You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Stan's BEOS Troll FUD Patrol
I have a doctorate in engineering, that does not qualify me to judge economics. That said, the topic here is that I am called troll for stating the obvious: Not all BTS holder are (or even can) participate for a 10% airdrop, which could have honored the social consensus.
Non of the arguments about BTS price changes that.
Other then that, I would have liked to not even talk BEOS anymore, but Stan went ahead and preferred to go ad hominem against me and other community members. That's not how to cooperate.
Well, I certainly don't have a doctorate - but I do have a degree in Economics and I specialized in Monetary Economics and Finance. So I can handle the simple stuff. And it is quite simple that BEOS is good for bitshares (of which I have always been a big supporter and holder).
By the way, in early 2012 I was traveling around to university economics departments and handing out physical Casascius bitcoins to Economics Professors and Ph.D. candidates as souvenirs for them at their conferences. Hopefully some of these professors hung on to them because they are now worth well over $5,000 each.
And I discussed in the comment above, if you care to re-read it, that we acknowledge that not all bitshares holders want to participate in the BEOS opportunity. And that is alright. As I explained, they can also find ways to contribute to the well being of bitshares. The two strategies will complement each other to bring value to bitshares.
I know you will think that I have not answered directly your objection. But it is not called for since Stan more than adequately covered it in the post. I accept Stan's explanation of how BEOS has actually gone above and beyond the requirements of the social consensus WHILE NO OTHER PARTY USING THE TECHNOLOGY THAT BITSHARES HOLDERS PAID TO DEVELOP HAS EVEN MET THEM LET ALONE GONE ABOVE AND BEYOND! If you don't agree, that's fine. We will have to agree to disagree.