Here’s a snippet of events in order to color in context:

1. Dan writes early BTS paper (though it’s unclear if this was a paper prior to the one published by Charles and Dan together) - sees locking up of BTS for BitAsset as a holy grail in supply reduction.
2. Charles is in the crypto space already talking about DEX and other later-to-be-developed concepts; teaching courses on bitcoin and cryptocurrency; gets put in touch w Dan
3. Early BTS; Dan and Charles clash on personal level - stemming from competing technical desires and ego desires. They split.
4. Charles rebounds immediately and is the first technologist to recognize Turing Complete potential when introduced to Vitalik by Anthony Di Orio. Dan has no awareness to the effort and Ethereum concept.
5. Ethereum announced.
6. Dan purports any successes of Eth can be adopted by BTS.
7. Dan tells confidants (including me but I was later than others) he will attempt Turing Complete one day.
   7.5 Dan leaves BTS.
8. Dan does Steem with me and founding team.
   8.25 Steem working; July 2016; Dan begins selling Ned about the wow factor of Wren in Dan’s living room.
   8.5. Cob and associate calls Ned. Ned tells them about possible future token protocols on Steem.
9. Dan tells Steem he will build Turing Complete on Steem (Wren). (I was not pre-aware or expecting the public communications from Dan on this. Others in the organization were skeptical of Wren).
10. Dan leaves Steem. Tells community he will not be posting anymore.
    10.5. Dan asks Ned not to compete with EOS because of market clarity
11. EOS begins building by copying BTS STEEM and Ethereum - Wren concept is dropped - subsequently Web Assembly ideas of Ethereum are harnessed - and reverse auction IPO levered for fundraising EOS.
    11.5 Ned writes SMT Whitepaper with @theoretical. Ned includes section criticizing the weaknesses of general purpose / Turing Complete / general scripting on blockchain - and advocates application specific programs tailored to high demand use cases - I.e. specialized programmability tokens for fundraising, monetization and growth.
12. Dan writes post about Ouroboros and comments about Hoskinson from his very own viewpoint.
13. The cult of personality on Steem begs for more!

Luckily this is nearly 1/1000th of the gory details and barely magnified! Ive got all the rest in my journals (and tapes from when things got dicey) (that get released by my lawyers if I die (/not only if I am killed/) before deciding to include or not include these chapters in a book).

Despite the commentary, at the end of the day Hoskinson and Larimer are both credibly respectable for certain things - no one is perfect and I believe we can consider them both thoughtful technologists, and to see some of the name calling - frankly from glass houses, it calls to advise everyone to take the “think about yourself” approach before judging others and spreading memes that physically cannot be whole truths because everything is interpretation.

On the whole, and from what seems to have spawned these posts, I’d love to see more real academic style accreditation in crypto industry whitepapers. Other than Bitcoin’s Whitepaper, not many are arguably sound from a formally-correct academic perspective.

In short response, the falling out between the pair, Hoskinson and Larimer, clearly had little impact on the conceptual elements of these new projects, Cardano and EOS, because the pair’s falling out predates even the mother concept, Ethereum - but rather the pair’s falling out was one of the key catalysts for Ethereum coming into existence as successfully as it did because it put Charles on a path to spearhead it.

Contributed from my iPhone. Please excuse any grammatical mistakes or errors.