- Nov 14, 2016
I have no reasonable argument against it being wordy --if that is our biggest fault then I am satisfied with what we are doing. All I can say is this effort put forth by everyone including yourself has already shown what can happen when we see a common goal and fine tune big ideas into simple core logic. Our formal proposal will be culmination of that.ok - out of respect for babygiraffe - i read it all. Probably a good thing. However I will be voting no, as far as I can see, because:
- Partly, I don't like long wordy proposals that try to be persuasive before getting to the important bit
- Partly, its a lot of money
- Mainly, if it were a safe and legal place to put money you wouldn't be unbanked, nor would you be short of investors. Its almost certainly very dangerous to our long term survival to be putting money into this. I think its only a matter of time before governments try to use legal intervention to control us, and this would be a perfect place to start.
~99k/700k is 14.14% of the total budget for this payment cycle. For the "it will make all the current DASH in circulation less valuable because of inflation" argument then here are the facts: $92.36/DASH and $99k would be 1071.89 DASH, which is 0.0149% dilution of DASH.
"Mainly, if it were a safe and legal place to put money you wouldn't be unbanked, nor would you be short of investors." This makes no sense for a community that says that our technology is superior to legacy banking (Obviously it is superior) to judge the quality of a company wanting to leverage this new found monetary instrument on whether they are tied down to a few gatekeepers who hold all the power, I see a traditional company dependency on banks as a severe weakness. PureHemp tech is not short on investors, but use for the other 60% of the plant that will likely be funded (especially if crypto doesn't capitalize on this opportunity) through traditional investments.......nothing will change. A few "investors" who own the rights to technologies that have the potential to improve the quality of life for everyone, but will either be destroyed or privileged to a few.
"I think its only a matter of time before governments try to use legal intervention to control us, and this would be a perfect place to start." So you do not think this has been the case from day one of any attempt by the people to gain more control over their lives and wealth. Or that government hasn't already used legal means to control us? Hell ask Charlie Shrem who also has an active proposal. Think about things in different terms. How could the government spin a story that involved them obstructing the peaceful development of a food that has proven to be much safer and healthier for everyone on the planet? If HempSweet or any individual was funding them then sure they could attack the source of value that allows the R&D, but how do you suppose they would attack a decentralized blockchain that is funding research that is supposed to be so difficult that only "governments" or powerful corporations are supposed to be doing?