The use or words like "fairly" and "public sale" and "entity" are the problem here.
Whats "fair" to someone on the inside may not be fair to someone on the outside.
If the insiders is a group of maybe 50 entities of which 99% are not active - it is unfair to those continuously active now.
Was bitcoin early distribution fair ? As only those on the mailing list knew about it.
It was definitely public though.
Desos first 6m were definitely not public.
A "public" sale isnt really public when it relies on word of mouth and a password protected website.
An "entity" is not really the same as an address. It is correct that no single address holds more then 5% - but there is no way to know if anyone person or organisation holds multiple addresses.
There is also the whole thing where they can’t prove if insiders or those related to insiders of “entities” purchased tokens. The “no entity” owns more than 5% is a ridiculous narrative.
Wait what? They have admitted repeatedly about the sale to investors/VCs and even included in a posted FAQ on the website that they didn’t have a lock-up/vesting period on sales to VCs because of something like VC are known to hold investments for years 😂😂😂 Funny…but not
How did the 44,000+ people learn about this public sale? Because the only way I could get DeSo for like 5 months was putting my trust in a group of 15 year olds on Discord. 🤣
Wow, these clowns are now denying that there was a private presale of BitClout to insiders and VCs. Incredible.
It's shocking how willing they are to lie about things that are public and provable.
@ashdeso You guys are not fooling anyone, and I'll continue to be there to share the truth, wherever you go.
The use or words like "fairly" and "public sale" and "entity" are the problem here.
Whats "fair" to someone on the inside may not be fair to someone on the outside.
If the insiders is a group of maybe 50 entities of which 99% are not active - it is unfair to those continuously active now.
Was bitcoin early distribution fair ? As only those on the mailing list knew about it.
It was definitely public though.
Desos first 6m were definitely not public.
A "public" sale isnt really public when it relies on word of mouth and a password protected website.
An "entity" is not really the same as an address. It is correct that no single address holds
more then 5% - but there is no way to know if anyone person or organisation holds
multiple addresses.
Note that foundation owns 2m of the 10.5m DESO - 19% - considerably more than 3%
I was surprised by it too. I thought it was a mistake by the author. But the core team member defending it… 🤯
Um…can someone please find a post or article somewhere about the great DeSo public sale from when the coin sales began?
It’s difficult to claim something is public when only a tiny number of people know about it.
But what do I know 🤷🏻♀️
There is also the whole thing where they can’t prove if insiders or those related to insiders of “entities” purchased tokens. The “no entity” owns more than 5% is a ridiculous narrative.
Wait what? They have admitted repeatedly about the sale to investors/VCs and even included in a posted FAQ on the website that they didn’t have a lock-up/vesting period on sales to VCs because of something like VC are known to hold investments for years 😂😂😂 Funny…but not
How did the 44,000+ people learn about this public sale? Because the only way I could get DeSo for like 5 months was putting my trust in a group of 15 year olds on Discord. 🤣
I have never seen a project that is founded on the premise of open verifiable data consistently lying as a marketing tool...
Is it working?
🕉️☀️💜🙏🏼
Lmaooo wtf 😂😂
Lol.. deso's sale. 🤣 Fairly, 🤣🤣 public sale 🤣🤣🤣🤣 secrets and lies + blockchain = 🤡🤡🤡