Go to 36:30 and he (Emad) mentions SingularityNET https://youtu.be/1rVihrDo3rM?si=AvnnHLR7NtD0JulF

I like the dude and he's overall thinking. Was hoping to watch some more videos to get to know more about hes work. Will definitely watch it. Thank you

@bengoertzel - what do you think of Emads comments there (at 36:30)? Specifically about SNET and focus, and also his general skepticism towards "expecting impact to occur through emergence"?

All the dude says is 1) he'd like to see more successful concrete product outputs to better evaluate SNet, and maybe the merger will help with that. Sure. I mean if someone hasn't looked deep into the tech that's a reasonable reaction given the current state of development. And yes I think the merger will help with productization. Both Humayun and Trent are more product-oriented than I have been historically, my bigger strengths have been in R&D. 2) He's skeptical of emergence. OK sure. This suggests he has not yet dug into OpenCog Hyperon which is not really an "AGI will just emerge" approach at all, but aims to leverage emergence within a quite specifically structured cognitive architecture. Will be happy to discuss w/ Emad at his leisure, I pinged him on a couple platforms but haven't heard back... I am sure he is swamped with correspondents right now though...

He’s seems rather responsive on Twitter/X I’m on it! 🫡

I bet Emad would learn so much by working with the Singularitynet team. Fantastic opportunity for him, but it would also be a huge learning curve to get him up to speed. Pretty sure Emad was playing with GI Joe's and Legos while Ben was writing his PhD thesis in mathematics with an emphasis on AI things. ...or AI things with an emphasis in Math? Would Emad be up for the challenge? 💪 That being said... basic LLM's were discounted a few years ago, and look at what they're doing now. Elon's forey into robotics was discounted a year ago, and look at what it's doing now. Maybe those things are just parlor tricks, but people are paying 60 bucks per co-pilot license and 75000 per boston dynamics robo-dog-thing. And regarding that other really good interview the other day with Peter Diamandis and Emad Mostaque, in which Peter is stating he's going to throw money at whatever venture emad decides to next, ..I'm pretty sure Peter Diamandis (xprize founder and co-founder of the singularity university) is also well aware of Ben Goertzel... I mean...isn't, or wasn't Ben Goertzel an advisor to the Singularity University in the first place? That being said, I think Emad is interviewing for a job with @bengoertzel without even realizing it 😉

Yes Peter D and I have known each other since forever..

To really attract users from centralized to decentralized we need an awewome and way better application then centralized companies provide. Is there a strategy for this to attract a massive amount of users? Or a massive amount of corporations that want to use the decentralized tech?

This difference in focus + the differential ease of marketing products & partnerships vs the extreme difficulty in marketing fundamental AI tech-stack explains the difference in mCAP between FET and AGIX. It explains that difference in MCAPs completely. It also shows why MCAP is the incorrect framing for determining the token merger ratios. Partnerships and current active products are easy to market and markets will respond (have responded) to these simple messages. Extremely deep and difficult to quickly understand fundamental technology necessary for reaching AGI that SNET brings is very hard to market and the markets have responded less strongly to SNET as a result. Even Fetch fans who have come to the SNET telegram this past week (who are pushing for the merger) have been denigrating the SNET tech stack, and shown a total lack of awareness of the fundamental value prop of SNET's tech -- even a total lack of understanding of the fundamental limitations of (constantly hallucinating zero awareness) LLMs. AGI is not going to be brought to the market by quick-to-market products or brand name partnerships, or a focus on shipping products in the absence of the underlying technology stack that would actually enable AGI. The SNET path has always been to build to build out all the fundamental technology required that would enable the emergence of AGI. The tech stack is deep, & complex and hard to understand for outsiders. The differences in approach are reflected in the marketcaps. BUT the marketcaps are not a reflection of the fundamental value-bring (Tech-stacks make AGI possible) to this merger. This is why MCAP has always been the wrong framing for the ratios and why many SNET hodlers think the deal is not just unfair, but that it is so unfair that a NO vote is what they will cast. The deal also asks holders who have held for years and years and were planning to hold for years and years more, to take an arbitrary snapshot in time from the wildly fluctuating crypto markets and say "there" "that time" "that's the fundamental value of AGIX vs another coin" "we will lock that value difference in forever". The very idea is absurd on its face, particularly for those who are here for the long ride because of an appreciation for the approach that SNET has taken — build the right technology stack required for AGI emergence 1st, then launch SNET V2. Of course markets haven't responded to SNET as strongly before V2 is out... and of course many of of know this. This MCAP snapshot in time does not reflect the value bring of the project.

That’s the beauty of Mr Market. He can overvalue, undervalue or price correctly a token. When you want to merge two, three or four tokens together, you can only use the trading price of the tokens. This is the least biased value, since it's the one at which people are willing to buy or sell. The market is evolving rapidly, as are the developments of blockchain startups, and it is therefore essential to take into account a short period of time if one wishes to take the average price on the markets during a given period (for example, 15 days) to operate the merger. Buying AGIX tokens gives you the advantage of liquidity: you can buy and sell whenever you like, which is impossible when you buy shares in a « normal » startup. The disadvantage is that you leave it up to the market to estimate the price of the token. So you can't argue that SNET's intangible assets are more valuable than those of Fetch or OCEAN in the context of a merger (which would be very difficult to estimate), you have to determine the ratio based on the market price. That's the price you pay for the benefits of liquidity. Now, you can still be against the merger, but not against its conditions.

it is completely false tha t"you can only use the trading price of the two tokens" That's a false framing, and a false narrative. And of course you can be against its conditions.

