5 ms·

I knew Mohland and the DogeTipbot project pretty well. He did have a few employees mostly working in customer support. He was a stand-up guy and a strong advoc

I knew Mohland and the DogeTipbot project pretty well. He did have a few employees mostly working in customer support. He was a stand-up guy and a strong advocate for the Dogecoin community. People are talking about the fact that he liquidated the assets from user wallets as a malicious action, and while I agree it was a terrible choice, I see it more as a bad decision. Backed into a corner he tried to leverage a businesses asset holdings to keep it a float in time to recover. Depending on your jurisdiction this is something banks do all the time as part of your balance is not liquid and invested elsewhere. The issue here is his business didn't recover and wasn't ever going to. Last I heard Josh's plan was to keep the main part of the bot free and charge for websites and streamers to accept tips from the Dogecoin community. He wasn't an idiot like this article tries to portray. There was a reason he was keeping the consumer end of things free. But, the micropayment landscape had more competitive options than a niche currency. All in all its sad to see the business fail but this was poor business choices, not maliciousness nor stupidity like the article tries to claim.

antisthenes 9y ago
I think the bigger issue is that you're calling it a business. It's not a business, it was a hobby/bot/side project whatever you want to call it (I'm still not quite sure what it does and don't really want to delve so far into the depths of stupidity to understand it) and it never made any money. > He wasn't an idiot like this article tries to portray. He wasn't an idiot for making poor decisions. Everyone makes poor decisions. But he was an idiot for thinking this could ever be a business (and staking apparently his personal savings and credit cards on it). Let's not tip-toe around the issue. Calling someone an idiot isn't as big a deal as you think it is. We all had some wishful thoughts at one point or another. This is just a cautionary tale of a guy who spent too much money on a hobby.
FussyZeus 9y ago
> Backed into a corner he tried to leverage a businesses asset holdings to keep it a float in time to recover. Depending on your jurisdiction this is something banks do all the time as part of your balance is not liquid and invested elsewhere. Except banks are insured in case shit goes south and the depositors get their money back. This is why I don't touch the "coins" with a ten foot pole. Yes fiat currency is also made up nonsense, but it's made up nonsense backed by nations, not some guy in a trailer in Nevada.
- woah 9y ago
  Over 8 years, with billions of dollars at stake, it has been proven that proof of work cryptocurrencies can only be compromised under a few very well defined scenarios (51% attack). What happened here was simple theft. People sent Mohland money, he said he would hold onto it for them, and then he stole it. I assume you also don't trust any other form of money, because it can also be embezzled in that way.
  - FussyZeus 9y ago
    And how many fiat currencies have had large scale markets like Mt. Gox just practically vanish overnight? How many bankers liquidated the entire assets of a bank's deposits to attempt to save the business? That straight up does not happen in the Real World.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
reverend_gonzo 9y ago
For what its worth, customers' fund are not "business assets". He had no legal right to spend that money. Now, he may have thought he could use it to float some funds, and put them back, and no one would be any wiser, but that's definitely illegal. He may not be a bad person, and he may not be an idiot in the larger scheme of things, but this was an idiotic move, and a terrible (and unethical) decision, that may very well have legal repercussions.
- toyg 9y ago
  > He had no legal right to spend that money. But that's not real money. All the protections and rights of legal money do not necessarily apply to cryptocurrencies, bitcoin being the sole cryptocurrency with a degree of legal respectability. This bot was more like a club where people tipped in to play a game together. It can be argued that it's like you chipped in to buy donuts for your local club to play "pass the donut", and the club later sold the donuts to stay open. The service was free so it's hard to find a breach of contract anywhere, especially if the company went bankrupt. Such is the joy of "privatized money".
  - reverend_gonzo 9y ago
    Regardless of whether or not it is money, one thing is for sure, and that is, it is property. The donut analogy doesn't work, because in your case, you are donating donuts to the club. This is more like you lend a TV to the club, with the caveat that you still own it, and can take it back at any time. The club decides to pawn in, thinking it will just buy it back when it has money again, and you won't have any idea. But then it can't, and it sold property that wasn't its to sell in the first place.
- JustAnotherPat 9y ago
  He didn't spend anybody's money. He spent their dogecoin which is a bunch of made up gibberish.
  - ifdefdebug 9y ago
    FWIW, he had no right to spend his customer's made up gibberish either.
tootie 9y ago
> He was a stand-up guy I think the facts of the case would imply he really isn't. Sounds like he had good intentions and no deliberate malice, but he did something bad anyway.
- philh 9y ago
  Another interpretation is: Someone can be "a stand-up guy" and still fuck up this badly. More generally, at some point you might find yourself thinking: that would be an obviously unethical and stupid thing to do, and this person is a stand-up guy, so he won't do it. What this case suggests is that that's not enough. (AdamSC1, I'm curious. Suppose it was a couple months ago, or before you heard that this was happening. If you'd been asked then, whether Mohland would ever do the thing that he has since done, what do you think you would have said?)
  - AdamSC1 9y ago
    I'd have said not a chance. I dealt with him a great deal in a previous business, he is an individual who is absolutely reputable. The kind of person where had he asked to borrow a decent sum of money, I'd have probably wired it to him without much of a second thought. Further more, I know how much he loved this business and the Dogecoin community. From what I had heard, of his talks with investors and even the bank he used for the business, his top priority was always his users. That's why, while it is shocking that he did this, I know it wasn't from malice. I was a part of the Dogecoin community early on, and was a moderator of their sub-Reddit. I've helped organize with the fundraisers for sending the Jamaican Bobsled team to Sochi, and sponsoring a NASCAR driver, I even hosted a ridiculous art contest for the community. Unlike other cryptocurrencies, Dogecoin wasn't about being a financial investment, it was a community. It was about being part of something bigger than yourself, and doing something positive in a world that is sometimes pretty shitty. When you consider that Mohland dedicated his life to that community and his work on the DogeTipBot, I have no doubt that it became a part of his identity. He didn't want to let people down, and that's not surprising. People make these mistakes all the time. Ask any father who tries to buy nice things for his kids while he is barely making ends meat. He'll stack on credit card debt, while forcing a smile to his wife and kids at dinner time because he doesn't want to let anyone down. It sounds like Mohland was in the same boat. He thought he could pull through with something risky, but it didn't work, and when you are deep in on a gamble like there is this part of you that snaps and just keeps doubling-up because you are so afraid of what happens if it all comes crashing down. It's probably been 2-3 years since I was last in touch with Mohland, but even after this I'd stand by the statement he IS a reputable man, he just made a mistake trying to save something he loved. I think this sentiment is echo'd most clearly in the messages of support, and not anger, that he received from the Dogecoin community. The same people who lost their money were posting requests to try and help keep DogeTipBot financially a float, and Mohland has outlined a payment plan to pay off everyone's debts over time and is allowing that process to be mediated by Dogecoin's creator. In life we make mistakes, but that doesn't define the character of a man; their character is what is defined in the moments after.
hsod 9y ago
I don't see how this is defensible at all. It's both malicious and stupid, along with being a poor business choice. He gambled away money that wasn't his (betting on his own company), and concealed it from the people the money belonged to, then told them they were SOL. He's basically a micro-Madoff. It's not nobler because he used the funds to "keep the business afloat"-- that was for his own benefit. Presumably, a good chunk of that money was spent on his personal living expenses. A stand-up guy wouldn't do this.

