in the process?
I am a systematic type that says A, B, then C. Conversely, Dan goes from A to D, and B and C are the 'let's solve it later' type. It can get things done very quickly, but the problem is when D is wrong. There were so many times when Dan made a mistake and went back to the beginning. I thought it was immoral to do so with an investment. Dan also received angel investments and made promises (to investors) while doing crowdsales. But when there was a problem with the project, I was like, 'What is it? You can do the next thing.' It doesn't matter if it's not funded or an open source project. However, if there is an investor, responsibilities follow. Because of this part, it was very difficult to work together. They also argued a lot over differences in viewpoints about how the technology should be made and used.
I learned that choosing a business partner is really important and that you need to know enough about your business partner.
Charles hoskinson interview
Here's one obvious fact that doesn't align with this reasoning. Dan solved scalability, while ETH and others said, we'll work on that later. Even ETH is now attempting to migrate to POS. C.Hoskinson of ADA said, we'll make smart contracts functional later, first let's make finality all mathy and "peer reviewed" to to point of hardly functioning and slow and without working smart contracts. Dan isn't perfect, but if anything he has solved fundamental problems at the expense of less "logical", but necessary priorities like communication and community.
Over the past five years, as a result of the addition of faith to the erroneous philosophy of a developer with a narrow view, my assets are shrinking and now bleeding.
True, yet with such a great ICO theoretically you would have the best talented developers in the world working,,,
It's true. However, Ada and Ethereum easily accept new development investments. Even when the market is bad, holders are earning 10 times more than in 2017. Their minds are calm and they are willing to reinvest. We start again at a lower price than in 2017. EOS holders live every day in anxiety and depression. Even in the stock market, there are many companies that have good technology but have disappeared after chasing an ideal. This is why I said marketing is important. Vitalik and Hawkinson are very capable marketers. Needless to say, the number of Twitter followers speaks for itself. Especially in the crypto market, if it doesn't get a lot of attention, it will eventually get kicked out.
That's what they got right. They made their community rich through token pool schemes and hype, and in doing so they made large communities with big network effects. EOS, on the other hand, has been through the equivalent of sanctions and siege warfare. What have we learned from this?
War is a waste of resources?
And their ease in marketing is greatly impacted by the wealth of their networks. We are operating from a deficit, we are in a disaster area essentially, which is an argument for inflation.
Обсуждают сегодня