the call with the bps, even tho Yves sais otherwise, again one of them is a liar
4. He sais bb doesnt gave a role in bullish, wrong he is the CEO and in such position he could make at least a LOI regarding the Ip, otherwise why was he there?
He's not the CEO, he's the chairman of Bullish. Which doesn't give him any legal right to make a statement like that. Furthermore, Bullish is currently being acquired by Far Peak, whose CEO is Thomas Farley. Farley will ultimately be the CEO of Bullish, and he's the only person who could make a statement like the one requested, and not until the Bullish merger is finished.
so bb in not ceo but chairman, dan is innocent and brock is lying, let's forget everything and move forward to the new rug pull ?
Only the first statement is something I said. I don't know what the rest is about.
have u seen his bullish "chairman's" contract? or he resigned b1 ceo position?
What are you talking about?
i'm just trying to say that all the three were involved in this and one should not trust a single word until there are some proofs
I agree, I really don't trust anything any of them are saying. Lots being omitted by all parties. But it is true that BB doesn't have authority to make a commitment re future transfer of assets from a company of which he isn't CEO, when it's in the middle of a merger. When the merger is complete he can exert influence as Chair to try to make it happen, but even then there's no guarantee.
Обсуждают сегодня