A wallet holding 10mil tokens voted in favour of the merger hence the jump.
Is it really whale? Or some wallet belonging to foundation/team?
I am in no position to answer that although i don't think it makes much of a difference
It does. Team/foundation voting for YES is skewing the result. If a whale votes for it, then it’s democracy and will have to accept it
But they're also holders? Why shouldn't they vote? The fact that we even get a vote is wrong imo, I invested in the team, so I belive they know what's best for their own project, not us (greedy for profit "stakeholders")
Ideal world yes but Ben and team have been spinning off projects with out producing any economic value so far. Its more like money grabbing and then we will see if we can produce something
But it's extremely questionable if nobody holds them accountable for their decisions. There has to be a check and balance process.
Well that uncertainty is what makes our dollar value be what it is, once this is clear, our price will reflect it accordingly, either up or down depending on the reality of things
Just curious. What would the token price of agi or agix be if we didn't have 10 different spinoffs under different tokens. We suck.
Absolutely agree. This has been one side. Supervisory counsil supposed to act like that balance, but seems like they have not kept them in the loop as well.
The foundation receives tokens from every spin off and sells part of them as they unlock on the open market to fund agix. having a billion spin offs sucks but there is a economic incentive behind it that is very much needed as it's the only source of "revenue" agix has
At least now it seems that they have been roped into the discussions.
How do you know?
I get your point and agree to some extent, it isn't as black and white as it seem, after all they holding the majority of tokens have the best interest in seeing it succeed, I find it hard to believe the largest holder (foundation) would fumble it's own bag
Not majority sorry*
https://t.me/singularitynet/996576
But my opinion (based on my own observation) is that Ben is not as interested in financials and helping us turn a profit on our investments. If given a choice to achieve ASI at the cost of the token going to 0, I believe he would choose the former.
That's an interesting thought 🤔, love seeing it from that angle, ty for the insight brother
Then shouldn't the revenue support the future that was talked about?
Your right it's not black and white. But what your saying if dictator "a" says yes then jump. We have to question it. Or not I guess if your a puppet. I hope the merge is fantastic and price goes insane so I can get out. Never said that before. Plan was always 2035 but not anymore.
Technically, we are not a balance in any operational sense. We are able to offer advice and provide feedback from the community. This is really the first time we've had a difference of opinion that has a potential material outcome in this way. It took some public action for us to have the concerns addressed. We wish democracy were less messy. 🙊 but in the meanwhile the discussion is progressing in a way that is appropriate and respectful to our position and concern.
Обсуждают сегодня