5 ms·

I'm baffled how people assume this is monetization. Signal has been a nonprofit for years and has no money issues: https://signalfoundation.org https://signalf

by vitno 6y ago

I'm baffled how people assume this is monetization. Signal has been a nonprofit for years and has no money issues: https://signalfoundation.org https://signalfoundation.org. The organization has no formal ties to the alt-coin, although Moxie does. It doesn't monetize the Signal foundation. I'm very unhappy with this, but it's not a monetization scheme.

helen___keller 6y ago
> Signal has been a nonprofit for years and has no money issues: https://signalfoundation.org https://signalfoundation.org. The organization has no formal ties to the alt-coin, although Moxie does. It doesn't monetize the Signal foundation. Even worse, in my opinion. If a nonprofit running a useful encrypted app was trying to fund itself by shilling some altcoin, I wouldn't be happy but I would be understanding. If the lead of the project is inserting the altcoin for personal enrichment at the cost of the nonprofit and the useful project, that's pure and simple corruption. As far as I can tell, no good is coming of this (I mean, unless you're interested in actually using Mobilecoin, of course. Personally I have no interest in doing so, and if my Signal contacts wanted to send me money I'd say to use Venmo instead).
verytrivial 6y ago
> The organization has no formal ties to the alt-coin, although Moxie does. I've tried to rephrase this few times, because it seems too obvious to state, but isn't it a bad thing that a technical "lead" on an app is very likely going to personally benefit from some other technology being shoe-horned into that app? It's his (and the Foundation's) baby, so he of course can, but I can't help but feel like this unholy but super convenient marriage will harm the reputation of Signal and MobileCoin. They could both sink or swim based upon the perception of the other. Sorry if this is obvious. It feels like I'm taking crazy pills.
- vitno 6y ago
  It's absolutely absurd. I'd almost be more OK with it if it was a monetization scheme _for Signal_, this seems blatantly corrupt as I understand it.
marcusverus 6y ago
So, signal is all about privacy, but when they chose a cryptocurrency, they didn't chose based on privacy. If privacy was the point, why not choose Monero, a mainstream coin which already has a reputation for privacy? So, if privacy wasn't their main concern in choosing a cryptocurrency, it's perfectly reasonable to wonder what was their main concern. And given that MOB's only unique characteristic (as far as I can tell) is the deep pockets of their foundation (because they allegedly own ~85% of MOB tokens, worth Billions), it's not much of a stretch to assume that those deep pockets are the reason that MOB was selected. For a crass comparison, let's say you've got a friend named Bob. Bob likes blondes. He loves 'em. He's always talking about how he loves the blondes and could never be with a brunette or a redhead. One day you bump into Bob, and he tells you that he has just married a bald chick, who just happens to be very wealthy. How strange, that this guy, who always harped on this one feature, suddenly made a decision that was not based on that feature at all! Clearly, some other feature was the driver of his decision. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that Bob is a gold digger. But wouldn't you wonder?
- timbit42 6y ago
  What makes you think MobileCoin is not based on privacy? It uses tech from both Monero and Zcash, two privacy cryptocurrencies.
dbrgn 6y ago
MobileCoin was advised by Moxie, Signal integrates MobileCoin and the footer at https://www.mobilecoin.com/ https://www.mobilecoin.com/ states "MobileCoin uses and recommends Signal Private Messenger". There certainly seems to be a link, and I would be hugely surprised if the Signal foundation doesn't have some stake in these MOB tokens.
KingOfCoders 6y ago
"I'm very unhappy with this, but it's not a monetization scheme." It's not for Signal, it's a monetization scheme for Moxie.
jeltz 6y ago
Indeed, it is not monetization it is corruption and embezzlement. Moxie uses his role in a foundation to make himself and his buddies rich.

by vitno 6y ago

helen___keller 6y ago

> Signal has been a nonprofit for years and has no money issues: https://signalfoundation.org https://signalfoundation.org. The organization has no formal ties to the alt-coin, although Moxie does. It doesn't monetize the Signal foundation. Even worse, in my opinion. If a nonprofit running a useful encrypted app was trying to fund itself by shilling some altcoin, I wouldn't be happy but I would be understanding. If the lead of the project is inserting the altcoin for personal enrichment at the cost of the nonprofit and the useful project, that's pure and simple corruption. As far as I can tell, no good is coming of this (I mean, unless you're interested in actually using Mobilecoin, of course. Personally I have no interest in doing so, and if my Signal contacts wanted to send me money I'd say to use Venmo instead).

verytrivial 6y ago

> The organization has no formal ties to the alt-coin, although Moxie does. I've tried to rephrase this few times, because it seems too obvious to state, but isn't it a bad thing that a technical "lead" on an app is very likely going to personally benefit from some other technology being shoe-horned into that app? It's his (and the Foundation's) baby, so he of course can, but I can't help but feel like this unholy but super convenient marriage will harm the reputation of Signal and MobileCoin. They could both sink or swim based upon the perception of the other. Sorry if this is obvious. It feels like I'm taking crazy pills.

vitno 6y ago
It's absolutely absurd. I'd almost be more OK with it if it was a monetization scheme _for Signal_, this seems blatantly corrupt as I understand it.

marcusverus 6y ago

So, signal is all about privacy, but when they chose a cryptocurrency, they didn't chose based on privacy. If privacy was the point, why not choose Monero, a mainstream coin which already has a reputation for privacy? So, if privacy wasn't their main concern in choosing a cryptocurrency, it's perfectly reasonable to wonder what was their main concern. And given that MOB's only unique characteristic (as far as I can tell) is the deep pockets of their foundation (because they allegedly own ~85% of MOB tokens, worth Billions), it's not much of a stretch to assume that those deep pockets are the reason that MOB was selected. For a crass comparison, let's say you've got a friend named Bob. Bob likes blondes. He loves 'em. He's always talking about how he loves the blondes and could never be with a brunette or a redhead. One day you bump into Bob, and he tells you that he has just married a bald chick, who just happens to be very wealthy. How strange, that this guy, who always harped on this one feature, suddenly made a decision that was not based on that feature at all! Clearly, some other feature was the driver of his decision. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that Bob is a gold digger. But wouldn't you wonder?

timbit42 6y ago
What makes you think MobileCoin is not based on privacy? It uses tech from both Monero and Zcash, two privacy cryptocurrencies.

dbrgn 6y ago

MobileCoin was advised by Moxie, Signal integrates MobileCoin and the footer at https://www.mobilecoin.com/ https://www.mobilecoin.com/ states "MobileCoin uses and recommends Signal Private Messenger". There certainly seems to be a link, and I would be hugely surprised if the Signal foundation doesn't have some stake in these MOB tokens.

KingOfCoders 6y ago

"I'm very unhappy with this, but it's not a monetization scheme." It's not for Signal, it's a monetization scheme for Moxie.

jeltz 6y ago

Indeed, it is not monetization it is corruption and embezzlement. Moxie uses his role in a foundation to make himself and his buddies rich.