@shawmakesmagic@baoskee And now the defense is that you weren't the one who sold, so the responsibility belongs to someone else?
You can expose what others did, and they should be held accountable if the evidence supports it. But that does not erase your own responsibility.
@shawmakesmagic@baoskee You knew about these issues during the rebranding and migration, yet none of this was disclosed while holders were still being encouraged to believe in and invest in the project.
Throughout that period, you repeatedly insisted there was no team selling.
@tyekn@shawmakesmagic There is absolutely nothing.
Even if the core concept is open source, like ChatGPT, they could have offered optional paid features through a Pro-tier subscription. Instead, the founder simply abandoned ElizaOS.
@shawmakesmagic Guys~~
Don’t be misled. This promotes a free AI product, not token value. No required $ELIZAOS fees, no clear buyback/burn, and no revenue sharing. Product growth does not automatically benefit token holders.
@SmileD152922520@shawmakesmagic A coin needs real utility to have real value, but $ElizaOS is no different from a meme coin with no practical use.
Even if developers build agents based on Eliza, there is absolutely no benefit or value flowing back to the $ElizaOS.