RE: An Objective look at Dlive's exit
But the only stone we can truly throw them I see is specwork
I don't actually mind the specwork, but I can throw a couple of other stones.
They flat-out lied about why they're leaving Steem. However legitimate the criticisms of the system in their post may be, they have nothing to do with dLive's decision to leave Steem because that decision was made before they ever came to Steem. Pointlessly trashing your incubator on the way out is not something that's likely to be appealing to future investors.
They encouraged their users to commit to holding their funds for thirteen weeks and then gave four days' notice that those funds would become useless in a dLive context, when they could easily have done otherwise. I know shitting all over your userbase whenever it's convenient is part of a particular segment of the cutthroat SV environment, but it's still bad business nevertheless.
You will need a jury for 1, not a rabid pitchforking mob.
The timeline connects dot so based on assumptions, territotialism can not change my opinion here. I will need concrete evidence beyond refutable level.
I’m so sorry. The reasons brought up dont add up sufficiently to unilaterally condemn and pitchfork them. What’s happening is mobbing.
And I think, looking at the responses they received it’s time for Steem the I had hold some introspection because they may very well validate one of their given reasons.
PS: Test platform and incubator are two entirely different things.
Quite the opposite, in fact. Lying to us about why they're leaving is not illegal; the appropriate consequence of the lie is the anger of the people lied to.
Yes, but not in a way that helps your argument. Steemit Inc. provided dLive with funding; some of that funding was used to compensate their staff for developing their project. That's an incubator, not a test platform.
I did say techbros are brutal. I did say the Valley has a MO I don’t necessarily approve of.
But:
The rest is trying to spin it to fit the rabid mob born from territorial “we are the holy grail”.
Facts:
A. They may be friends and may fully have coded on each other’s platforms. That does not constitute of a crime nor does it automatically imply malicious intent.
B. I have had my mugshot in launch photos wearing a startups’ shirts without having an actual commitment with them and yet I may have helped them more than other’s I have actually had a commitment with. That is entirely possible and thus you will need more to reach beyond refutable doubt level in this whole $hitstorm in a tea glass where no Code is Law was violated.
Yet, I admire their focus. I think they have set a decent benchmark for devs to aspire to. And, at this point I’m happy they’re gone and I hope that we will see more and hopefully more innovative entrants in the streaming niche.
And, also, I am totally prepared for more of the same come SMT. The Steem blockchain is an open ecosystem which requires no commitment and as personz said maybe it was a promise never made [which is now held against them].
I have spent enough time on this topic, I think my neutral and hopefully rather objective position is all over it. I will not waste one more word at this.
I don't, though, because I am not taking this to court. Preponderance of evidence is plenty for me to dislike and speak out against a corporation. I'm sorry that you don't seem to recognize my right to do that, and everyone else's, but it exists nevertheless.
None of this is in evidence, and I have a hard time believing that you are the one person on Steem who is privy to how these delegations work, especially given this bit:
This is completely false. The cash flow is actual handover of funds, and would be considered so in any court. If this does end up litigated I have no doubt that will be confirmed. Of course whether Steemit. Inc. gave themselves standing to litigate over this is something none of us know.
As a mod at Steemhunt I can confirm that the delegation to Steemhunt was made to happen without any prior request, pitch and also without any conditions or terms. That’s how misterdelegation’s delegations happen. “Boom... that just happened”, is the reality of receiving a delegation from Steemit Inc. so far.
There is no cashflow involved in the case of the delegation. You mean the curation rewards, yet that is a result of using the voluntarily offered stake. That is not a handover. Remember that we are a Code is Law based platform, only that decides beyond very few arbitration possibilities, which were never triggered.
Until Steemit Inc says that anything was violated nothing was violated. We have a healthy justice system, thank you.
And, of course, you have the right to express your dislike, even I did such. Just like I have the right not to buy into to your argumentation and respond to your replies. That right is implicitly and expressively expressed merely the fact that I actually respond. At which point, you benefit the right to both accept or disagree with my answer. Isn’t such a beautiful life and world, a life and world without needing to resort to implicit passive aggressive claims such as ‘I’m sorry that you don’t seem to recognize my right to do that...’ since disagreement does not mean I don’t listen nor don’t allow you to express your sentiment. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Dlive did contribute lots to the ecosystem and public awareness of the Steem blockchain. They are one of very few who achieved mainstream media mentions. All which brought more eyeballs to the existence of this beautiful platform.
Anyway... time to move on, move on to the next $hitstorm. And it will require more for me to take a condemning position. Now and then. Connecting dots is not a position I am in, that’s for courts to decide or for our governance when arbitration. Until then... code is law.