@paulsnow @Adam, @brighton36, @junseth
Here are 6 simple questions:
1) You cite Factom's talking about developing solutions for Land Titles for countries, and assert we were discussing the Honduras project, even though we do not mention Honduras. What exactly is the ethical problem with discussing use cases that a startup is working to address?
2) Provide one statement about land titles and/or the Honduras project made by Factom that was a lie. An actual quote please.
3) You claim we withheld information about Epigraph's role in the Honduras project in order to mislead investors. Were they not given credit in the very first announcement?
4) We used Koinify to run the token sale, and third parties to assess the development milestones that we must reach to unlock the funds raised by the token sale. Why do you neglect details about the Factom token sale that were designed to avoid the risk of people buying tokens for a protocol that was not delivered?
5) Factom has delivered the protocol, which is now running. There are 10,000+ anchors in the Bitcoin blockchain. Isn't an operational protocol some indication of performance for those supporting Factom?
6) The funds raised by Factom have been fairly modest. But we do have a team of developers, and we do our work in Github. Do you have any reason to believe that the funds raised by Factom are not being used to develop the project as it has been defined by our White Paper, the Consensus Paper, and the Factom Data Structure Details document?
@brighton36 - Please respond to all of Pauls points.
