Just to add, that there are very clear references to the intention of building on SafeNet and explanations of the benefits as to why in the whitepaper - for anybody still in any doubt.
The whitepaper also clearly states:
“The development of the Safenetwork has been carefully reviewed. Documentations and demonstrations have been provided showing that the project does work backed by an active development team. Although the Safenetwork biggest hurdles right now won’t be a technological one but a marketing one.”
Now compare this to the actual evidence contained within this thread that the lead dev/God hasn’t carefully reviewed anything himself whatsoever yet also now claims the “biggest hurdle” is indeed a technical one.
Clearly either the whitepaper is lying to investors or they did carefully review things and arrive at the conclusion that SafeNet would be the best technological solution – so which is it?
My guess is the 2nd option and if this is the case, then the question becomes “Why attack SafeNet on technological feasibility grounds, when you know the project just passed your own careful scrutiny?”
My conclusion is that plans changed either pre or during ICO, that it was decided to take a different path. Investors have definitely been misled and lied to here one way or another, so whether legal consequences or not (I hope so), the reputation of these people must be in tatters, their deception and lack of integrity are on show for all to see now.
Now we at least all know what a dishonest project that lacks integrity and professionalism looks like, we should count our blessings. We can at least take comfort that we are supporters of a project that in the course of numerous years has demonstrated the exact opposite…these NVO guys couldn’t even maintain a show of integrity, honesty or professionalism for the duration of this thread…
Whoever wrote the whitepaper had a pretty clear understanding of the SafeNet to me - so that should tell you something.