@GregUnderscore @flashfish0x I mean, it’s your opinion. I think you’re introducing an enormous vulnerability on the overall natural market of your protocol just to save a few inexperienced traders from absolutely avoidable exploits. As I said it has been done several times and the market rejected it.
@GregUnderscore @flashfish0x Or even worse, imagine purchasing a coin that gets unluckily compromised before your cool down expires. Now you lost all your money.
More anecdotally it was tried and the market simply rejected the solution.
@Cryptolocity@pierre_crypt0@tier10k As per above but the main point is that if you are leveraged on any other currency you are at risk of appreciation and hence liquidation until tether collapses. Tether on the other hand has 0 chance of bringing you to a margin call, unless you run out of funds to cover fees.
@tradergiantsfan @BAYC2819 @svvrth Bottom on a ponzi token with a 1.5b diluted mcap? 😂 good luck with that. Think you’ll find bottom is very round and fat
@zachxbt@jayalvarrez What do you expect from someone that is best friends and lived with a scum bag that defrauded senior citizens out of 150m$?
One of his best friends is Luc Asher.
See the story:
https://t.co/zWg6EWZoIi
@BradThe3rd@NFTsAnonymous Regardless of that, I think he’ll either give it to charity or will give something to the donors. Or at least I hope so. It would be quite a lame cashgrab exercise otherwise.
@BradThe3rd@NFTsAnonymous I don’t think leveraging your social clout to get money in lieu of nothing is ok. And not sure that full disclosure makes it ok either, because it simply looks like a poor excuse for plausible deniability.
People are not donating, they secretly hope to get something back.
I notified several people, and discussed publicly of the structural issues with $LOOKS the day they launched. I also contacted several “exposers”. Nobody listened.
I got a lot of heat and hate as I was apparently against the revolution. Now everybody is shocked…the hypocrisy😹
Anyone surprised by this did not research the token properly at all.
Was pretty obvious in the token incentives from day 1. Assumed everyone knew this was happening.
It’s actually a pretty innovative ponzi model, kinda similar to a perpetual ICO but obfuscation layers on top.
@manifestwallace @etherrwrapped @NathanHeadPhoto@themetav3rse@RTFKTstudios Except you said it is perfectly reasonable for an NFT project pre-launch to have 100k followers organically. 100k, not 10k 😅
@xBenJamminx Well as of December we had 360k wallets trading NFT and most of us have a lot more than one…if we want to pretend that it’s possible to potentially have every single trader following your project then no it isn’t a red flag🤷🏼♂️
I disagree tho. Even 100k is not credible.
@manifestwallace @etherrwrapped @NathanHeadPhoto@themetav3rse@RTFKTstudios Pahahaha, as of 12/21 360k unique wallets were trading NFTs. Most traders have multiple, so the amount of people actually trading NFTs will be even less.
There might not even be 100k nft traders active on Twitter. The idea one can capture 100% of the market is ludicrous 😂
@UniqueSoul227@boredape93@moonboi24@BCheque1 The law DOES require their names to be in the public records, and they are. There is absolutely no issue with it, just a bunch of hypocrits.
Transparency has always and only brought benefits.
Only issue I see here is on the way it was done: a bit distasteful. That’s all.
@moonboi24@BCheque1@NFTethics With due respect, as heads of a an inc. business the directors of BAYC don’t have a right to anonymity.
Stop being gullible, especially as a fan of the law you must be aware of the reasons the law requires director identities to be in the public realm, and they aren’t negligible.