Yes, my concerns were around CCP, not coinpayments or Maidsafe Asia.[quote=“Jabba, post:1369, topic:9923”]
I also don’t think David and Nick would be so easily duped by P&D’ers; not with their precious baby’s fate at stake.
[/quote]
It’s not a case of David and Nick being duped by P +Ders, as David says, their dealings are with Maidsafe Asia and not CCP. It has also been acknowledged (correct me if I’m wrong) that CCp are running an “investment scheme”. I linked to the nature of that scheme.[quote=“dirvine, post:1370, topic:9923”]
although I met some ccp people as well and again really nice really strong SAFE supporters, but we did tell them (as did coinpayments) that neither company could be involved with or promote any investment scheme as it’s too dangerous to understand all the legalities in so many countries, plus our guys would not be very pleased.
[/quote]
Doesn’t look like that advise has been heeded:
“CCP has formed a strategic alliance with 2 other notable players in the Fintech industry Coinpayments and Maidsafe.”
https://docs.google.com/document/d/19XlNooStIICs6YiTrHyr8RXtNeps_XITmBy5Zb1YTBE/edit
This page is now apparently in “trash”
I’m not grasping in which way CCP are supporting Safe other than possibly pumping the price?
Maidsafe’s positions appear to be:
- Many companies whether operating in a legal/morally acceptable manner will be building things on Safenet - it is not their responsibility to police such companies.
I accept this reasoning, however CCP are operating now, not on Safenet, nor does their “investment scheme” rely on building anything on Safenet.
2.Maidsafe should not make moral judgements, CCP are not on trial and care should be taken not to slight operators of these kind of “investment schemes”
.
My view is different. IF this scheme is indeed a case of collecting others’ money in order to manipulate the market and state that the price can only go up not down, then I personally object on moral and legal grounds. Nothing appears to need to be built on Safenet and I don’t see it as contributing anything to the standing of the project whatsoever, so have no qualms with slighting anybody running such schemes.
Of course, however they are operating globally, so what potential issues could come up with such a group operating on Poloniex for example? Are there any? Apart from the obvious ones of manipulating the market to their own benefit and stopping any potential investors from getting a true picture of market demand and putting others off from entering such a heavily manipulated market I mean.
I’m just wondering what would constitute “poor” , given its none of the above? How would we find out given that we don’t want to slight, or make judgements and the opinion is that it’s their jurisdiction and their choice. What would the chat be about?
Anyway, like I say, I hope I’m wrong, but even if I’m right, Maidsafe appear to have no issues with it, so I’m worrying about nothing…right?
Edit:
Correction : CCP do state they intend to build their coin on Safenet, however the investment scheme does not appear to rely on this. The document, stating a strategic alliance with Maidsafe was first linked to Dec 2016.