The LTB Network Forum

Let's Talk about Factom's Repeated Lies and "mistakes" - per cryptonaught's request

Back to General

Comments

• Phoenix

  

  Offline
  Posts: 32

  @foodtaster: If you take a deeper look into this thread, you'll find a repeating pattern.

  For example:

  Everytime somebody posted facts, there was either no reply or some useless strategies to hide the lack of arguments and facts. Most of the time in combination with accusations or gloomy predictions like "you'll see....this will be embarrasing!"

  Often there were also some intimations that there is much more, a little bit like your "Here is just ONE example." ...

  ...which actually means something like "I show you just one, but there are SO MANY OTHERS!", right?

  I can't remember just one real discussion about all the points of the "timeline" or just about Honduras etc.

  And now you showed up with something that was actually the same when I look to the "what". It was kinda new regarding the "how" - a little bit more cautious. But one post with facts was enough to lead you to a reaction that's the same pattern like it was all the time since this thread was started.

  And you've found this thread and this forum just today and that's why you wasn't here to make your points earlier, right? And did you talk about it earlier in the official BCT-Thread? I mean, you have serious concerns and it would be totally understandable to discuss this direct with the Factom-team and months ago, right?

  I'm asking, because my impression is, that there are not that much people who were concerned about the article about Honduras. I did not find big discussions about that... there were mainly two guys with this and one other thread in this Forum.

  I'm not sure if I need to be more concrete... But if you are one of the 16-years-old, maybe the famous cousin - than I have to apologize.

  Posted on November 17, 2015 at 8:16 AM
  Last Edited: November 17, 2015 at 8:17 AM
  Permalink
  0 likes
• PaulSnow

  

  Offline
  Posts: 30

  Closer scrutiny about his wording reveals that it may be even less than that. It is completely undeniable that this played a large role in motivating investors to get on board with the project, and to attract media attention. To portray the refusal of posting a retraction as "a reporting mishap" is dishonest to say the least, especially since this "whoopsie" has the potential to raise millions of dollars from thin air.

  Close attention to your source would demonstrate that I have never at any point refused to discuss the state of our negotiations. What I refused to do is make a statement that the project has been rejected.... Because it has not.

  I've been involved with government contracts many times before. As have many investors. Key words and phrases are critical. Like "contract has been awarded" is one, which appears nowhere in articles about Factom and Honduras. And we would never use such a phrase without a contract.

  Prototype does not equate to a project.

  Delays do not equate to rejection.

  Discussion of Use Cases does not equate to false advertising.

  The early investors in Factom are far more discerning than you appear to be, and understand both the risk/reward of investing in potential markets vs investing in existing markets. You seem to blame us for your inability to distinguish the actual content of stories from the emotional appeal of the message. I do think land titles is an exciting potential for our tech, as these sources convey. It is also still in a highly "potential" phase, as they also clearly convey, if you actually focus on what facts these sources actually detail.

  I hope this helps.

  Posted on November 17, 2015 at 8:44 AM
  Last Edited: November 17, 2015 at 11:42 AM
  Permalink
  1 like
• foodtaster

  

  Offline
  Posts: 8

  Now if you could post that in a place where more than a select few can read it, preferably in an official capacity, that would be splendid.

  Posted on November 17, 2015 at 9:35 AM
  Permalink
  0 likes
• PaulSnow

  

  Offline
  Posts: 30

  @foodtaster Now if you could post that in a place where more than a select few can read it, preferably in an official capacity, that would be splendid.

  This complaint has been tweeted and posted by Chris and Joshua all over the place using Twitter, Reddit, and other channels. And the reason it doesn't get traction is that anyone who cares to read their actual complaint comes away with a "meh" and most, and "Holy crap." by some (see @mdw early on in this thread).

  Maybe some like you come away convinced. Surprises me, but I don't know how to address that.

  Since the story stands as is, both parties in this negotiation would rather focus on working towards a project rather than fine tune a media message that is largely out of our control anyway. Getting the project to the next step will do more to resolve and justify the coverage than anything else we can do.

  On the other hand, we are just as frank with investors that we talk to as we are here in this small forum. Heck, we are more frank and open (because we have more time and bandwidth and address anything they ask).

  Posted on November 17, 2015 at 9:59 AM
  Permalink
  0 likes
• foodtaster

  

  Offline
  Posts: 8

  Glad to hear that at least two members of your Factom team, Chris and Joshua are bringing attention to this issue.

  Why are you personally reluctant to make a public statement to clear up, what in your words is a misunderstanding? Is throwing your hands in the air and saying it's too late now the full extent of your professional response? Would you be willing to go on public record with that? Genuinely curious.

  Posted on November 17, 2015 at 10:11 AM
  Last Edited: November 17, 2015 at 10:13 AM
  Permalink
  0 likes
• brighton36

  

  Offline
  Posts: 66
  Location: Miami, FL

  RE: we are just as frank with investors that we talk to as we are here in this small forum

  hahahahahaahahaha

  Posted on November 17, 2015 at 10:13 AM
  Last Edited: November 17, 2015 at 10:13 AM
  Permalink
  0 likes
• PaulSnow

  

  Offline
  Posts: 30

  @foodtaster Glad to hear that at least two members of your Factom team, Chris and Joshua are bringing attention to this issue.

  Why are you personally reluctant to make a public statement to clear up, what in your words is a misunderstanding?

  I cannot help people who cannot read and understand text. We never announced a contract. So there is nothing material to clear up.

  Is throwing your hands in the air and saying it's too late now the full extent of your professional response? Would you be willindg to go on public record with that? Genuinely curious.

  I will go on record saying that people that read into articles and press releases content that is provably not there do not require a formal response from me. If you can locate a statement we made that is factually incorrect, we will absolutely retract it.

  As always, I will informally answer questions and provide clarity to anyone that asks.

  Posted on November 17, 2015 at 11:17 AM
  Permalink
  0 likes
• Cryptonaut

  

  Offline
  Posts: 1944
  Location: Canada

  @junseth keep it on topic, this thread is about factom specifically. I'm done with your trolling, any off topic posts will be buried.

  Posted on November 17, 2015 at 12:01 PM
  Permalink
  0 likes
• junseth

  

  Offline
  Posts: 57
  Location: Florida

  Oh, interesting. Did you just delete a post you didn't like that I did @cryptonaut and @adam?

  Posted on November 17, 2015 at 12:08 PM
  Permalink
  0 likes
• Cryptonaut

  

  Offline
  Posts: 1944
  Location: Canada

  It's called moderation, your posts had nothing to do with this thread. Call it censorship if you want, I really don't care at this point. This isn't bitcointalk.org

  Posted on November 17, 2015 at 12:10 PM
  Permalink
  1 like

Post Reply