich, his reply was only when the fake stake is gone will investors buy, but which investors, I dont know of any ready to buy, I also dont know of anyone outside ctimes circle who has a problem with the team having stake, it is standard practice as mentioned.
Right now the ctime camp is deterring all other users from investing due to uncertainties and fud and detering developers putting full effort due to always having to fight social battles and why bother spending time and costs building if ctime is setting up witnesses to block hardforks and progress as he did with the dao.
Real investors would perform due diligence before investing by meeting the team on video call. Asking questions and offering to bring their networks to help grow blurt, I can’t in good faith consider this group investors, but rather amateur speculators with lust for control.
Ten człowiek to wariat. Dyskusja z kimś kto oskarża innych o wyssane z palca bzdury to strata czasu
albo poprostu zbyt często nie wychodzi z domu. Jeśli chodiz o forka ze steema to z ekipą zrobił duzo to trzeba mu przyznać. Od kiedy odpaliłem witnessa to przeglądam gitlaba w wolnych chwilach i fakt faktem pracy z tym wszystkim nie było mało. Rozumię stanowisko że chce godnie dostać za to płacone dla siebie i sinnych developeróœ którzy pracują od poczatku przy tym. Ale jeśli traktuje ten projekt poważnie i chce sie naprawdę na nim wzbogacić to niemoże liczyć na to że robiąc przekręty drukując podwójne wynagrodzenia czy też szafując sobie drukarką do blurtów na swoją korzyść, przyciągnie inwestorów i sprawi że ten projekt stanie się czymś poważnym a jego aktywa zyskają prawdziwą sensowną wartośc. Jak się coś buduje to zawsze najpierw wsadza się masę tzw "wolontaryjnej" pracy która nazywamy inwestycją żeby potem zbierać kokosy.
Koleś z kolei w moim mniemaniu chciałby spijać owoce sukcesu juz teraz zanim ten sukces osiągnął. Albo spartolił sprawę na początku i zamiast się do tego przyznać poprawic i iść dalej to gra dobrą minę do złej gry bo liczy że jakoś się rozejdzie. Albo też od początku gra pod drukarkę. Chce się jaknajwięcje nachapać zeby na kolejnej górką wykręcić się jakoś i zniknąć z hajsem zostawiając wydymanych inwestorów.