antisthenes 9y ago

I think the bigger issue is that you're calling it a business. It's not a business, it was a hobby/bot/side project whatever you want to call it (I'm still not quite sure what it does and don't really want to delve so far into the depths of stupidity to understand it) and it never made any money. > He wasn't an idiot like this article tries to portray. He wasn't an idiot for making poor decisions. Everyone makes poor decisions. But he was an idiot for thinking this could ever be a business (and staking apparently his personal savings and credit cards on it). Let's not tip-toe around the issue. Calling someone an idiot isn't as big a deal as you think it is. We all had some wishful thoughts at one point or another. This is just a cautionary tale of a guy who spent too much money on a hobby.

FussyZeus 9y ago

> Backed into a corner he tried to leverage a businesses asset holdings to keep it a float in time to recover. Depending on your jurisdiction this is something banks do all the time as part of your balance is not liquid and invested elsewhere. Except banks are insured in case shit goes south and the depositors get their money back. This is why I don't touch the "coins" with a ten foot pole. Yes fiat currency is also made up nonsense, but it's made up nonsense backed by nations, not some guy in a trailer in Nevada.

woah 9y ago
Over 8 years, with billions of dollars at stake, it has been proven that proof of work cryptocurrencies can only be compromised under a few very well defined scenarios (51% attack). What happened here was simple theft. People sent Mohland money, he said he would hold onto it for them, and then he stole it. I assume you also don't trust any other form of money, because it can also be embezzled in that way.
- FussyZeus 9y ago
  And how many fiat currencies have had large scale markets like Mt. Gox just practically vanish overnight? How many bankers liquidated the entire assets of a bank's deposits to attempt to save the business? That straight up does not happen in the Real World.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

reverend_gonzo 9y ago

For what its worth, customers' fund are not "business assets". He had no legal right to spend that money. Now, he may have thought he could use it to float some funds, and put them back, and no one would be any wiser, but that's definitely illegal. He may not be a bad person, and he may not be an idiot in the larger scheme of things, but this was an idiotic move, and a terrible (and unethical) decision, that may very well have legal repercussions.

