I would say you have no visibility at ll though of the issues I am involved in, including a comprehensive market analysis by the 2nd in the world MBA organisation. There is a lot of conjecture about other peoples inability in many areas here.
Let’s see, first duties of the CEO, have a solidly funded project (done, many times). 2nd principles, execute that project. The latter includes all aspects of business, however part 1 in an innovative project is prove the tech. I think Elon Musk has shown that a few times, surely he is not a head of R&D and no CEO? There are many others and this is the problem with philosophical nonsense, it’s nonsense. Facts on the other hand are plentiful, do you know how much involvement I had with this listing (and Sharon who was swamped with it, I am not decrying the community member who was pivotal in setting it up) or the involvement I have with several others, that may or may not come to fruition? What about the setting up and agreeing the BGF fund, are you really saying all of this as well as handling a board, many equity investors, signing off audited accounts, hiring, firing and planning the future of the business is not what a CEO should do?
In any case the presumption is based in a false narrative and I doubt anyone should amplify that false narrative. I have heard it way too often. If somebody really thinks they can be the CEO of this business then I am happy to guide them and nurture them, it’s an open door. However there are fundamentals that I will not accept change and that is the success of the project in terms of value, value to the world and in return value to supporters and shareholders. We don’t seem to have any takers on that, but happy to speak to whomever?
There is a plan already executing and I seriously doubt any university course would teach it, but then again which large successful project was lead by a business oriented CEO. Let’s think what happened when Apple swapped Jobs out for a “professional”, or Musk et al’ Oh hang on, Houston, we have a problem, they didn’t even try. I wonder where their business guru’s were
As for Marketing, it is many things to many people and probably best portrayed by those who have made a success of something. It’s all things to all people and the defence of it seems hostile to say the least. I am sure that is bad marketing?
Apple lost the ability to capitalize on ideas of others. Jobs is not the best example for the point you’re trying to make. Quite the contrary, as he was, above all, a marketer, a brand building mastermind.
There were personal computers before Macintosh… There were mp3 players before iPod, smartphones/touch screen phones before iPhone, tablets before iPad and smartwatch devices before Apple watch. Hell, there was a company named Apple before Apple… but somehow, Steve Jobs, a man without a single revolutionary idea, is by many considered a true pioneer, genius, bloody Da Vinci. Because he stole so damn well, meaning he capitalized on badly marketed ideas of others. As Picasso said, the true artists are thieves, the rest are just copycats.
He got it. Jobs got it.
Even Musk obviously knows a thing or two how to cause havoc.
Yes, I strongly believe it does. Tricking folk into anything is a poor way to move on. I know a lot of people invested here because of an open honest approach. It can be important to be like that, I know of many who are. Of course there are mistakes, optimism and more but intentionally deceiving I think is wrong, well I could not do that.
Horses for courses though, others can and do intentionally deceive.
This was what I was trying to say earlier. There is no need to be trick people or something along those lines but we also don’t have to walk around like choirboys because at the end of the day the technology is the technology.
That does not preclude him from being the guy who gets products out the door though. You need that part in spades, how you then market or build brands is an additional thing. …
I was gonna chat about this, but again it’s all conjecture, VHS/BetaMax vim/emas stuff. (no offence)
My bottom line is that it takes everything to make it happen. That includes Marketing.
However, I would love to know folks answers to the questions that seemed to set this off. Then the discussion moves (correctly) to what is the message we are putting out to whom? (philosophical discussions can then happen somewhere I don’t need to read )
If the network is a close to completion as the company messaging implies I don’t know why there would be any need for dishonesty. Just PR about the truth would be enough to create value and awareness without any need for dishonesty.
Oh you do! But there were many technically and technologically capable of producing what Apple eventually brought on the table. Even years before Apple. They simply failed in the marketing / brand building department, or they felt like shooting themselves in the leg.
If you really give a damn about the history, it was iPod that saved Apple. But what was revolutionary or unique about a portable mp3 player by 2001? You had small brand mp3 players with as many as 4GB storage on the US market by mid 2000.
Even more importantly, if Panasonic, Sony, Philips, you name the audio gimmick manufacturer of the era, hadn’t desperately tried to persevere the old music industry with the old audio formats (as they all had their share in or even owned Epic/Universal/whatever giant record labels, the market would have been fully satisfied with portable mp3 players by '99.
No Apple.
The reason American kids by the mid-oughties called the mp3 player iPod was not that Jobs was a tech genius. He was a genius marketer.
Absolutely, let’s say I agree with all you say above, just for brevity. What’s your opinion on the question regarding messaging that was posed in that post?
Your right, I did not know this and it is great MaidSafe secured this protection, sincerely! That is part of the the problem though, isn’t it? This mostly opaque agreement does not translate into a much wider community of investors confidence outside of a few here that might read your post. Top first page search results (on duckduckgo: p2pb2b+volume) turn up information such as this on well known cryptocurrency review websites. Really negative toxic stuff. It will take a high risk taking, thick skinned or ignorant investor to risk running that gauntlet. Something to keep in mind if the desired US liquidity does not turn up on p2pb2b, no marketing budget can dress that negative press up.
Sure I agree. Also @piluso made a great counter point to my post that I also agree with: most exchange reviews slant negative. You have to dig just a little to get a more rounded view (not far at all, first page results): p2pb2b has red flags everywhere. Many other investors will do these simple searches before committing to an unknown exchange almost everyone that has been around for a few years has been burnt.
So… your saying there is a chance :-)? Their FAQ on the subject suggests they offloaded most ofthe transition onto the exchanges in a straight swap. The forums do talk about a smart contract however for those on wallets.
The amazingly successful enormous milestone of the Safe Network testnet is only a few days old. This is the first step that brings long deserved merit and credibility to the project I was talking about, the kind that opens up the door for free listings on major exchanges (if the FATF gorilla does not break their legs for listing the first truly private coin). All sorts of doors start to open from here as the technology begins to prove its worth testnet iteration after the next, standing on its own feet and is no longer just some decades long vaporware story. Things get easier and more positive from here, exciting times!
From what I have seen of exchanges and the discussions with many of them (way way too many) then something’s wrong for sure. If there was a straight swap and it was simple and did not force omni holders to swap (although low liquidity would do that) then it’s worth some thought at least. If listing was simpler, holding was simpler then who knows. The main thing would be it’s almost zero effort beyond some consulting or similar then it could be worth a shot?
The thing is really to consider launch of SNT, it may be closer than we imagine, so the balance of a change now then the swap then? There are a few moving parts to get right.
I think everyone is shouting that same thing at each other, but nobody is listening. This is spot on and a good way to end that discussion. Well done chap
I hope the accusations now stop. I believe unfounded accusations are like boomerangs
Speaking of, have any further considerations been given to the formal listing of Safe Network Token with regard to the official ticker, etc? I personally cannot wait to make the conversion to the actual Safe Network logo and Safe Network Token from the MaidSafe logo and MaidSafeCoin. SNT is not available, however, there are alternatives like SFNT, etc. Maybe a poll is in order?
Would you want to have a ticker that has already been taken? I think it would just lead to confusion. I personally would rule this out and go for a unique ticker like your suggestion SFNT
I would prefer SAFE for the sake of branding and communicability, however, I could live with either. I don’t know that we could stay unique or I might say otherwise.
