But it was threatened you can’t just keep threatening things then taking threats away and that being all ok. I mean that’s gas lighting to a point when someone keeps on threatening things but then not going through with it. It’s not just ok to do that. It’s pushed off all the major investors and curators as it is. Is this a statement that we will never have MD threatening to randomly freeze accounts without some kind of community consensus again? I mean can we have an official statement about account freezing going forwards cause the last official statement was suggesting accounts would be frozen. I think this needs a clear concise official post owning the mistakes , appolgising or at least taking responsibility of a bad and rash decision and outlining exactly what the platform represents going forwards. Threatening to freeze accounts and just last minute changing their mind after the price has already plummeted by about 50 percent isn’t cool if that continues to happen multiple times. Do we have some reassurance this just won’t happen again? Can we have some kind of ownership of mistakes here as an official statement. It’s not ok for someone to continually just threaten things then go oh haha it’s not happening after the price has just been ripped in half with peoples hard earned investments.
RE: End these freeze rumors right now! 🍡 Beendet endlich diese Einfriergerüchte! ENG/GER
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
End these freeze rumors right now! 🍡 Beendet endlich diese Einfriergerüchte! ENG/GER
You have my bloody word on it! If that isn't enough for you, well I can't change it... Maybe an official statement will come, in the meantime you'll have to make do with my promise...
EDIT: I am not your enemy and I am not against you!
I want the exact same thing as you here!
I absolutely know your not an enemy I know your a good person and want the best for us all. I know you are doing what you feel you have to do right now and have your own method and Plan of how to achieve things you believe are right. If there is a foundation though they need to pull together and discuss things and listen to the people who disagree before making statements. If people only surround themselves with yes people you will get this exact thing every single time where they all agree then present it to the public and the public goes mad. I’m willing to bet deep down several witnesses knew threatening to freeze accounts was a terrible idea but didn’t feel safe to heavily disgeee or there was no democratic vote before such a post was made. All officIal statements and most certainly threats to do something major like this reallt should be pre voted on and official the same with any retractions right now it’s a complete jumble with Jacob and megadrive posting completely different things. Maybe they have no power and we need to realise that. I’m honestly not sure.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. Especially come next month.
"Maybe they have no power and we need to realise that. I’m honestly not sure."
But as you said it does not make the gaslighting right either. On a social network tied to investment we all have to be introspective of how our voice contributes or takes away from that. Perhaps this is another reason for the push on higher fees. Trust me I am wrapping my head around all of it too and enjoy the discourse here to play it out. Sadly it had to happen with a lot of bloodshed though.
Absolutely and I am the same. I definitely don’t know everything about the technicality of graphene chains and nor do a lot of bloggers so it’s easy for us to believe when the confounder says accounts he chooses will be frozen / out on a coal list that that means he has the capacity to freeze accounts. If that’s not the case then there needs to be some other messaging so we have more understanding of what the co founders can and can’t do going forwards. I just feel there is no clear messaging at all that comes from a unified front lately and very little involving the community in decision making till it is too late. Even the co founders are making posts that are totally different from one another and people wonder why rumours fly round no one has any idea what to believe tbh I know I don’t.
Yeah I very much understand that.
Fact is: I am not a yes sayer! Never was! BUT! I have to be softer and more diplomatic, otherwise I will reach nothing!
People can still have a strong opinion and be diplomatic I feel @practicalthought is someone who is very good at that. He doesn’t shy away from having strong opinions on things he just has a less comabtitive approach on the way he types and tries to see things from multiple perspectives l. One day I’ll be like that haha
...he isn't a witness...
I mean that’s a scary answer lol
Your telling me you can’t even be like practical thought and be a witness? That’s some scary stuff cause he’s the most neutral, balanced person I’ve seen consistently posting on Blockchain social. I seriously give up.
When I am a blogger here on my own, I can rant all day long (not that practical rants - just an example), when I am a witness, I am part of a team... That personal ranting is over... period!
This I agree with. But being part of a team involves team decision making. I hope that’s happening.
That was just an idea, even though agreed,we delayed on that idea thinking we might have better option.
This is just because people here sometimes get crazy when In anger or fear.
But things can be sorted out after discussion.
And those investors who actually care for blurt will come back, don't worry.
There are always passengers in a train on journey, new ones come and old ones leave. Only the ones who love the journey stays
They shouldn’t have to keep coming back. This is the problem you can’t just threaten the major investors or coal lists then laugh about it and say just joking after. That’s gas lighting. How about just consider more what you are posting when it’s an official statement and involve the community far more in advance rather than having to back track when you see how unpopular it is to threaten the major investors or put people on lists etc. This is the third time in a few months major investors have been threatened only for it to be taken back or later people to say we won’t do this. Do you realise how bad this looks and how much people lose trust in this place when it’s constanty back and forwards with threats? It’s not ok to just continually threaten ppl then laugh and say oh they will just come back. It’s super unprofessional.
I tried, but i see your fear. The ones you saying major investors are the ones who caused the issue at start
They were in power, they were earning. But then people started earning, same ways they do, they then started abusing those people using that. And to that i mean VTS, those all who were against are the ones who used VTS to get a big stake.
Not even that, they were the ones who first threaten and abused users to go away.
They were the ones mistreating community.
And if you still cry for their investment, i feel like no one can save community. They will keep building their stakes and keep abusing the power and rule.
It does not necessarily make one investor good,just for their stake of money.
Probably my last comment to you. I don't feel wasting any more time explaining this to you all who think we threatened the investors
Then write a code to stop vts it’s elt that simple don’t single handedly push off the big investors by continually making empty threats then changing your mind. Code is law not you. That’s really the whole point of blockchain no?
Vts are not bad, but how people use that. And that's what happens when.you try to explain things, people miss main issue like you did now.
Go read it again
If vts is something legal and able to be done on the site then they have every right to do it. If you don’t like it remove the ability to use vts. You have people in your core team like opidia who pretty much 100’percent upvote is that rly any different?
Self votes are not crime, you can also do that.
Opidia is not a core team member
But vts is not a crime? Honesty I f people don’t like vts why don’t they change the coding? Or make some actual rules around it. I personally don’t mind at all certain rules in place to make a site better but they have to be listed upfront so there is a clear understanding of what is breaking them. It seems like vts is ok but people don’t like it when people make over a certain amount doing it? Have I understood that right?
You are not getting my point.
Vts is not a crime, but if you build up stake with VTS and then someone.trying to do same.
You start to say we do not use VTS. VTS are bad,
I mean one should not say this, but this happened. All users who used Vts themselves startes treating other people like criminals.
In the end its all about money.
But people can say whatever they like really and if vts is a thing that’s allowed on the chain they can even use it and speak bad about it. That’s their prerogative on a free speech site which, blurt claims to be.
I’ve acrually myself supported the notion of getting rid of vts or making it less favourable but that would be through code or site rules clearly laid out in advance. I absolutely do not support just randomly deciding to freeze certain accounts because of things that are infact legal and considered ok according to site rules. Then taking it back two days later upon seeing how unpopular it is. There are much better ways to go about trying to change the tactics of big investors and I personally believe using code and technology is the way that doesn’t involve personal opinion and emotions getting the better of people. My personal stance is I am ok with site rules clearly laid out I just don’t like making up the rules as people go along based on the personal opinion of 2/3 people.
Yepp right, sorry I missed this from you.