I wouldn’t really agree. It seems to me that Nom distributed a lot of his personal money to the community and through various companies like Inflynce and other things, and most likely lost more than he gained. Maybe he was wrong to sell without warning, maybe not — I think he had about 20–30% of the total supply, which he bought like everyone else. Tokens are complicated :( I’ve always liked TYSM, and I wanted to build something similar around Celebration Hub. I still don’t have as developed a community or gamification — a slightly different priority rn. Also, I think they could have done a CTO, if CTOs are even popular right now.
✦ Takes identified
Did Nom act fairly in selling his token holdings without warning?
evaluativetoken sale fairness
You’d be backing NO on “Did Nom act fairly in selling his token holdings without warning?” — the opposite of what @duckfacts.eth argued.
Checking for a wallet…
Where people landed
1 yes · 0 no (casts, from 1 person). These are the classifier’s reading of each cast — not stakes, votes, or a poll.
- yes
I wouldn’t really agree. It seems to me that Nom distributed a lot of his personal money to the community and through various companies like Inflynce and other things, and most likely lost more than he gained. Maybe he was wrong to sell without warning, maybe not — I think he had about 20–30% of the total supply, which he bought like everyone else. Tokens are complicated :( I’ve always liked TYSM, and I wanted to build something similar around Celebration Hub. I still don’t have as developed a community or gamification — a slightly different priority rn. Also, I think they could have done a CTO, if CTOs are even popular right now.
AI hypothesisOthers argue that dumping 20-30% of supply without notice harms early believers regardless of personal finances.
Nobody has actually argued the other side of this one yet. That is a guess at what they’d say.