Nobody cares how much effort they put in if it walks like a scam and quacks like a scam. You’d have to be nuts to trust anybody in the crypto space.
Why stop developing while it’s still producing revenue? With >51% of the supply, they can leech off any remaining suckers indefinitely. The price of Nano relative to Bitcoin has done exactly what one should expect. It would need to have been done correctly to begin with and can’t now be un-fucked.
That’s where our perceptions differ. There’d be zero need to continue development, if scamming was the goal.
The revenue could be had without additonal effort.
How is done correctly?
How would it have been done correctly a decade ago in your opinion?
All distribution schemes I know or can think of (shy of using people’s biometric data to stop them from getting more than their fair share) is at risk of being expoited by in-groups - see the fortune of Satoshi.
Nobody cares how much effort they put in if it walks like a scam and quacks like a scam. You’d have to be nuts to trust anybody in the crypto space.
Why stop developing while it’s still producing revenue? With >51% of the supply, they can leech off any remaining suckers indefinitely. The price of Nano relative to Bitcoin has done exactly what one should expect. It would need to have been done correctly to begin with and can’t now be un-fucked.
That’s where our perceptions differ. There’d be zero need to continue development, if scamming was the goal.
The revenue could be had without additonal effort.
How is done correctly?
How would it have been done correctly a decade ago in your opinion?
All distribution schemes I know or can think of (shy of using people’s biometric data to stop them from getting more than their fair share) is at risk of being expoited by in-groups - see the fortune of Satoshi.
Doing it correctly requires a cost that can be verified by outside observers.