the early folks talking about it were also called FUDsters and the like?
Some were, some weren’t. It depends on the approach that was taken by the people being critical of B1. I was plenty critical of them from very early on - and I don’t think I was ever accused of being a “fudster”. I’m plenty critical of the ENF and Labs right now too, still not getting labeled with anything as far as I know. There was a lot of hopium back then, that’s for sure. The hopium probably drown out a lot of the critical perspectives, simply because people thought B1 would do something beneficial for EOS itself. Situations between now and then are drastically different though.
B1 was not the “original EOS”. They were the original publisher of EOSIO, the software protocol that EOS was a fork of. They did not launch the EOS Network, the community did that, B1 just ended up with all the money from the ICO and then ceased maintaining the EOSIO codebase, which was subsequently forked to create the community led Antelope protocol that EOS and all formerly EOSIO blockchains run on today, with few exceptions.
'ended up with all the money and then ceased maintaining' is technically accurate, but it seems to be deliberately ignoring a couple year period when they were around.
yeah, that right
“were around” 😂 Others have already related various portions of that misadventure better than I. But happy to write a more exhaustive history of the good, the bad, and the gaslit, if you want a retelling.
One reminder from recent days: https://t.me/EOSproject/2005006
i don't need a retelling but if you were going to summarize the history of EOS, skipping the part between the ICO and B1 absconding, i think is not fair to anyone.
How would you summarize?
I would not completely ignore the time from the ICO until the ENF took over
Kind of a non-answer but ok. It’s hard to summarize because a lot of it is really subjective. Variously referred to as gaslighting, slow-rugging, or just well meaning but incompetent, or hamstrung by regulations, or, or… The intervening period can be summed up by apologists or those who wish to grind axes in completely different ways and since B1 has been notoriously opaque, that’s what we generally see. I will meditate on a relatively neutral ICO to ENF summary. From what I recall the Messari EOS profile does a pretty even handed, or, diplomatic version of it.
I get that, someone is always going to disagree with how you summarized things. But pretending several years didn't even happen is something else.
i doubt he was trying to chronicle every moment of b1's involvement. and if you're going to put it succinctly, i think "took the money and ran" pretty much sums it up.
every moment ya i agree, but he ignored all of it aside from raising money and then leaving.
Обсуждают сегодня