Even though i dont know how to code or create

AI, i know that alliance is most likely the best way to achieve goals. Look at it like this: imagine you are infantry tasked to attack enemy position, but you have no fire support. But now you have an option to cooperate with logistics platoon that will provide you trucks full of ammo and food, and now you have also airsupport from another unit - now your attack seems more likely to succeed. Voting no to me is like saying hell no we gonna attack enemy alone as infantry coz we want all the glory if we win...?

The current proposal is not the only way to do the alliance. That's a false binary.

That may be the case, but the vote is binary. You’ve just moved the goalpost in your premise :)

Why can't he move the goalpost? He is not happy with the binary and says there are other options while still achieving a merger. I really don't see the problem here

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. He doesn't know that a merger can still be achieved after a no vote.

Looking at it objectively (I haven’t decided how I’ll vote yet), some advocates for the no vote indeed present it as a vote for further discussion and re-negotiation. It’s a false argument. One can posit with equal fervor that a no vote is a vote for Fetch and Ocean to merge into ASI, benefitting from the merger publicity, leaving Agix in the dust. The vote is indeed a binary choice. Yes: we merge; no: we don’t merge. I’m a lowly chemist with no business background, but even I can see that the argument that there will be more discussion and merger will be re-negotiated is a very weak argument.

From what i can see, most no people are against fet. It would have been really interesting to add a "merge with ocean only 1:1" vote. I'm sure it would have been a tremendous success.

A 100%

It seems like FET found a way to pressure us into a merger if the case is this deal or no deal ever. If they truly believe in the Vision Paper they should do everything they can to make a new deal where all communities are happy.

Precisely. Instead of a false binary presented by the current proposal, we can take a high level view and consider all possibilities. This could have easily been done if the vote wasn't rushed. And although there's significant uncertainty now, the capabilities of SNET are still very valuable and that could be used to stand for decentralisation and make a new proposal that advances that

We weren’t in the room so hard to say who pressured whom, if at all. Someone always is the first party who reaches out to the other party with a merger idea. Doesn’t mean that the proposer is putting any pressure on the other party. Seeing the diagram floating around, one could say that SNET gets a bigger piece of the pie (Hyperon OpenCog, Hypercycle, SDAO, Soph, Nunet, etc.). Hard to say w/o reading the WP, but I expect it to be the case.

Hah you sort of twisted what I said. The vote is not a false binary. It’s a binary :)

Humayun (Fetch CEO) approached Ben first. Source: Janet Adams during AMA

Yes, it's like waiters trained to ask you do you want sparkling or mineral water, so that you don't choose tap water. They make it look like only two options are the real possibility but you can still ask for option C

Agreed. I’ve said we don’t know that anyone had pressured anyone.

We don't need to have been in the room if the binary you stated is true. That is pressure: do this or you never get the chance again and you can't negotiate.

In any case, commercial agreements are not part of the merge. No matter how the vote goes, there is the same opening to reach mutually beneficial commercial agreements, which is really where the synergy among the organizations can be found.

In fact I’m correct in saying that there are two options put forth before us to vote on. I don’t see option C on the blockchain. You’re purposely mudding the waters. If you think that a no vote will result in re-negotiating of the merger, I have a bridge to sell you :). W/o having any business background, I am fairly confident it’d not be feasible within the rules of the game that exist in such volatile market as crypto is.

Not really, having 3 different tokens dilute the value.

I don’t accept this premise at all. @peter_ce where are you; pls tell me to leave this discussion :))

You are deling with narsissistic behavior. I think you need to leave it.

Look like he chose ditch water

Dilute % of ownership. Not the value. The value remains the same. If you swap 10,000 Agix for BTC, you still own about $10,000 worth of asset, now the asset being BTC, albeit a smaller % (whatever is the supply of BTC, I have no idea) of the supply. How does it make you any poorer?

What in what I wrote isn't true? According to you if we vote no we can't renegotiate. I consider that to be pressure, don't you? Let's say we are married and I say we either go watch the ducks in the pond now or the marriage is over. You can't negotiate. It's yes or no. Wouldn't that be considered pressure?

They cant even read a calculator lol

Who is “we?” Who will re-negotiate? You? Nick Black, lol?

Those are good questions to ask. Part of the clarity that is needed but isn't there

You have a largely unfounded opinion about a renegotiation being impossible. I have one about it being possible. No need to accuse me of mudding the waters. I'm simply suggesting my views (based on a decade doing organisation design, multiple mergers, decentralised governance, etc)

Likely the team. If they're forced to reconsider instead of the community going with the rushed vote. That's their job after all, to keep looking for the best option for the different stakeholders

“Force” someone to negotiate lol. I rest my case

Stakeholder? Are you paying their rent too? 😂

Ehm, kind of. All token holders are giving value to the token and that's what pays their salaries

If it doesn’t pass, the team will definitely be disbanded.

What's your case? A yes vote is "forcing" a merger. Should I rest my case also?

Utility gives value to a token. Otherwise it's a meme coin

The money raised from TGE does not come out of nowhere also.

We’re not stakeholders. We cannot “force” Ben or anyone to do anything. They are not a board of directors taking orders from us. Oof I am beginning to think that maybe I should run for the council lol. I would if it weren’t for the fact that I wish to remain anonymous.

I think you should review your definition of stakeholder... Stakeholders =/= shareholder

If you vote yes you force the merger and force a big part of the community into this deal. Using force as a bad word is not helpful. We could say the community recommends a renegotiation if that sounds better to you

$ value changes, # of tokens remains. Example: (no merge) Market tanks, both Fet and AGIX fall to pennies. Then, the market goes back up and agix rises back equally the same. All of a sudden the # of tokens matter a lot. It is NOT written in stone that FET is forever higher in price than AGIX. Last year March 20, 2023 AGIX was trading at $0.51 and FET at $0.46. Who is here to say that it can't happen again? # of tokens you hold matter A LOT. That is why in the corporate world the founders fight tooth and nail to get as many tokens as possible. When the sh#t hits the fan, you lose the value not the tokens. You haven't lost anything until you sell (as they say)

Pls scroll back and see who used the word “force” and who repeated it tongue in cheek :)

I know the order. It wasn't clear to me that you were being tongue in cheek.

He said that the no vote will force Ben to re-negotiate. Which I think was very revealing in itself and what the thought behind the no vote is.

So now you were being serious? Then back to my refutes I guess

Who will negotiate the commercial agreements that need to be in place for the combination of these three businesses? Same question, except after the merger, the negotiating power of each entity shifts.