You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Don't buy Embercoin!

in #cryptocurrency7 years ago

Your version of "basic economics" has no validity in an ill-prepared analysis. Again, by your own admission, you did not do a any kind of analysis prior to formulating your conclusion. Meaning, you had no valid point. If you don't understand the basics of the scientific process, than you're going to called out when you clearly admit your "point" is really nothing more than a mediocre opinion. AKA FUD. That's just what crypto needs more of, uneducated people spreading FUD. Absolutely no justification for such behavior.

Sort:  

If you spent less time directly attacking me and more time addressing my points, this would be a more productive conversation.

Almost all the posts I write are posts where I talk about projects I like, and when I write a post on something I see an issue in, people like you call FUD. Guess what, you can point out issues in specific projects without it being FUD.

I will explain it to you one more time... a daily staking reward of over 10% is not sustainable. You are essentially doubling the supply every few days and without having a large enough increase in demand to meet this increase, you will see more and more of a value drop as the sell volume increases.

This is enough of an issue to me that I consider it a bad investment.

If you understood the scientific process, you'd already understand the fallacies of your argument & that I already addressed your entire argument. If you understood business analysis, you'd know "basic economics" is only one of many different aspects that require analysis prior to formulating any conclusion of value.

Your argument on inflation is sensible but it's only one aspect of a larger evaluation which you admitted to not undertaking. You formulated an opinion without thorough analysis and you spread FUD based on that incomplete analysis. It's not that hard to understand if you understood the scientific process and did your research properly.

A simple search for "Business analysis" or "How to analyze an investment opportunity" will bring up all types of useful links on the process of of analysis for different kinds investments. Any of these will show that any proper analysis is based on many factors. Embercoin is no different. Without going through the full process, all you have is an uneducated opinion and crystal ball prediction.

  1. You don't know my background so please don't assume to know it. (Assumption is not part of the scientific process, by the way).

  2. Using scientific process to evaluate non scientific subjects yields unreliable results. Good luck evaluating history with a scientific process, for example.

  3. If you find one major flaw in a project, you should be entitled to declare the project as a whole as a project that shouldn't be invested in. A project could be absolutely amazing in all aspects apart from having one major issue and that could be good enough reason to not invest.

  4. This is my post, I am entitled to share my opinion (which turn out to be accurate by the way) on it.

  5. Just because you disagree with somebody doesn't mean you should insult them. You can disagree and still be civil. Ad hominem attacks are a lazy form of arguement.

  6. At this point, considering all your comments are pretty much saying the same thing. It could be considered as spam. Unless you decide you are capable of having a friendly disagreement, please stop, I won't be answering anymore aggressive and repetitive messages.

If you're too thin-skinned to deal with criticism then you shouldn't ask for it. It's ok, I'll leave you be. There's already have a plan in place to deal with the Fud. See you around tuff guy.

Keep censoring me, you're just proving you care more about spreading Fud that steemit etiquette or the crypto community. It's all screen shot. You may think you're hurting me now but there are plenty of ways of it can back to you.

  1. Your background became irrelevant as soon as you said: "I stopped reading." Which unfortunately for everyone that read your post, was at the end.
  2. You seem to be under the impression that the "scientific process" is only in fields directly related to the field of science and that is false. It's merely an approach used to gather data before drawing any conclusions. Yes, such processes are used in the study of history to discern the most accurate way of determining how events transpired. And also because of how such conclusions will affect everything from political policies to engineering decisions. But nice attempt at a false comparison to make your point.
  3. It's only your assumption to be "major flaw." You wouldn't know because you didn't bother to research beyond it. Interestingly enough, you used historical data to draw our conclusion. Guess the study of history does go through the process.
  4. Yes, you are entitled to "your opinion." And I'm entitled to call it out for being the FUD that it is.
  5. You're absolutely right; I could've been more civil. And if you had done proper research and presented a thorough analysis with your "entitled opinion" I certainly would have been more inclined to be more receptive of "your opinion." Instead, "your opinion" was shared in such a way that it appeared you had a premeditated intent to damage the Embercoin community, I react¬¬ed differently.
  6. I expected as much. Maybe you should look in the mirror before suggesting it's not you that is being aggressive. I only found out about your post because Embercoin's dev mentioned your post, how it talked crap without bothering to mention the devs or the roadmap. See how ignorant "your opinion" was? I wasn't attacking "you," I drew a conclusion based on the information I knew about Embercoin and the information you said you didn't even bother to try to research before posting "Don't buy" FUD.

Maybe one day, when you're working your ass off on a project, some lazy, entitled blogger will post make a post attacking your work without even bothering to do a full analysis. Maybe then you'll understand how ridiculous this all was.