3 ms·

> Seems to be going great for Stripe [0] and Moneygram [1] and FIDE Online Arena [2], but obviously crypto-skeptics and crypto-maximalists will not tell you tha

> Seems to be going great for Stripe [0] and Moneygram [1] and FIDE Online Arena [2], but obviously crypto-skeptics and crypto-maximalists will not tell you that. It must be going disastrously when your 3 examples of things going grate are a start of a pilot project, an announcement of a project and what seems to amount to a sponsorship deal. And you wonder why people don't speak more widely about it.

rvz 4y ago
So those 3 projects I linked to have all been scrapped, abandoned or cancelled?, which would qualify your claim as what you described as 'going disastrously' assuming you have read the whole article and its links then? Can you at least backup your claims on them 'going disastrously' and being cancelled, scrapped or abandoned rather than making very unsubstantiated and baseless claims? Since I have already backed up my claims with links that these projects are still alive? > And you wonder why people don't speak more widely about it. Or is it because these companies know that the ones they selected are suitable for their use cases and are compliant with regulations and are not part of this extreme 'all cryptocurrencies is scam, ponzi, planet incinerating' narrative that these 'technologists' are pushing?
- Kbelicius 4y ago
  > Since I have already backed up my claims with links that these projects are still alive? No you did not. You provided a link to a closed pilot project that started a month ago, technically not alive and no way for you to know if it is going great. A link to an announcement of starting a project in the future, so not alive and no way for you to know that it is going great. Finally you provided a link to a "project" that amounts to nothing more than a sponsorship deal.
  - rvz 4y ago
    Yes I have. There is a problem with your goal-post moving, dodging questions and continuous denial as an attempt to escape my questions. > You provided a link to a closed pilot project that started a month ago, technically not alive and no way for you to know if it is going great. So "technically" it is not cancelled, scrapped or abandoned then and the project is still alive. Yes or No? Where is this 'disaster' you are speaking of since they are still launching it? It seems you have admitted that it is still alive and going great by attempting to deny and shift the goal posts! > A link to an announcement of starting a project in the future, so not alive and no way for you to know that it is going great. In that link as of today, who is the partner that is using this crypto payouts product right now? Has that one been cancelled too? > Finally you provided a link to a "project" that amounts to nothing more than a sponsorship deal. And since then somehow they didn't use it and it was cancelled or abandoned, therefore a 'disaster' and they are not using it? My suspicions suggest that you read as far as the headline. So not only you have just admitted that you're yet to read them, none of your responses are a refutation to my claims as you continue to dodge the fact that these projects are still alive and once again unable to give a single link to backup your own so-called claims of all of them going 'disastrously'.

rvz 4y ago

So those 3 projects I linked to have all been scrapped, abandoned or cancelled?, which would qualify your claim as what you described as 'going disastrously' assuming you have read the whole article and its links then? Can you at least backup your claims on them 'going disastrously' and being cancelled, scrapped or abandoned rather than making very unsubstantiated and baseless claims? Since I have already backed up my claims with links that these projects are still alive? > And you wonder why people don't speak more widely about it. Or is it because these companies know that the ones they selected are suitable for their use cases and are compliant with regulations and are not part of this extreme 'all cryptocurrencies is scam, ponzi, planet incinerating' narrative that these 'technologists' are pushing?

Kbelicius 4y ago
> Since I have already backed up my claims with links that these projects are still alive? No you did not. You provided a link to a closed pilot project that started a month ago, technically not alive and no way for you to know if it is going great. A link to an announcement of starting a project in the future, so not alive and no way for you to know that it is going great. Finally you provided a link to a "project" that amounts to nothing more than a sponsorship deal.
- rvz 4y ago
  Yes I have. There is a problem with your goal-post moving, dodging questions and continuous denial as an attempt to escape my questions. > You provided a link to a closed pilot project that started a month ago, technically not alive and no way for you to know if it is going great. So "technically" it is not cancelled, scrapped or abandoned then and the project is still alive. Yes or No? Where is this 'disaster' you are speaking of since they are still launching it? It seems you have admitted that it is still alive and going great by attempting to deny and shift the goal posts! > A link to an announcement of starting a project in the future, so not alive and no way for you to know that it is going great. In that link as of today, who is the partner that is using this crypto payouts product right now? Has that one been cancelled too? > Finally you provided a link to a "project" that amounts to nothing more than a sponsorship deal. And since then somehow they didn't use it and it was cancelled or abandoned, therefore a 'disaster' and they are not using it? My suspicions suggest that you read as far as the headline. So not only you have just admitted that you're yet to read them, none of your responses are a refutation to my claims as you continue to dodge the fact that these projects are still alive and once again unable to give a single link to backup your own so-called claims of all of them going 'disastrously'.