toyg 9y ago
> He had no legal right to spend that money. But that's not real money. All the protections and rights of legal money do not necessarily apply to cryptocurrencies, bitcoin being the sole cryptocurrency with a degree of legal respectability. This bot was more like a club where people tipped in to play a game together. It can be argued that it's like you chipped in to buy donuts for your local club to play "pass the donut", and the club later sold the donuts to stay open. The service was free so it's hard to find a breach of contract anywhere, especially if the company went bankrupt. Such is the joy of "privatized money".
- reverend_gonzo 9y ago
  Regardless of whether or not it is money, one thing is for sure, and that is, it is property. The donut analogy doesn't work, because in your case, you are donating donuts to the club. This is more like you lend a TV to the club, with the caveat that you still own it, and can take it back at any time. The club decides to pawn in, thinking it will just buy it back when it has money again, and you won't have any idea. But then it can't, and it sold property that wasn't its to sell in the first place.
JustAnotherPat 9y ago
He didn't spend anybody's money. He spent their dogecoin which is a bunch of made up gibberish.
- ifdefdebug 9y ago
  FWIW, he had no right to spend his customer's made up gibberish either.

tootie 9y ago

> He was a stand-up guy I think the facts of the case would imply he really isn't. Sounds like he had good intentions and no deliberate malice, but he did something bad anyway.

philh 9y ago
Another interpretation is: Someone can be "a stand-up guy" and still fuck up this badly. More generally, at some point you might find yourself thinking: that would be an obviously unethical and stupid thing to do, and this person is a stand-up guy, so he won't do it. What this case suggests is that that's not enough. (AdamSC1, I'm curious. Suppose it was a couple months ago, or before you heard that this was happening. If you'd been asked then, whether Mohland would ever do the thing that he has since done, what do you think you would have said?)
- AdamSC1 9y ago
  I'd have said not a chance. I dealt with him a great deal in a previous business, he is an individual who is absolutely reputable. The kind of person where had he asked to borrow a decent sum of money, I'd have probably wired it to him without much of a second thought. Further more, I know how much he loved this business and the Dogecoin community. From what I had heard, of his talks with investors and even the bank he used for the business, his top priority was always his users. That's why, while it is shocking that he did this, I know it wasn't from malice. I was a part of the Dogecoin community early on, and was a moderator of their sub-Reddit. I've helped organize with the fundraisers for sending the Jamaican Bobsled team to Sochi, and sponsoring a NASCAR driver, I even hosted a ridiculous art contest for the community. Unlike other cryptocurrencies, Dogecoin wasn't about being a financial investment, it was a community. It was about being part of something bigger than yourself, and doing something positive in a world that is sometimes pretty shitty. When you consider that Mohland dedicated his life to that community and his work on the DogeTipBot, I have no doubt that it became a part of his identity. He didn't want to let people down, and that's not surprising. People make these mistakes all the time. Ask any father who tries to buy nice things for his kids while he is barely making ends meat. He'll stack on credit card debt, while forcing a smile to his wife and kids at dinner time because he doesn't want to let anyone down. It sounds like Mohland was in the same boat. He thought he could pull through with something risky, but it didn't work, and when you are deep in on a gamble like there is this part of you that snaps and just keeps doubling-up because you are so afraid of what happens if it all comes crashing down. It's probably been 2-3 years since I was last in touch with Mohland, but even after this I'd stand by the statement he IS a reputable man, he just made a mistake trying to save something he loved. I think this sentiment is echo'd most clearly in the messages of support, and not anger, that he received from the Dogecoin community. The same people who lost their money were posting requests to try and help keep DogeTipBot financially a float, and Mohland has outlined a payment plan to pay off everyone's debts over time and is allowing that process to be mediated by Dogecoin's creator. In life we make mistakes, but that doesn't define the character of a man; their character is what is defined in the moments after.

hsod 9y ago

I don't see how this is defensible at all. It's both malicious and stupid, along with being a poor business choice. He gambled away money that wasn't his (betting on his own company), and concealed it from the people the money belonged to, then told them they were SOL. He's basically a micro-Madoff. It's not nobler because he used the funds to "keep the business afloat"-- that was for his own benefit. Presumably, a good chunk of that money was spent on his personal living expenses. A stand-up guy wouldn't do this.