3 ms·

And you think thats what I just did here? Describing why the categorization is wrong to you is a symptom of victim blaming? My point stands that the community

And you think thats what I just did here? Describing why the categorization is wrong to you is a symptom of victim blaming? My point stands that the community can do what the team did but fail to take further risk or organize. They disperse just like the issuer did, when in fact they do all have agency and can fill the vacuum. unless the token was backdoored, then we can call it a scam.

mraudiobook_com 5y ago
How do you reply to a comment so fast. Is there a way to get notified if your comment gets replied to?
pjc50 5y ago
If the original team made promises with no intention of fulfilling them, and didn't, it's a scam. If on the other hand the community could do the same thing .. why did they need to pay the organizers (and their premine) in the first place?
- vmception 5y ago
  team allocations aren't always the case. if chainanalysis is looking at the rug pulls that I'm talking about, then much of the time there was no upfront capital to the team with a separate premined allocation. many issuers are currently putting all the tokens created directly into a liquidity pool paired against capital they already had, bots and individuals buy into the liquidity pool and receive the new token, pushing up the price in the process, and then the issuer unbundles the liquidity pool, leaving no pool, (while acquiring the liquid capital added to the pool by purchases. AMMs function by then having less of the issuer's tokens and more of the tokens that were used to purchase the issuer's token) these are colloquially called rug pulls, because the liquidity pool was the rug. these happen so fast these days. These things can play out completely within 20 minutes, as bots and individuals are scanning the blockchain mempool for erc20 token creation transactions and liquidity pool creation transactions, just to get into a potential big project before anyone else. here, the traders are at no disadvantage to the issuer, from a community perspective, to continue the project and attempt making their investment valuable, specifically by adding to a liquidity pool themselves. again, my main point is that things that are very common are not being distinguished from whatever you or others want to argue about. its an article about this year, not 2017, not 2018, or some other year dominated by an antiquated style of ICOs. there is something to debate, but the vocabulary itself doesn't allow it, perpetuated by an organization that gets no benefit from distinguishing as all they want is technology contracts from governments.

mraudiobook_com 5y ago

How do you reply to a comment so fast. Is there a way to get notified if your comment gets replied to?

pjc50 5y ago

If the original team made promises with no intention of fulfilling them, and didn't, it's a scam. If on the other hand the community could do the same thing .. why did they need to pay the organizers (and their premine) in the first place?

vmception 5y ago
team allocations aren't always the case. if chainanalysis is looking at the rug pulls that I'm talking about, then much of the time there was no upfront capital to the team with a separate premined allocation. many issuers are currently putting all the tokens created directly into a liquidity pool paired against capital they already had, bots and individuals buy into the liquidity pool and receive the new token, pushing up the price in the process, and then the issuer unbundles the liquidity pool, leaving no pool, (while acquiring the liquid capital added to the pool by purchases. AMMs function by then having less of the issuer's tokens and more of the tokens that were used to purchase the issuer's token) these are colloquially called rug pulls, because the liquidity pool was the rug. these happen so fast these days. These things can play out completely within 20 minutes, as bots and individuals are scanning the blockchain mempool for erc20 token creation transactions and liquidity pool creation transactions, just to get into a potential big project before anyone else. here, the traders are at no disadvantage to the issuer, from a community perspective, to continue the project and attempt making their investment valuable, specifically by adding to a liquidity pool themselves. again, my main point is that things that are very common are not being distinguished from whatever you or others want to argue about. its an article about this year, not 2017, not 2018, or some other year dominated by an antiquated style of ICOs. there is something to debate, but the vocabulary itself doesn't allow it, perpetuated by an organization that gets no benefit from distinguishing as all they want is technology contracts from governments.