Waiting for you detailed answer to all my points. Saying it’s false without any argument is…

I've already done so extensively, go ahead and scroll up to read it. or you can go back to your FET telegram where you belong.

I don’t own FET, only AGIX. So please stop using this type of argument when someone don’t think like you do.

No you haven’t done it. I’ve already read a lot of your message and you still don’t understand why we cannot do as you would like. That’s why I’ve written this message. You say it is false, explain why so we could move forward!

read some more. you can do it. I believe in you.

Excellent Statement. Market Cap is not the only one ratio and it is extremely unfair to AGIX holders as Fetch is NOT better project as AGIX or OCEAN. Fetch gained in the Last 2-3 Months more MC and this is not the only Thing on the merger should be based on. I propose we take the MC from June 30, 2023 or we take the ratio of 0.5:1 for each project AGIX, OCEAN and FET. So my Vote as longtime AGIX holder in clear NO for the merger under this unfair conditions!

Too late. Get along with it.

We need to let this go IMO. Any mechanism, no matter how just or arguably fair, that dumps the value of someone else's investment is going to cause problems. We're the markets irrational in valuations? Perhaps... But curing them of the irrationality is a fools errand. People tend to be rather protective of the investments.

From beginning it was clear to me that the voting is only a Show as the owners and the close supporters of FET AGIX and OCEAN decided to Make this merger. The community has NO / minimal impact on the Voting result!

!!!

well put. Beware of Nasir Muhammad passive aggresive messages. He is either Humayun himself or one of his close follower.

So you don’t have any argument. Thanks for letting me know!

Read the following: That’s the beauty of Mr Market. He can overvalue, undervalue or price correctly a token. When you want to merge two, three or four tokens together, you can only use the trading price of the tokens. This is the least biased value, since it's the one at which people are willing to buy or sell. The market is evolving rapidly, as are the developments of blockchain startups, and it is therefore essential to take into account a short period of time if one wishes to take the average price on the markets during a given period (for example, 15 days) to operate the merger. Buying AGIX tokens gives you the advantage of liquidity: you can buy and sell whenever you like, which is impossible when you buy shares in a « normal » startup. The disadvantage is that you leave it up to the market to estimate the price of the token. So you can't argue that SNET's intangible assets are more valuable than those of Fetch or OCEAN in the context of a merger (which would be very difficult to estimate), you have to determine the ratio based on the market price. That's the price you pay for the benefits of liquidity. Now, you can still be against the merger, but not against its conditions.

why lie like this when you can instead read my argument ad-nauseum by scrolling up. seems like FET has a paid set of Telegram gaslighters who live in the SNET telegram. wonder why

well it is not very much like free market forcing AGIX holders to convert or loose all value. Becuaee the merger conditions was a centralised decision its details were not subjected to free market. I cannot say, I will.keep my AGIX and I will be able to use it as token in exchange for Aai services anymore after the merger. I will have to convert to.ASI and more than loose have of my unitary tokens. Thus no free market there waiting to see what has more value as utility token. Just a centralised decision from merging teams. A forced entry if you want... Ben is a good fellow,.I have no doubt. And he knows his R&D has much more value than Fetch ecosystem, in the end ASI will run on it, not on Fetch expert marketing. Fetch got its way on the premises of market value being the morea ccurate measurment. I will just not accept tha premise. Anyone with financials knowledge knows valuations must take more thing in account than stock/token price. You can keep saying is the only way. I will keep.saying is not. Even if the vote is clearly lost for the NO from the beginning, that does not mean that a defect becomes a virtue just because 5-6 big wallets say so.

Not lying, you don’t have any counterpoint to the arguments I’ve made.

you are, and I have made those counter points extensively. search is your friend

I know you didn’t because I read your messages. Anyway, we’re at 82.42% YES so I guess you « counterpoints » didn’t convince a lot of people 😅

Стикер

I think this is the case for the SEC to check if this MC merger is correctly processed and the investors interests were not broken by the owners/management

This is irrelevant to the question of how $FET holders should be compensated if you adjust the ratio of $OCEAN, $AGIX, $FET to $ASI. @janetadamsai has confirmed that two reputable law firms were involved in the merger and we followed their recommendations. You are hiding behind the SEC by inventing imaginary reasons.

Again $$ on an arbitrary snapshot is not relevant and is the wrong framing. An early temporary pump relative to the others does not justify locking in a permanent slash for the other projects under the imaginary pretense that that mcap difference would have held. The only constant in the equation is the fundamental value of the tec-stack that each project brings to the party. Perhaps if the markets weren't so irrational or extremely volatile then things would be different. VoTE *NO* Cardano whales. A rushed deal is no justification for a bad deal.

People have $FET, and you're taking their money away by adjusting the $ASI ratio because you think market capitalization is arbitrary, but it's not.

Again and again the same arguments without any basis in facts. Why do you think SNET tech-stack would be higher than OCEAN tech-stack? You’re speculating on thing you don’t even know how to evaluate. Please be humble and trust the market.

It's a BS framing.

Snet has a real path to AGI without the other two. Neither of the others have a plausible path to AGI. As a FET giy why are you living in this chat 24x7 disrupting AGIX holders from talking amongst themselves?

You want Gary to be the arbiter of decentralisation? 🤦