I’ve got no problem admitting my biased opinion on the BoomDAO SNS launch. I’ve never claimed otherwise. I’ve worked with Max and know he is a man of integrity. I’ve watched Tommy in public since he joined the ICP community and have seen the valuable contributions he makes. I’ve seen great features and projects that have been produced by the partners, contributors, and projects associated with BoomDAO. I’m excited about all the developments that could be stimulated by BoomDAO regarding a gaming vertical on ICP. The future of the ICP ecosystem is bright and I expect BoomDAO will make important contributions that enable success of many projects.
The proof you are holding in such high regard and the proof provided by Max showed that Cipherproxy was inexperienced and incapable of delivering results. They over promised and under delivered. They agreed to renegotiated payment terms and were paid fairly for the work they produced.
So you are admitting to colluding to produce a FUD campaign to harm the BoomDAO SNS launch by knowing what one side would say before they said it publicly and attacking the other side immediately without even stopping to ask for the other side of the story. Somehow you and your cohorts think your biased Twitter presence can filter down to an objective “Due Dilugence” on the forum. This is simultaneously funny and sad, but also typical.
Neither Plethora, Max, Tommy, nor anyone else in the ICP ecosystem had anything bad to say about the original team behind Cipherproxy. All Max and Tommy did was defend themselves and they did it quite diplomatically given the circumstances. I still haven’t figured out why the original Cipherproxy team and people like you decided to pull these shenanigans. It didn’t benefit any of you in any way and probably hurt all of your reputations. It didn’t benefit the ICP community and may have just created more division. It was unnecessary and unjust. I’ve seen Max and Tommy indicate that they have zero interest in criticizing the original Cipherproxy team, but I certainly think they had the right to defend themselves.
Why did you choose not to have a conversation with them when they offered to help answer your questions?
Believe me, I had no desire or intention of reading your “Due Diligence” on this SNS. What you had to say was highly predictable. Plus it’s old news. Of course, you and @phasma both decided to tag me immediately after your OP. Hence, you pulled me into this conversation. If you don’t like my answers, simply don’t read them - you look silly when you start complaining about something so trivial.
I know, right. It’s quite odd. Perhaps it’s because I have worked with Max in the past in community building context. Hence, when I hear people say things that are inconsistent with my experience then I feel obligated to speak up and tell another side of the story. Please forgive me. I just wish I would have said something about that previously so you would have known.