|
Erelas
|
 |
March 06, 2018, 08:36:24 AM |
|
As some others have pointed out, a "Ponzi scheme", by definition, requires initial monetary investment, which is then used to pay the first investors, so those entering last are burned. No initial investment, other than a little typing was required. If you're going to call DO a scam, at least be more accurate.
There hasn't been a mandatory upgrade of the wallet in quite a long time. You may still compile the code from GitHub and have a working wallet. Later, non-mandatory, upgrades to the wallet, after the introduction of DeepVault are closed to review, however if you do not wish to use that proprietary DeepVault, then, yes, the code is open source. I think I've used DeepVault once, not a feature I really need, so, if I wanted to simply stake or hold Onion, I could use the open source, if I cared to compile it myself, from GitHub.
I dislike misinformation being spread, and I would like to know if anything I've typed is factually inaccurate. Once I investigate your claim, I'll happily correct myself. Now, just for arguments sake, making statements like, "I feel DO is a scam...." is not something I'd even entertain, your feelings have nothing to do with it, neither do mine. What I want to know is, can you compile a functional wallet from open source for DeepOnion? Yes, you can. Therefore it is effectively open source. Was a monetary fiat investment required to initially join the "modified airdrop"? No, there was not, I was here at the beginning. A minimum is required now, with, nine, I think, rounds left to go, so, break out your Funk and Wagnall's but that fails the definition of a "Ponzi scheme".
Closed versus open source and "Ponzi scheme" seem to be the arguments thrown around the most, and they appear invalid.
Seems like you made a valid point here. A Ponzi scheme doesn't require any monetary investment, it's a scheme whereby value is transferred to the creators of said scheme. When talking about ponzi's in crypto, it takes on a whole different meaning due to the natural creation process of crypto, being creating from mere code, essentially out of nothing, based only on trust. And to every person who's entering DeepOnion after their "17th airdrop" you've have entered into this ponzi scheme unknowingly (you have invested real money into it, or some serious hours of time), and you're actively marketing the coin to acquire more value to your investment, welcome to the free-coin-prymaid-scheme. The entire operation is Ingenious, and their marketing/community and coin all coupled together, is virtually unparalleled. But, the markets say otherwise, despite countless hours of marketing, the coin itself remains insignificant, with meager volumes and even a more meager mcap. This ultimately is the biggest tell in what people think about this coin. DeepOnion will not be the last coin to implement "The Onion scheme" in crypto, it's only the beginning. Consequences for these levels of corruption will be dealt down on the creators/team of DO, through government intervention or karma. There are countless stories to be told, by former individuals who've seen the insides of the entire process, and it isn't pretty. DO could of easily been one of the best coins to launch, but the morons behind the scene's lack all: vision, experience, knowledge and ultimately the ability to understand criticism/feedback. Does this resemble some process to you? Anybody who still doesn't get it after this explanation and all the other red flags that have been raised can't be helped. I'm definitely beyond hope then, lol, but I bet you figured that out already. For one, those numbers are inaccurate, and for another, "Ponzi", named after the first guy to start one, hasn't changed it's definition because crypto came around. What you call a Ponzi may be different than the literal textbook, as it is taught - because Ponzi is used as scholastic examples - but that does not magically make what you call a Ponzi to actually "be" a Ponzi scheme. YOu could get all philosophical aobut it I guess and try the "A rose by any other name" line, but, it still won't change what the legal definition, there actually is one, of a Ponzi scheme is. I simply intend to call a Ponzi a Ponzi, and some other kind of scam by the name that best fits it, and not make up a new definition for a well-established term. BTW, you make a good argument, and if that's your graphic, nice job, I'd merit your post if I still had any myself, even though I disagree with you, you still debate very well and that is "meritorious" in my opinion. |
